NATO - Should we still accept this organisation?

#1
The North Atlantic Treaty Alliance's creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

As all these aim's have been met why does NATO still have to exist?
 
#5
Nato acts as a buffer zone, a safety net of sorts that prevents us from being drawn too far into agreements / treaties that would be to our disadvantage.

I suppose the law of unintended consequences gets the hat tip for that one.
 
#6
The North Atlantic Treaty Alliance's creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

As all these aim's have been met why does NATO still have to exist?
Not sure about your wording

Look at the number of applicant countries if you think NATO has run its course.
 
#7
it's another way to get crap medals I suppose.
Although after the trauma (and it really was) of working within the cesspool of ineptitude, egos and inefficiency that is a NATO deployed HQ you are then told that you can't even wear the (somewhat cheap and almost cardboard looking) medal that you are awarded.
 
#8
"Afghanistan has shown that NATO military forces are not up to the job, noted Shea. So the first priority NATO faces is adding troops. " quote from Jamie Patrick Shea. Also "Shea, who once called selling a war to the media "the ultimate PR challenge" .
In an age when our forces are being sold-out to fit into the global economy I just feel as soldiers we should ask some of the bigger questions.
 
#9
Well it saved our arrse big time when it was needed so I wouldn't be too quick to bury it.

And I would't be too quick to ignore the ambitions of Putin and his kleptocracy either.
 
#10
"Afghanistan has shown that NATO military forces are not up to the job, noted Shea. So the first priority NATO faces is adding troops. " quote from Jamie Patrick Shea. Also "Shea, who once called selling a war to the media "the ultimate PR challenge" .
In an age when our forces are being sold-out to fit into the global economy I just feel as soldiers we should ask some of the bigger questions.
Calls himself "Jamie Patrick Shea" now, does he? Why? To sound less British in the Brussels environment? Or was there already another Jamie Shea when he embarked on his career as an author?
 
#11
The North Atlantic Treaty Alliance's creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

As all these aim's have been met why does NATO still have to exist?
Only a guess, but to stop it all from unravelling?
 
#12
Unravelling? So you need a North American presence for that? Or the bit about Euro political integration? If that fails we need NATO?
 
#14
That's the point of my thread - do we still want to be USA's poodle in NATO or is it time for change? The politicians have made the first moves on the current UK General's and the discredited ex-General's. Should we attack/sack the troop's to fit into the current agenda? Or ask how we are in this postion.
 
#16
We have lost Mungo Melvin, Patrick Marriot , Lamont Kirkland, Andrew Gregor, Jon Shaw, John McColl this year alone - I am in agreement with them. If you want an army don't subby it out to some foreign politcal organisation.
 
#18
We have lost Mungo Melvin, Patrick Marriot , Lamont Kirkland, Andrew Gregor, Jon Shaw, John McColl this year alone...
Sorry, what does that mean?

PS I assume you meant they retired this year. I thought that both Gens Melvin and McColl retired in 2011. Not totally clear on relevance to thread.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts