• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Why does NATO still exist?


St Disibod

Active member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Messages
113
Simply put: what purpose does NATO still serve? Should it be rolled up and packed away unless Putin has a Simpsonesque moment where he presses a button and Lenin climbs out of his case?

It still seems to serve as a stick for hawks in Washington to shake at the Kremlin, but why would France or Germany still help fund such an organisation? In the fight against terrorism, an alliance of police forces or intelligence organisations would be far more effective.

NATO membership hinders rather than helps EU autonomy, so what's the story?
 

jjcarroll

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
314
Website
www.semper-idem.eu
As currently imagined, there isn't that much of a purpose to it anymore. Not for the US, as it effectively allows many of their allies a free ride.

I asked this question of a NATO rep last year, and got an excessive amount of waffle on the subject. I don't think they are too sure, never mind anyone else
 

Liberal333

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
26
I think Russia is even a junior member now.
 

St Disibod

Active member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Messages
113
Liberal333 said:
I think Russia is even a junior member now.
The preferred term is 'partner.' Though I think that relationship has soured.

Russian officials vary from looking down on NATO members as pawns to US foreign policy, to being outrightly hostile. Every time Ukraine takes one step closer to joining, Gazprom engages in some pipeline rattling.

I have this mental picture that all the pipelines are connected to the radiator in Putin's office, where he takes off his shoe to hit it from time to time.
 

campbeca

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
63
Josh Lyman wondered the same thing and concluded there must be cool jackets or a dinner club
 

forest

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
3,363
NATO is still seen as an alliance between Europe and the US while the Germans and more so the French have been critical of it and expressed interest in leaving the new EU states and other former communist European countries want to join it, as they see it as improving or maintaining good relations with the US which in turn gives them money

I fully agree with you it should be disbanded personally I believe as far as possible all military alliances with the EU and US should be broken but it is unlikely to happen
 

St Disibod

Active member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Messages
113
campbeca said:
Josh Lyman wondered the same thing and concluded there must be cool jackets or a dinner club
He might be on to something. Looks swanky:

 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,301
St Disibod said:
Liberal333 said:
I think Russia is even a junior member now.
The preferred term is 'partner.' Though I think that relationship has soured.

Russian officials vary from looking down on NATO members as pawns to US foreign policy, to being outrightly hostile. Every time Ukraine takes one step closer to joining, Gazprom engages in some pipeline rattling.

I have this mental picture that all the pipelines are connected to the radiator in Putin's office, where he takes off his shoe to hit it from time to time.
Brilliant! :twisted:
 

doheochai

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
61
St Disibod said:
Simply put: what purpose does NATO still serve? Should it be rolled up and packed away unless Putin has a Simpsonesque moment where he presses a button and Lenin climbs out of his case?

It still seems to serve as a stick for hawks in Washington to shake at the Kremlin, but why would France or Germany still help fund such an organisation? In the fight against terrorism, an alliance of police forces or intelligence organisations would be far more effective.

NATO membership hinders rather than helps EU autonomy, so what's the story?
To waste taxpayers money (including Irish) on armaments thereby making large profits fro weapons manufacturers.

To carry out research into more 'efficient' ways of killing people.

To facilitate Bush's 'war' on terror.

etc. etc. etc.
 

Seos

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2005
Messages
153
doheochai said:
St Disibod said:
Simply put: what purpose does NATO still serve? Should it be rolled up and packed away unless Putin has a Simpsonesque moment where he presses a button and Lenin climbs out of his case?

It still seems to serve as a stick for hawks in Washington to shake at the Kremlin, but why would France or Germany still help fund such an organisation? In the fight against terrorism, an alliance of police forces or intelligence organisations would be far more effective.

NATO membership hinders rather than helps EU autonomy, so what's the story?
To waste taxpayers money (including Irish) on armaments thereby making large profits fro weapons manufacturers.
including irish?
 

doheochai

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
61
Seos said:
doheochai said:
[quote:21ztimxe]
St Disibod said:
Simply put: what purpose does NATO still serve? Should it be rolled up and packed away unless Putin has a Simpsonesque moment where he presses a button and Lenin climbs out of his case?

It still seems to serve as a stick for hawks in Washington to shake at the Kremlin, but why would France or Germany still help fund such an organisation? In the fight against terrorism, an alliance of police forces or intelligence organisations would be far more effective.

NATO membership hinders rather than helps EU autonomy, so what's the story?
To waste taxpayers money (including Irish) on armaments thereby making large profits fro weapons manufacturers.
including irish?
[/quote:21ztimxe]

Yes.

The Irish Government has spent €100's of million making Irish military equipment compatable with NATO.
 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,301
Like what exactly have they made compatabile that was different before?

IIRC we have always used weapons systems bought from western countries and not anyone else.

So unless we ditched perfectly good equipment bought from somebody else your statement doesn't add up!
 

doheochai

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
61
Catalpa said:
Like what exactly have they made compatabile that was different before?

IIRC we have always used weapons systems bought from western countries and not anyone else.

So unless we ditched perfectly good equipment bought from somebody else your statement doesn't add up!
FYI

The Irish Government spent over €400million over the past number of years purchasing new armoured personel carriers campatable with NATO

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
 

jjcarroll

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
314
Website
www.semper-idem.eu
doheochai said:
Catalpa said:
Like what exactly have they made compatabile that was different before?

IIRC we have always used weapons systems bought from western countries and not anyone else.

So unless we ditched perfectly good equipment bought from somebody else your statement doesn't add up!
FYI

The Irish Government spent over €400million over the past number of years purchasing new armoured personel carriers campatable with NATO

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Do you think it would be better if they bought equipment which was not compatabile with most countries that we are likely to engage in UN operations with?

Also, that does not support your cotention that "The Irish Government has spent €100's of million making Irish military equipment compatable with NATO."
 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,301
doheochai said:
Catalpa said:
Like what exactly have they made compatabile that was different before?

IIRC we have always used weapons systems bought from western countries and not anyone else.

So unless we ditched perfectly good equipment bought from somebody else your statement doesn't add up!
FYI

The Irish Government spent over €400million over the past number of years purchasing new armoured personel carriers campatable with NATO

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Not exactly. They bought equipment that is compatabile with partaking in overseas military missions which we might partake in and that might see us under a NATO military Command structure.

Personally I don't think we should partake in that kind of deployment.

But that is a long way from saying we spent money that otherwise we would not have spent just so we could have what NATO troops have.

The kind of APCs bought would have to be capable of operating in different terrain and climates around the World - otherwise we would not be eligible for any UN Missions let alone NATO!

Anyway the manufacture of APCs is not such a big issue so long as they can do the job.

The bigger issue would be compatible weapons systems, esp. re ammunition calibres.
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
doheochai said:
The Irish Government spent over €400million over the past number of years purchasing new armoured personel carriers campatable with NATO

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
:D How the f.uck do you make an armoured car "compatible with NATO"?

If you were talking about ammunition, fair enough, but Ireland has been using 5.56mm rounds for a decade and before that they were using the same 7.62mm rounds as the UK for twenty or more years.

Ireland bought new armoured cars because the panhards were an embarassment. If you have any evidence that the purpose of buying them was to make the IDF compatible with NATO, or that equally good armoured cars that were not 'compatible' with NATO were also available but were not chosen because they were not compatible, please provide it.
 

PAUL MEYER

Member
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
48
[
If you were talking about ammunition, fair enough, but Ireland has been using 5.56mm rounds for a decade and before that they were using the same 7.62mm rounds as the UK for twenty or more years.
Yes, and for about 50 years before that were using .303 small arms ammo compatible with only the Empire and Commonwealth! :D
 

Run_to_da_hills

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
4,794


NATO exists to feather the nests of Western Colonisation and greed irrespective of consequences.
 

JHB78

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
5,717


NATO exists to feather the nests of Western Colonisation and greed irrespective of consequences.
Quite funny but no surprises that the uneducated imbecile who put image together is trying to blame Nato for Hiroshima and Nagasaki when Nato was formed many year after those bombings too place. Massive fail yet again :D
 
Top