• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

Does NATO need the USA?

Lukraak_Sisser said:
The idea was that if US soldiers fought and yes, maybe died in Europe, then that would prevent a dictatorial regime from consolidating Europe and then forcing the same US soldiers to die on their own home soil once such a regime inevitably would assault the US.

However more and more of European nations and the US themselves are in the process of voting in the very regimes the NATO was supposed to guard against, so I guess the need won't be there soon.
Click to expand...

I suspect that's strategically and logistically very, very difficult to do.
 
lobosrul5 said:
[/HILITE]

Yes they would. However, with a US backed NATO, Putin is far less likely to even launch an attack.
Click to expand...

A NATO, without the USA, as in no US forces in Europe, is still going to be backed by the USA, in terms of arms sales, which is a significant deterrent, as it means Europe can keep on fighting with the best weapons for much longer than otherwise.

Meanwhile;

https://twitter.com/minna_alander/status/1757365606179909715

"Norwegian-Finnish ammunition producer Nammo has activated 5-shift production at its facility in Sweden, meaning 24/7 production of 155mm ammunition. Also French-owned Eurenco is doing the same in Karlskoga."

and

"The expanded Rheinmetall production facility in German Unterlüß that Scholz went to inaugurate yesterday will produce 50k artillery shells from 2025 per year and reaches 200k per year by 2028."

If the USA was to leave NATO, there would be plenty of warning and Europe could do what it is now doing and increase production.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Even the initial going in to Afghanistan was mishandled, the Taliban leadership at the time were willing to hand over bin Laden to a third country (probably Turkey) to deliver him to the US authorities. By September 2001 they wanted rid of al-Qaeda themselves as they were more trouble than they were worth.
Click to expand...
I do not think the Taliban was negotiating in good faith over Bin Laden.

First of all, if I remember correctly, the initial offer was to have a trial by an Islamic court, inside Afghanistan. The offer to turn Bin Laden over only got serious after the U.S. had started the military build up. No military, likely no Bin Laden.

Secondly, the Taliban was demanding 'evidence'. Just what they would accept as "evidence" I don't think was ever clearly stated (and I have the sneaking suspicion that whatever the U.S. provided, they would claim "not enough").

Thirdly, why a "third country"? Why not turn him over directly to the U.S.? His crimes were directed at America, so that is where he should end up. The idea that "we'll turn him over to some other country who will then turn him over to the U.S." is extending a lot of trust to the Taliban. For all we know, they would turn him over only to a country like Iran, who would act to keep him away from the U.S.
 
My biggest problem with Afghanistan is that it was such a trivial thing on which to spend the good will of NATO allies. Between that and lying a coalition of the willing into the invasion of Iraq, the cause of US imperialism was set back at least a quarter century.

The US didn't really need NATO's Article 5, to go into Afghanistan and smack the Taliban around. And the whole nation-building part of the exercise was a huge mistake.
 
crescent said:
You do understand that the Baltic country actually do pay their fair share? Right?

[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1487&pictureid=13938[/qimg]

Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland all above the recommended 2% threshold. Sweden's not on that map but they're at 2.1%. Among nations with baltic coastline only Germany and Denmark are below 2%.
Click to expand...

True and note how much higher their expenditures are as a % of GDP compared to 2015. Wonder what happened to get them to invest more in defense? It sure looks like proximity to the bear has a major influence (although I do wonder what the Greeks are doing).
 
Brainster said:
True and note how much higher their expenditures are as a % of GDP compared to 2015. Wonder what happened to get them to invest more in defense? It sure looks like proximity to the bear has a major influence (although I do wonder what the Greeks are doing).
Click to expand...

The Greeks are getting F-35s. Also apparently they're gearing up for a fresh round of dick-waving with Turkey.

ETA: And also their navy is hung like Poseidon, which I was not expecting.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
The first.
Click to expand...

You might want to check where Hawaii is on a map, then. It doesn't really fit any reasonable definition of "from sea to shining sea", unless you think that means any sea anywhere.

ETA. Fun fact: "America the Beautiful" was written before the annexation of Hawaii.
 
Last edited:
Reformed Offlian said:
You might want to check where Hawaii is on a map, then. It doesn't really fit any reasonable definition of "from sea to shining sea", unless you think that means any sea anywhere.

ETA. Fun fact: "America the Beautiful" was written before the annexation of Hawaii.
Click to expand...

Dang. Good catch. I let my pursuit of rhetorical artistry get ahead of the soundness of my claims. I'll be more circumspect and attentive to detail in the future.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
The idea was that if US soldiers fought and yes, maybe died in Europe, then that would prevent a dictatorial regime from consolidating Europe and then forcing the same US soldiers to die on their own home soil once such a regime inevitably would assault the US.

However more and more of European nations and the US themselves are in the process of voting in the very regimes the NATO was supposed to guard against, so I guess the need won't be there soon.
Click to expand...

How about just drop the "North Atlantic" part of it and bring in everybody else who wants to join the club? Israel, Australia, South Africa, India, etc...the door should be open.

If you pay your dues.
 
PitPat said:
How about just drop the "North Atlantic" part of it and bring in everybody else who wants to join the club? Israel, Australia, South Africa, India, etc...the door should be open.

If you pay your dues.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer a whole set of regional organizations. SEATO, PATO, etc. And, of course, an overarching treaty organization treaty organization: TOTO.
 
theprestige said:
LOL is that the Urban Dictionary definition?
Click to expand...

Cambridge, actually.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/imperialism

Also Merriam-Webster:
the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas.
Click to expand...
Cornell Law School
Imperialism can be defined as a doctrine, political strategy, practice, state policy, or advocacy that consists in extending power by territorial acquisition or by extending political and economic control outward over other areas. Imperialism oftentimes involves the use of military and economic power, and always aims for more expansion and collective or individual domination.
Click to expand...

Are you going to continue to want to rewrite the English language, are all the dictionaries wrong, or will you accept that, maybe, just maybe, you were wrong?
 
angrysoba said:
The descent of the Iron Curtain was indeed what caused the establishment of NATO, and Czechoslovakia was one of the countries that had been swallowed by the Soviet Union. NATO was formed to stop that spreading further.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Czechoslovak_coup_d'état
Click to expand...

NATO's beginnings were officially in 1947 with the Treaty of Dunkirk a mutual-defence pact between UK and France and which was expanded in the years afterwards. But its actual origins came in the web of treaties and agreements between the UK and US during the second world war over their spheres of activity in the North Atlantic.
 
theprestige said:
LOL is that the Urban Dictionary definition?



None of this is expanding hegemony through force of arms. All of these interventions were and are understood to be temporary, with sovereignty reverting to the invaded or attacked country at the conclusion of hostilities (if sovereignty was ever in question to begin with). At no time in living memory has the US sought to occupy and rule over another country, as part of a growing American "empire".

You can expand the definition of imperialism if you want, to include "cultural imperialism", diplomacy, peaceful trade, having friends and allies around the world, etc. But the more you expand it, the more it looks like you're stretching to have something to gripe about.

America is the least imperialistic empire in the history of imperialism, the most benevolent empire in the history of the world, and NATO is the least imperialistic part of it. Complain about western "empires" in the modern age? Might as well complain about imperialist France, and its influence over Europe. Might as well complain about imperialist Britain, which punches far above its weight, influence-wise.

Might as well complain about Moscow, which actually is an imperialist regime, in a way that America isn't, to the point where it's ridiculous to use the same term for both.

---

There have been roughly three phases of American imperialism:

The conquest of a broad swath of North America, "from sea to shining sea". Land was taken from natives and competing empires. This was the only real period of "traditional" imperialism.

The heavy-handed and problematic enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine, against communist expansion. Right idea, could have been handled a lot better. If you want to call this imperialism, I won't complain overmuch. Still not very imperialist, though compared to previous empires and America's own previous behavior.

The modern era of "cultural imperialism" and the Pax Americana. Which I don't consider to be imperialist at all. Certainly not in the context of NATO. Really, the Pax Americana (of which NATO is the centerpiece) is kind of an anti-Empire.
Click to expand...

Anybody who can say the highlighted with a straight face doesn't understand the meaning of the word "imperialism" nor do they know history.
 
Nessie said:
Without active USA assistance, Europe would be still be able to stop itself from being over run by the Russians. Obviously border countries, Finland, Estonia, Poland etc, depending on how the Russians attacked, would suffer terribly, but the Russians would not end up parading through Paris, Rome, London etc.

Even if the USA was actively involved and its troops fought, those border countries would still suffer.
Click to expand...

I just don;t think Europe has the will to resist if the US leaves.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
The idea was that if US soldiers fought and yes, maybe died in Europe, then that would prevent a dictatorial regime from consolidating Europe and then forcing the same US soldiers to die on their own home soil once such a regime inevitably would assault the US.

However more and more of European nations and the US themselves are in the process of voting in the very regimes the NATO was supposed to guard against, so I guess the need won't be there soon.
Click to expand...

US presene in COld War Europe was a Trip wire, cross that wire, you are at war with the US.
 
Segnosaur said:
I do not think the Taliban was negotiating in good faith over Bin Laden.

First of all, if I remember correctly, the initial offer was to have a trial by an Islamic court, inside Afghanistan. The offer to turn Bin Laden over only got serious after the U.S. had started the military build up. No military, likely no Bin Laden.

Secondly, the Taliban was demanding 'evidence'. Just what they would accept as "evidence" I don't think was ever clearly stated (and I have the sneaking suspicion that whatever the U.S. provided, they would claim "not enough").

Thirdly, why a "third country"? Why not turn him over directly to the U.S.? His crimes were directed at America, so that is where he should end up. The idea that "we'll turn him over to some other country who will then turn him over to the U.S." is extending a lot of trust to the Taliban. For all we know, they would turn him over only to a country like Iran, who would act to keep him away from the U.S.
Click to expand...

Of course they were'nt.
Now the US has no right to protect itself in the view of many here.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Cambridge, actually.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/imperialism

Also Merriam-Webster:

Cornell Law School

Are you going to continue to want to rewrite the English language, are all the dictionaries wrong, or will you accept that, maybe, just maybe, you were wrong?
Click to expand...

In this case, I'm content to conclude that popular misuse has so diluted the term that it is no longer useful. If you really believe that cultural imperialism is equivalent to the other kind, that's not something I can argue against. That's your belief. I believe differently. Telling me that your belief is so popular that all the dictionaries now attest to its popularity doesn't incline me to change my belief.

I guess I'll have to find some other word, though, to denote the kind of imperialism I'm talking about, so as to avoid confusion.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
NATO's beginnings were officially in 1947 with the Treaty of Dunkirk a mutual-defence pact between UK and France and which was expanded in the years afterwards. But its actual origins came in the web of treaties and agreements between the UK and US during the second world war over their spheres of activity in the North Atlantic.
Click to expand...

And why was the Treaty of Dunkirk signed? What was the purpose of such a treaty?
 
theprestige said:
In this case, I'm content to conclude that popular misuse has so diluted the term that it is no longer useful. If you really believe that cultural imperialism is equivalent to the other kind, that's not something I can argue against. That's your belief. I believe differently. Telling me that your belief is so popular that all the dictionaries now attest to its popularity doesn't incline me to change my belief.

I guess I'll have to find some other word, though, to denote the kind of imperialism I'm talking about, so as to avoid confusion.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about cultural imperialism: you have me confused with someone else. I'm talking about strategic, economic and military dominance. That is the essence of imperialism, and all of the actions I have previously listed demonstrate that. American interference in countries all over the world was, and is, aimed at gaining and maintaining US control and influence over those countries and regions. That is imperialism.
 
theprestige said:
In this case, I'm content to conclude that popular misuse has so diluted the term that it is no longer useful. If you really believe that cultural imperialism is equivalent to the other kind, that's not something I can argue against. That's your belief. I believe differently. Telling me that your belief is so popular that all the dictionaries now attest to its popularity doesn't incline me to change my belief.

I guess I'll have to find some other word, though, to denote the kind of imperialism I'm talking about, so as to avoid confusion.
Click to expand...

As an afterthought, describing what the US did in Vietnam and Iraq as 'cultural imperialism' is one of the more ludicrous statements that has appeared on this forum in recent weeks.
 
Vietnam at least was purely mercenary, filling the same role as the Hessians did for the British during the Revolutionary War. Vietnam was fighting back against their French colonizers and we were brought in to help quell the colony. Iraq was.... incomprehensible. I'm not sure what the goals were there or why it was important.
 
If we leave NATO, Europe may decide to forget about the Baltics and let Russia take them.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
I'm not talking about cultural imperialism: you have me confused with someone else. I'm talking about strategic, economic and military dominance. That is the essence of imperialism, and all of the actions I have previously listed demonstrate that. American interference in countries all over the world was, and is, aimed at gaining and maintaining US control and influence over those countries and regions. That is imperialism.
Click to expand...

Ah. My bad. I apologize for the confusion.

Anyway, a superpower is not an empire. Allies are not vassals. "Dominance" is a weasel word. Should be governance. America hasn't expanded its empire in living memory. None of the conflicts you have in mind were imperialist. NATO is the opposite of an empire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom