Wherefor art thou, NATO? - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Non-SMAC related
  Wherefor art thou, NATO?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Wherefor art thou, NATO?

walruskkkch posted 06-29-99 06:20 PM ET
Time to get some political threading going again. OK, NATO has defeated the great Serbian hordes. Where to next? What down trodden group shall be the next beneficiary of NATO's good will? I vote for Tamil insurgents, they just discovered mass graves there proving ethnic cleansing! All we need now are some pictures of atrocities and we're on our way! Where else can NATO strut it's stuff? Discuss.
Your faithful and obedient servant
"All oppression creates a state of war."
- Simone de Beauvoir
Bishop posted 06-29-99 06:55 PM ET
How about East-Timor ? Or Tibet ? Or Western Sahara ?
Bishop
Spoe posted 06-29-99 07:09 PM ET
Well, the Western Sahara is the only of those regions that you could even make a rational argument for being in NATO's area of interest.
The NATO charter only covers Europe, North America, the Atlantic north of Tropic of Cancer, and "the Algerian Departments of France"(which has been excluded since 3 July 1963, but might be argued for historical reasons).
The Tamils, Tibet, and East Timour would probably be the responsibility of SEATO, if it still exists.
walruskkkch posted 06-29-99 07:28 PM ET
Ok, how about the Sudan? Last I heard they were still using slavery and trying to eradicte their christian population. Of course we might pissoff Quadaffi(However he choses to spell it) and the muslim nations but it should be quick and easy. Not much of a military there. But way should NATO be limited by mere geographic boundaries? Yes they are a European defensive alliance but put the emphisis on defensive. They threw that out the window fairly easily(Oh the previous thread for words on that argument!) so why should they stop there, especially since the US appears to be the worlds "humanitarian" policeman, without the military resources to act alone anymore.(Thank you Bill Clinton, cut military spending and then involve us all over the damn place!)I don't favor isolationism, nor do I want to not act where appropriate, I only wonder how can you morally let other atrocities happen and not act after interceding in Kosovo?
Your faithful and obedient servant
MiKaeLe posted 06-29-99 07:35 PM ET
Motherfuc*ing sh*thead bitch %$#%&(*(&%#@#%...some1 close this thread b4 i go out there, find the first NATO soldier on the street, and reap him into small, tiny pieces.

MkiLak
Krushala posted 06-29-99 07:46 PM ET
What has nato done to you? If you have a good reason for hating nato then lets here it. I know everyone gets upset about overstepping our boundaries. And bombing little countries with superior firepower. O.K. we are bullies, I'll accept that. We beat up litte countries. So what a few thousand serbs died and some civilians.
Do you think it was o.k. for milosevich to kill tens of thousands of civilians. We should just let entire races of people be slaughtered? It would have been more just if the U.N. conducted this action. But the U.N. is powerless and fading fast. They did not step up and take any action. So it was up to NATO.
walruskkkch posted 06-29-99 07:46 PM ET
Seems a bit of an over reaction to a simple discussion. Perhaps if you could find a more passive voice and provide some reasons for such hatred we can discuss this calmly. If NATO shouldn't be doing anything explain why so we call all join in.
"War makes the victors stupid and the vanquished vengeful."
- Nietzsche
Spoe posted 06-29-99 07:55 PM ET
MiKaeLe:
Chill, dude. Far as I can tell, this is a sarcastic thread(though I admittedly ignored this in my previous post).
"and reap him into small, tiny pieces."
Gonna bake bread out of him when you're done?
walruskkkch:
There are a couple of semi-plausible rationalizations for the Serbian ops falling within NATO's charter.
I) This could be seen as an attempt at a proactive defense, stabilizing the "Powder Keg of Europe". This is also most of the argument about why NATO should get involved here and not elsewhere. Here it is a security concern. Elsewhere it is not as much a concern.
II) There is a clause in Article 1 of the Washington Treaty that allows the use of force or the treat thereof so long as it does not conflict with "the purposes of the United Nations". Depends on what they meant by the "purposes".
Funny how politicians can twist words, no?
MiKaeLe posted 06-29-99 08:01 PM ET
wtf? just quit this NATO serbia talk couse i am getting real nervous lately. i am not saying that milosevic was right, i hate the son of a bitch, but can't we just leave this alone?
Krushala, quit talking about death, civilians got killed etc. like it is a game or a TV show. This is the worst thing that can happen to a man(society). You haven't felt it, and you don't want to feel it. OK?
wal, NATO won't be sitting still after this GLORIOUS victory over the barbarian serb hordes, they'll move on in spending the taxpayers money so that you can join the army when you get all tyred of the boring life we have novadays, or so that you can have non-stop interesting news to watch on CNN, BBC...blah blah blah
MiKaeLe
damn, gotta get some sleep
MiKaeLe posted 06-29-99 08:05 PM ET
POOOSSSTTTT EEEDIIITTTT AAARRGGHHHHHHH
Spoe, don't wana talk about death war killings anymore, pliiiiiiizzzzzzz.
And no, i was going to make some pancakes out of him when i am done
dilbert posted 06-29-99 08:05 PM ET
We have to wait and see how Kosovo develops. The NATO will not intervene everywhere, especially not in countries with plenty of nukes. China, Russia, and India will remain out of their reach for a while. It also depends on how much cruelties are involved. Nato certainly won't go to war if only some separatists are put behind bars.
One question: if Russia has really gone nasty on Chechnyan population, what should Nato do?
walruskkkch posted 06-29-99 08:10 PM ET
Spoe,
Ah, yes i remember that thread well, we did discuss at length the legitimacy of NATO and it actions regarding it's charter. Always useful to cover previous ground if it's central to the discussion at hand. Quite right on the point of sarcasm, I certainly don't want to see NATO or the US acting unilaterally on these issues and I hoped that this would development some discussion on the role the US should play in the world at large. I was really hoping to get back to some kind a political discussion, we seem to have drifted into other things to deeply, although not without some good fun and topics. I hope we can continue this in a civil manner.

"The price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish."
- Robert Jackson
Krushala posted 06-29-99 08:16 PM ET
All right I'll quit talking about death. But I have felt it, not necessarily in this conflict. Just don't think I don't care about the caualties. My original post kind of appeared that way. Anyway we all know what milosevich did was terrible. What's at issue is whether NATO has the authority to take such actions. I doubt they will try to push it any further into territories outside of Europe and north america. There would be a huge backlash. I doubt they would do anything against russia either. Everyone seems to be kissing their ass try to be nice to them. But similar conflicts in europe most likely would be met with NATO action.
Krushala posted 06-29-99 08:20 PM ET
How do you guys feel about the state of the U.N. right now? I feel that the U.N. should have been the ones taking action, but they didn't. It seems completely powerless right now. Mainly because the U.S. doesn't support the leadership. Could the same thing happen to the U.N. that happened to the league of nations with no U.S. support?
walruskkkch posted 06-29-99 08:20 PM ET
Drafted? I doubt the Army wants me in my dotage. As far as taxes, they'll have to repeal the Second Amendment first! The point about the apathy and lack of connectedness of the American people with the pictures they see on TV is all to true. That's what we get for not having been involved in a mjor conflict for close to two generations. The vast majority of people don't have first hand knowledge of the horrors of war. While sparing them the horror is good(Sending young people to die is a horrible thing) it also eliminates one factor that could limit their adventurism. The majority of the US population is historically illiterate, lacking the context to judge policy and its implications.
"There is a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but boys, it is all hell."
- William T. Sherman
dilbert posted 06-29-99 08:30 PM ET
Krushala,
UN is in a better shape today than during the Cold War, when no major decisions could be made due to the US-Soviet hostility. If anyone of the five permanent member of the Security Council is uncooperative, Un is quite useless. The Nato must bypass the UN in the Kosovo case, because any resolution permitting military intervention would be veoted by Russia and China.
Krushala posted 06-29-99 08:36 PM ET
I just don't like the way they bypassed the U.N. I believe that NATO had good reason to do so in this case. But this action has had serious consequences. Our diplomatic realations with china are pretty low right now. I'm also concerned that NATO will bypass the U.N. in the future whenever they see fit. As long as this doesn't happen I won't have any problem with NATO's actions. But what are the odds they won't do this again?
dilbert posted 06-29-99 08:45 PM ET
K,
That's my concern, too. There is no balance of power in today's world, and Nato alliance is way too powerful. Power usually corrupts. One day they may not fight to save civilians, but to save money for some big corporations.
Timexwatch posted 06-29-99 09:48 PM ET
The reason we bypassed the UN security council is that the Russians would probably veto any security council resolution applying to any initiative to stop Milosevic, no matter how reasonable. The Russians see Serbia/Yugoslavia as their backyard. Of course I don't blame them for being defensive because they want to hold onto some sembelence of power........
ZRand007 posted 06-30-99 12:23 PM ET
In my opinion, the NATO alliance has saved the world just by existing. Imagine the communist system spreading beyond where it did! If the Soviets had gotten into the resource-rich west-European countries, then we would all be screwed, including the grand-ole US of A. Hell, we (the US) barely even survived the cold war, thanks to democrats. (Oh, I feel a cough coming on... CARTER.... whoops....)
-007
ZRand007 posted 06-30-99 12:31 PM ET
About this whole UN deal... each member of NATO is a soveriegn nation with the right to make its own decisions on whether or not they should go to war. The UN shouldnt be able to say "Hey, we say you can't go to war with someone who is killing thousands of innocent people because it will get Russia and China upset." Russia and China have the right to be upset, and hell, they could declare war on NATO because we attacked Serbia, because they have the right to do that! I believe that the UN has no right to dictate the actions of individual nations or groups of nations, like NATO.
-007
walruskkkch posted 06-30-99 04:54 PM ET
I think the US should get out of NATO, let it be run and funded by the Europeans as the military arm of the new Economic and Political union. We can maintain some ties, mostly to help out if they get into trouble, but let them take care of european problems themselves. It shouldn't necessarily be our, meaning the US, business to clear up problems in Europe. Unless there is a clear and present danger to vital, and I do mean vital, US interests we should let the Europeans take care of business. They are all big boys and girls now.
Your faithful and obedient servant
"There can be no law if we were to invoke one code of international conduct for those who oppose us and another for our friends."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Wherefor art thou, NATO?
walruskkkch	posted 06-29-99 06:20 PM ET Time to get some political threading going again. OK, NATO has defeated the great Serbian hordes. Where to next? What down trodden group shall be the next beneficiary of NATO's good will? I vote for Tamil insurgents, they just discovered mass graves there proving ethnic cleansing! All we need now are some pictures of atrocities and we're on our way! Where else can NATO strut it's stuff? Discuss. Your faithful and obedient servant "All oppression creates a state of war." - Simone de Beauvoir
Bishop	posted 06-29-99 06:55 PM ET How about East-Timor ? Or Tibet ? Or Western Sahara ? Bishop
Spoe	posted 06-29-99 07:09 PM ET Well, the Western Sahara is the only of those regions that you could even make a rational argument for being in NATO's area of interest. The NATO charter only covers Europe, North America, the Atlantic north of Tropic of Cancer, and "the Algerian Departments of France"(which has been excluded since 3 July 1963, but might be argued for historical reasons). The Tamils, Tibet, and East Timour would probably be the responsibility of SEATO, if it still exists.
walruskkkch	posted 06-29-99 07:28 PM ET Ok, how about the Sudan? Last I heard they were still using slavery and trying to eradicte their christian population. Of course we might pissoff Quadaffi(However he choses to spell it) and the muslim nations but it should be quick and easy. Not much of a military there. But way should NATO be limited by mere geographic boundaries? Yes they are a European defensive alliance but put the emphisis on defensive. They threw that out the window fairly easily(Oh the previous thread for words on that argument!) so why should they stop there, especially since the US appears to be the worlds "humanitarian" policeman, without the military resources to act alone anymore.(Thank you Bill Clinton, cut military spending and then involve us all over the damn place!)I don't favor isolationism, nor do I want to not act where appropriate, I only wonder how can you morally let other atrocities happen and not act after interceding in Kosovo? Your faithful and obedient servant
MiKaeLe	posted 06-29-99 07:35 PM ET Motherfucing shthead bitch %$#%&((&%#@#%...some1 close this thread b4 i go out there, find the first NATO soldier on the street, and reap him into small, tiny pieces. MkiLak*
Krushala	posted 06-29-99 07:46 PM ET What has nato done to you? If you have a good reason for hating nato then lets here it. I know everyone gets upset about overstepping our boundaries. And bombing little countries with superior firepower. O.K. we are bullies, I'll accept that. We beat up litte countries. So what a few thousand serbs died and some civilians. Do you think it was o.k. for milosevich to kill tens of thousands of civilians. We should just let entire races of people be slaughtered? It would have been more just if the U.N. conducted this action. But the U.N. is powerless and fading fast. They did not step up and take any action. So it was up to NATO.
walruskkkch	posted 06-29-99 07:46 PM ET Seems a bit of an over reaction to a simple discussion. Perhaps if you could find a more passive voice and provide some reasons for such hatred we can discuss this calmly. If NATO shouldn't be doing anything explain why so we call all join in. "War makes the victors stupid and the vanquished vengeful." - Nietzsche
Spoe	posted 06-29-99 07:55 PM ET MiKaeLe: Chill, dude. Far as I can tell, this is a sarcastic thread(though I admittedly ignored this in my previous post). "and reap him into small, tiny pieces." Gonna bake bread out of him when you're done? walruskkkch: There are a couple of semi-plausible rationalizations for the Serbian ops falling within NATO's charter. I) This could be seen as an attempt at a proactive defense, stabilizing the "Powder Keg of Europe". This is also most of the argument about why NATO should get involved here and not elsewhere. Here it is a security concern. Elsewhere it is not as much a concern. II) There is a clause in Article 1 of the Washington Treaty that allows the use of force or the treat thereof so long as it does not conflict with "the purposes of the United Nations". Depends on what they meant by the "purposes". Funny how politicians can twist words, no?
MiKaeLe	posted 06-29-99 08:01 PM ET wtf? just quit this NATO serbia talk couse i am getting real nervous lately. i am not saying that milosevic was right, i hate the son of a bitch, but can't we just leave this alone? Krushala, quit talking about death, civilians got killed etc. like it is a game or a TV show. This is the worst thing that can happen to a man(society). You haven't felt it, and you don't want to feel it. OK? wal, NATO won't be sitting still after this GLORIOUS victory over the barbarian serb hordes, they'll move on in spending the taxpayers money so that you can join the army when you get all tyred of the boring life we have novadays, or so that you can have non-stop interesting news to watch on CNN, BBC...blah blah blah MiKaeLe damn, gotta get some sleep
MiKaeLe	posted 06-29-99 08:05 PM ET POOOSSSTTTT EEEDIIITTTT AAARRGGHHHHHHH Spoe, don't wana talk about death war killings anymore, pliiiiiiizzzzzzz. And no, i was going to make some pancakes out of him when i am done
dilbert	posted 06-29-99 08:05 PM ET We have to wait and see how Kosovo develops. The NATO will not intervene everywhere, especially not in countries with plenty of nukes. China, Russia, and India will remain out of their reach for a while. It also depends on how much cruelties are involved. Nato certainly won't go to war if only some separatists are put behind bars. One question: if Russia has really gone nasty on Chechnyan population, what should Nato do?
walruskkkch	posted 06-29-99 08:10 PM ET Spoe, Ah, yes i remember that thread well, we did discuss at length the legitimacy of NATO and it actions regarding it's charter. Always useful to cover previous ground if it's central to the discussion at hand. Quite right on the point of sarcasm, I certainly don't want to see NATO or the US acting unilaterally on these issues and I hoped that this would development some discussion on the role the US should play in the world at large. I was really hoping to get back to some kind a political discussion, we seem to have drifted into other things to deeply, although not without some good fun and topics. I hope we can continue this in a civil manner. "The price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish." - Robert Jackson
Krushala	posted 06-29-99 08:16 PM ET All right I'll quit talking about death. But I have felt it, not necessarily in this conflict. Just don't think I don't care about the caualties. My original post kind of appeared that way. Anyway we all know what milosevich did was terrible. What's at issue is whether NATO has the authority to take such actions. I doubt they will try to push it any further into territories outside of Europe and north america. There would be a huge backlash. I doubt they would do anything against russia either. Everyone seems to be kissing their ass try to be nice to them. But similar conflicts in europe most likely would be met with NATO action.
Krushala	posted 06-29-99 08:20 PM ET How do you guys feel about the state of the U.N. right now? I feel that the U.N. should have been the ones taking action, but they didn't. It seems completely powerless right now. Mainly because the U.S. doesn't support the leadership. Could the same thing happen to the U.N. that happened to the league of nations with no U.S. support?
walruskkkch	posted 06-29-99 08:20 PM ET Drafted? I doubt the Army wants me in my dotage. As far as taxes, they'll have to repeal the Second Amendment first! The point about the apathy and lack of connectedness of the American people with the pictures they see on TV is all to true. That's what we get for not having been involved in a mjor conflict for close to two generations. The vast majority of people don't have first hand knowledge of the horrors of war. While sparing them the horror is good(Sending young people to die is a horrible thing) it also eliminates one factor that could limit their adventurism. The majority of the US population is historically illiterate, lacking the context to judge policy and its implications. "There is a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but boys, it is all hell." - William T. Sherman
dilbert	posted 06-29-99 08:30 PM ET Krushala, UN is in a better shape today than during the Cold War, when no major decisions could be made due to the US-Soviet hostility. If anyone of the five permanent member of the Security Council is uncooperative, Un is quite useless. The Nato must bypass the UN in the Kosovo case, because any resolution permitting military intervention would be veoted by Russia and China.
Krushala	posted 06-29-99 08:36 PM ET I just don't like the way they bypassed the U.N. I believe that NATO had good reason to do so in this case. But this action has had serious consequences. Our diplomatic realations with china are pretty low right now. I'm also concerned that NATO will bypass the U.N. in the future whenever they see fit. As long as this doesn't happen I won't have any problem with NATO's actions. But what are the odds they won't do this again?
dilbert	posted 06-29-99 08:45 PM ET K, That's my concern, too. There is no balance of power in today's world, and Nato alliance is way too powerful. Power usually corrupts. One day they may not fight to save civilians, but to save money for some big corporations.
Timexwatch	posted 06-29-99 09:48 PM ET The reason we bypassed the UN security council is that the Russians would probably veto any security council resolution applying to any initiative to stop Milosevic, no matter how reasonable. The Russians see Serbia/Yugoslavia as their backyard. Of course I don't blame them for being defensive because they want to hold onto some sembelence of power........
ZRand007	posted 06-30-99 12:23 PM ET In my opinion, the NATO alliance has saved the world just by existing. Imagine the communist system spreading beyond where it did! If the Soviets had gotten into the resource-rich west-European countries, then we would all be screwed, including the grand-ole US of A. Hell, we (the US) barely even survived the cold war, thanks to democrats. (Oh, I feel a cough coming on... CARTER.... whoops....) -007
ZRand007	posted 06-30-99 12:31 PM ET About this whole UN deal... each member of NATO is a soveriegn nation with the right to make its own decisions on whether or not they should go to war. The UN shouldnt be able to say "Hey, we say you can't go to war with someone who is killing thousands of innocent people because it will get Russia and China upset." Russia and China have the right to be upset, and hell, they could declare war on NATO because we attacked Serbia, because they have the right to do that! I believe that the UN has no right to dictate the actions of individual nations or groups of nations, like NATO. -007
walruskkkch	posted 06-30-99 04:54 PM ET I think the US should get out of NATO, let it be run and funded by the Europeans as the military arm of the new Economic and Political union. We can maintain some ties, mostly to help out if they get into trouble, but let them take care of european problems themselves. It shouldn't necessarily be our, meaning the US, business to clear up problems in Europe. Unless there is a clear and present danger to vital, and I do mean vital, US interests we should let the Europeans take care of business. They are all big boys and girls now. Your faithful and obedient servant "There can be no law if we were to invoke one code of international conduct for those who oppose us and another for our friends." - Dwight D. Eisenhower