It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NATO may be splitting into two: Those that will continue supporting U.S. wars, and those that won't

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   

NATO may be splitting into two: Those that will continue supporting U.S. wars, and those that won't: Gates


www.reuters.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - NATO risks a split between countries that are willing to fight and those that are not because some European states refuse to send more troops to Afghanistan, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Wednesday.

"I worry a great deal about the alliance evolving into a two-tiered alliance in which you have some allies willing to fight and die to protect people's security and others who are not," the Pentagon chief said.

"And I think that it puts a cloud over the future of the alliance if this is to endure and perhaps even get worse," he told a congressional committee.

The United States is trying to persuade its allies to do more fighting in Afghanistan, where attacks by Taliban and al Qaeda fighters have soared in the last two years.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 6-2-2008 by DimensionalDetective]




posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Looks like Gates is getting desperate now. More and more NATO allies are backing out, or refusing to send more troops for these endless wars. Had they kept the focus where it belonged to begin with-In Afghanistan, this would likely be a non-issue. But the entire world now sees the agendas of these people, and no one trusts them enough to keep sending their men to die.

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 6-2-2008 by DimensionalDetective]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Story is now appearing in the BBC...I wonder if this is what it may take to end these wars, for countries to just refuse to fight in them?


Afghanistan may split up NATO

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has warned the future of Nato is at risk due to differences over Afghanistan and that it may become a two-tier alliance.
Mr Gates said that without more sharing of the burden of counter-insurgency in Afghanistan, the willingness of those engaged in combat would disappear.

Most of the fighting in the volatile south of the country is being done by the US, UK, Canada and the Netherlands.


Full story:
news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Latest developments on this:


NATO struggles for unity over Afghan war

VILNIUS/KABUL (Reuters) - NATO tried to patch over divisions about the war in Afghanistan on Thursday but differences remained over the willingness of some members to contribute troops to the conflict.

At a meeting in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius, defense ministers with troops fighting fierce battles against the Taliban in the south of Afghanistan backed calls by the United States for more countries to send forces there.

On a visit to frontline troops, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and British Foreign Secretary David Miliband kept up pressure on reluctant allies to share the combat burden.

Violence has risen sharply in the past two years in Afghanistan, which has been occupied by Western forces for six.

Analysts say the country, which under the Taliban's hardline Islamist rule harbored al Qaeda in the years before the September 11, 2001 attacks, risks becoming a "failed state" again.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said the alliance, responsible for security across Afghanistan, had made good progress but acknowledged more needed to be done.

"I am cautiously optimistic," he said. "There are challenges, we need more forces ... the situation in Afghanistan means sharing responsibility and sharing risk."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates toned down his rhetoric, a day after saying NATO was at risk of splitting into members who are willing to "fight and die to protect people's security and those who were not".

Full story:
www.reuters.com...



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Interesting.
Let's see the "With us or Against us" put into effect now.

Load of the bombs.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Lets look at what NATO actually is:

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization


The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :

www.nato.int

This is the foundation of NATO, and since the evergoing "war on terror" have several other agendas, then the above, I think it is only fair that some countries, are finally showing some balls to say "No more"



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluess
 


Yep-Great point Bluess. I think it's pretty obvious that our leaders could care less about promoting peace. War is big business, and that is all our government really is anymore, a wealth making machine for the elite.

At least the rest of the world appears to be waking up to their shenanigans. Refusal to fight in foreign wars is the first step towards establishing peace IMHO.


[edit on 7-2-2008 by DimensionalDetective]



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join