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 getting close to breaking apart?

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Italy urges end to Libya conflict


TRIPOLI (AFP) – Italy on Wednesday called for an immediate halt to hostilities in Libya to allow humanitarian aid to reach the population in the strife-torn country, while NATO defended the credibility of its air war after a bomb misfired killing civilians.



Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini warned on Tuesday that NATO's credibility was "at risk" following the civilian casualties, and urged it to ensure it was not providing ammunition to Kadhafi's propaganda war.


It looks like Italy is getting pretty upset about the actions in Libya.

Then there's Germany, which has expressed criticism towards NATO.

Germany slams NATO mission in Libya


Germany's Defense Minister Thomas de Maziere has criticized NATO's controversial military operation in Libya and lack of foresight when it comes to intervening in the North African country.


I did some searching and found this article.

Column: Why the U.S. is stuck with NATO's bill


Speaking this month in Brussels, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned our European allies in NATO that freeloading on America's outsized military might cannot guarantee their security forever. Or even in the near term, which Gates said could soon turn "dismal" for the alliance.



Gates did cite Norway, Denmark, Belgium and Canada for "punch(ing) well above their weight" fighting in Libya, but then turned that praise into his most damning critique overall.

"The mightiest military alliance in history," Gates said, "is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country — yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference."


So if this article is correct, the US is the one supplying the arms to our allies.....because they already ran out??......and they dont have the money to make more????


One reason European states must "be responsible for their fair share of the common defense," he said, was due to the squeezed budgets and shifting priorities in the U.S. Future American taxpayers, he said, simply will not see NATO as "worth the cost."


Well.....good. There is alot more important things to worry about other than funding NATO (cough cough *jobs* cough cough)


Few European states are likely to quake at that threat. Last year, the U.S. paid about $712 million, more than one-fifth the cost of keeping NATO afloat. In addition, we have been raising military spending, now more than $700 billion a year, with few signs of reversal for more than a decade. Every dollar spent offers collateral protection to our allies.


So the European states dont want to pay for NATO....so what? Let them deal with their own problems.

At the same time, how about the US dosent pay for NATO either? How about we deal with our own problems at home first? (I doubt that will happen anytime soon)




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   
As bad a shape as we are in... If the US pulled out of NATO, the United Nations, and any other groups that we sponcer.. fund.. There would be none.

We spend majority of the funds that go into these factions. If we stopped, they would go broke instantly.

If we stopped giving aid to countries, they would fall apart.

If we stopped sending food and medical supplies, they would starve and die.

I hate to sound like we're the Big G Suppliers of the world.. but we are.

If we stop.. everyone goes to hell in a handbasket, wars would break out far worse than now, countries would riot and kill one another, cannibalism would be common....


soooo... Why dont we?


Ever hear of welfare states? We dont just extend welfare benefits to the poor and in most cases, lazy.. but we do it for every blasted country in the world... and they too just seem lazy. They rather hold their hand out than to get on the ball themselves. Sure, disaster aid is a wonderful thing. Keep your brothers and sisters alive.. but.. Teach a man to fish!!!
edit on 23-6-2011 by theRhenn because: added



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
I get a kick out of people saying, "It's not a U.S. operation in Libya, it's NATO."

WE ARE NATO!!!

We fund, we arm, we manage, we supply, we dictate.

We are NATO. The other countries are along for the cash and bennies that come from going along with U.S. foreign policy.

NATO will never fall apart because "we" will never fall apart.

Just my humble opinion. Nice thread.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by theRhenn
 


A lrge portion of the "aid" sent overseas is not done out of simple benevolence and good will, but is used to prop up dictatorial regimes and usually has strings attached on how aid money is used, such as allowing favoured western corporations access to mineral rights etc.
If the US ( and other western nations )stopped giving aid and propping up nasty little dictators for corporate / banking greed, the people in some of these third world countries might actually find themselves benefitting from the natural resources in their own countries, the revenue from which would pay for the building, medical and food growth they need.

As for NATO, it's only ever been a thinly disguised US run operation. NATO, under it's charter, should not be involved in Afghanistan and should not be involved in Libya. I think the people of Europe are waking up to this more and more, hence the growing reluctance in some EU states for continued support of these operations.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
I get a kick out of people saying, "It's not a U.S. operation in Libya, it's NATO."

WE ARE NATO!!!

We fund, we arm, we manage, we supply, we dictate.

We are NATO. The other countries are along for the cash and bennies that come from going along with U.S. foreign policy.

NATO will never fall apart because "we" will never fall apart.

Just my humble opinion. Nice thread.


Uuuuuhm... No. You are not NATO. You are the US.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by theRhenn
As bad a shape as we are in... If the US pulled out of NATO, the United Nations, and any other groups that we sponcer.. fund.. There would be none.

We spend majority of the funds that go into these factions. If we stopped, they would go broke instantly.

If we stopped giving aid to countries, they would fall apart.

If we stopped sending food and medical supplies, they would starve and die.

I hate to sound like we're the Big G Suppliers of the world.. but we are.

If we stop.. everyone goes to hell in a handbasket, wars would break out far worse than now, countries would riot and kill one another, cannibalism would be common....


soooo... Why dont we?


Ever hear of welfare states? We dont just extend welfare benefits to the poor and in most cases, lazy.. but we do it for every blasted country in the world... and they too just seem lazy. They rather hold their hand out than to get on the ball themselves. Sure, disaster aid is a wonderful thing. Keep your brothers and sisters alive.. but.. Teach a man to fish!!!
edit on 23-6-2011 by theRhenn because: added


This is the upmost BS i ever read here, are you working for the US Gov't or US Army??

You would like to think the US is such a great and nice country that you help out every starving country or whatever country needs help? Ever stopped and thought about how these country's go broke, starv or whatever, its mostly because the US has caused it. US is the country starting all the wars in the last 20yrs or so, not Europe. # going on in Africa right now are things they need to figure out for there selfes. But they don't get a chance because the US is already on top of it seeing potential to take over for Oil, or precious metals. Thats the SOUL reason the US is medling with these countries..

They know the US is broke and about to fall appart, so they are taking attention away from the worst and focussing it on less important stuff, like wars and be the bully on the block (wich is totally gay ofcourse).

Its time to start a world wide revolution, take example of Northern Africa, and not just follow them. Follow your fellow country men, its your country that you are losing, so its your battle.. Just ignore Gov'ts don't listen to your so called politicians, they are just brainwashed people lobiëing for the big corp.

Don't be pussy's and think well if people will go people will go, i dont need to follow them.... Well wake up, you don't need to follow them, you need to HELP them. This has to become the worlds biggest battle ever will it succeed, This is not happening in 1 country, this is a world wide problem wich needs to be fixed for our future generations, children grand children and every offspring after that. Fighting corruption, and taking back all our rights and freedom (Worldwide)....

If nothing will be done against politics, they only will grow bigger en get more influence about everything, meaning, you get less rights, freedom, worse living standards etc. etc....

People know deep down what is right, and how to behave against our fellow humans, if more people would go live by that, then there is no need for a Governing instance.... We have grown up, we don't need people to decide for us what is best for us. If you do, then sorry but you are just enormously stupid and need to grow the F up...



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


What an ignorant and wrong Opinion, the other countries are apart of NATO, as they have no choice, see what happens when and if any countries leave, they will become the next 'libya' uprising followed by endless pointless bombing.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Bauwser
 


lol You are missinformed... apparently. Do you know anything about how much we dump into the factions on a yearly basis? Sure, I agree that the US does alot of harm in the way we push ourselves into outher countries. I'm not denying that. You seem to be taking my post completely bass ackwards... But... At the same time, if we stopped pushing our hard earned tax dollars out the door, many third world countries would fall apart and fall even more into chaos than what they are now.

Do your own research... And read my post for what it says.. not what you think it says...
edit on 23-6-2011 by theRhenn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Europe disagrees about heaps of things, but they have to live next to each other and deal with it. It will be more the economy rather than Libya if NATO is to break up. With WW3 going on for some time now perhaps it will be a whole host of issues coming to a head.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vanishr
reply to post by beezzer
 


What an ignorant and wrong Opinion, the other countries are apart of NATO, as they have no choice, see what happens when and if any countries leave, they will become the next 'libya' uprising followed by endless pointless bombing.


What did I say that was incorrect? YOu even support my statement by saying, "the other countries are apart of NATO, as they have no choice, see what happens when and if any countries leave."

NATO will live on regardless of who is a member.

And ignorant?
Bad form, Scooter, bad form.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by theRhenn
 



But... At the same time, if we stopped pushing our hard earned tax dollars out the door, many third world countries would fall apart and fall even more into chaos than what they are now.


I agree with everything you say except this bit..

Your "Hard Earned Tax Dollars" only go on interest payments for past debts while the wars are financed by "New Debt"..
A debt that your grandchildren will still be paying for.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I do not mean to express bad decorum towards you sir.




We are NATO. The other countries are along for the cash and bennies that come from going along with U.S. foreign policy.


This statement is 100% wrong, other countries who are ruled by TPTB just like the US, are not apart of NATO for the money ? or the Bennies ? whatever that may be. If a country was to try and pull out of NATO, they would be viewed as the enemy, NATO is a global terrorist organization, Iam saying not everyone's country is going along with AMERIKA because they want too, its because our politicians just like most of yours, are there for show and are servicing a hidden agenda, whether they are forced into this or whether they are willfully inserted into these positions to carry out these roles, we cannot know.

It seems this thread is pointing out some countries or politicians of said countries, are rebelling against what they are being forced to do, Be it a minute amount, if they were really making a difference then there country wouldnt be involved in this pointless conflict to begin with, but then that just goes to show the grasp of their power, some of the countries own government are against the actions that there government is taking, so why do we have politicians if they arent doing what they wish ? Smoke & Mirrors my friend, smoke and mirrors.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Vanishr
 

TPTB are/is a covenient scapegoat.
WHO are/is TPTB?

And on a lighter side, can I join or at least get a t-shirt?

Cheers



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by theRhenn
As bad a shape as we are in... If the US pulled out of NATO, the United Nations, and any other groups that we sponcer.. fund.. There would be none.

We spend majority of the funds that go into these factions. If we stopped, they would go broke instantly.

If we stopped giving aid to countries, they would fall apart.

If we stopped sending food and medical supplies, they would starve and die.

I hate to sound like we're the Big G Suppliers of the world.. but we are.

If we stop.. everyone goes to hell in a handbasket, wars would break out far worse than now, countries would riot and kill one another, cannibalism would be common....


soooo... Why dont we?


Ever hear of welfare states? We dont just extend welfare benefits to the poor and in most cases, lazy.. but we do it for every blasted country in the world... and they too just seem lazy. They rather hold their hand out than to get on the ball themselves. Sure, disaster aid is a wonderful thing. Keep your brothers and sisters alive.. but.. Teach a man to fish!!!
edit on 23-6-2011 by theRhenn because: added


Saved,bookmarked and printed for future laughing



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by buni11687
Italy urges end to Libya conflict


TRIPOLI (AFP) – Italy on Wednesday called for an immediate halt to hostilities in Libya to allow humanitarian aid to reach the population in the strife-torn country, while NATO defended the credibility of its air war after a bomb misfired killing civilians.



Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini warned on Tuesday that NATO's credibility was "at risk" following the civilian casualties, and urged it to ensure it was not providing ammunition to Kadhafi's propaganda war.


It looks like Italy is getting pretty upset about the actions in Libya.

Then there's Germany, which has expressed criticism towards NATO.

Germany slams NATO mission in Libya


Germany's Defense Minister Thomas de Maziere has criticized NATO's controversial military operation in Libya and lack of foresight when it comes to intervening in the North African country.


I did some searching and found this article.

Column: Why the U.S. is stuck with NATO's bill


Speaking this month in Brussels, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned our European allies in NATO that freeloading on America's outsized military might cannot guarantee their security forever. Or even in the near term, which Gates said could soon turn "dismal" for the alliance.



Gates did cite Norway, Denmark, Belgium and Canada for "punch(ing) well above their weight" fighting in Libya, but then turned that praise into his most damning critique overall.

"The mightiest military alliance in history," Gates said, "is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country — yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference."


So if this article is correct, the US is the one supplying the arms to our allies.....because they already ran out??......and they dont have the money to make more????


One reason European states must "be responsible for their fair share of the common defense," he said, was due to the squeezed budgets and shifting priorities in the U.S. Future American taxpayers, he said, simply will not see NATO as "worth the cost."


Well.....good. There is alot more important things to worry about other than funding NATO (cough cough *jobs* cough cough)


Few European states are likely to quake at that threat. Last year, the U.S. paid about $712 million, more than one-fifth the cost of keeping NATO afloat. In addition, we have been raising military spending, now more than $700 billion a year, with few signs of reversal for more than a decade. Every dollar spent offers collateral protection to our allies.


So the European states dont want to pay for NATO....so what? Let them deal with their own problems.

At the same time, how about the US dosent pay for NATO either? How about we deal with our own problems at home first? (I doubt that will happen anytime soon)
.

Don't forget though even NATO believes that air-power alone cannot help end the conflict and even asked us to redeploy our warplanes which we gladly rejected. www.guardian.co.uk...

NATO was originally formed against the USSR and now USSR is done, i do not see the use of NATO anymore. Do you remember when Bill Clinton was criticized by our European Allies for not taking action in the Balkans in the 90s? So we did most of the work and while so, we get ***load of abuse by the same countries that asked us to take the lead.

For the Libyan war we have now, here is my take on it for what it is worth. After Libya's Gaddafi was found to be supporting terrorist actions such as the bombing of a popular West German nightclub frequented by American Servicemen in 1986. In response, President Ronald Reagan launched a bombing attack on Libya called Operation El Dorado Canyon. Gaddafi was lucky to escape with his life. Later in 1988, he ordered a bomber to place a bomb on the Pan-Am passenger airplane which killed over 270 people(189 Americans, 43 British, 1 Trini, 1 Swiss, 3 Swedish, 1 Spanish, 1 South African, 1 Filipino, 1 Japanese, 1 Jamaican, 1 Italian, 1 Israeli, 3 Irish, 3 Indians, 4 Hungarians, 4 German, 3 French, 3 Canadians, 1 Bolivia, 1 Belgian, and 2 Argentinians).

However, Gadaffi then turned around and renounced terrorism and turned over all kinds of intel to the US. However, there was no attempt at regime change back then. He also ended his nuclear stated-program as well.

Well, when the people in Libya decided to try to overthrow Gaddafi, the Europeans became concerned. You see, Libya sells its oil mostly to Europe. So, sensing an easy victory, Obama agreed to participate in the airstrikes. If you recall, the Obama Administration and the Senate leadership were predicting Gaddafi would be gone in a matter of days, based on the results Reagan had with Libya. But there is a big difference in getting a Tyrant like Gaddafi to change his ways and forcing him out of power completely. When Gaddafi refused to capitulate, it became apparent that there is once again, no "Plan B" for the France and the UK in Libya. No one seems to have any idea what to do now.

Now don't get me wrong, i'm all for oustering Gadhafi. My real problem is that NATO got involved in Libya without a clear Strategic Plan that defines victory and how it will be achieved. Too late now, the deed is done because when you start something, you need to finish it. Per article as i stated up there, NATO no longer believe that air-power alone would end the conflict. Plus the Libyan rebels doesn't have a massive support within the Libyan population and plus they are not a modern army like NATO are.

So the only way to solve this is by sending in NATO ground forces. The problem is with the politicians and their expectations. They thought that if they declared a no fly zone with air-power only, took out Libya’s air-defenses, and bombed a few troop concentrations Gaddafi would fold and run for cover. They did not take into account the historical FACT that airpower by itself could not resolve the problem. Without some plan in place to establish a credible ground threat to Gaddafi’s regime any airpower alone solution was (is) bound to fail.

BTW I don't think the capital hill in Washington DC is going to send our ground troops due to the fact that Obama did not have congressional approval via war powers act. It's mostly Europe and the Arab League problem so let them shed their blood and we will provide Intel for them. We shed our blood long enough and then get crapload of abuse from other parts of the world by the same countries that cannot do it for themselves. It's time for others to make sacrifices. Better yet, i'm all for USA to pull out of NATO and form a new alliance then tell the world where to stick it.
edit on 23-6-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by theRhenn
 

Whatever happened to the addage of allowing a man to fail? We offer our hearts and souls to those who give nothing more than another mouth to feed. It is time to cut the wounded limb of government from the body of the people and allow them flourish or die as necessary. I am not an Armageddonist or a doom and gloom heraldrist, but I believe its time to let the herd thin itself as necessary.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
It's the west's policy of bomb first, ask questions later.

Soon there will be nothing left to do but make the rubble bounce.




top topics



 
8

log in

join