im doing a case AGAINST NATO for my class and i have 2 peices of evidence listed below tell me which one i should use for a case.
NATO has already completed its mission so why do we need it
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I do so because further expansion of NATO, an outdated alliance, is not in our national interest and may well constitute a threat to our national security in the future.
More than 50 years ago the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed to defend Western Europe and the United States against attack from the communist nations of Eastern Europe. It was an alliance of sovereign nations bound together in common purpose – for mutual defense. The deterrence value of NATO helped kept the peace throughout the Cold War. In short, NATO achieved its stated mission. With the fall of the Soviet system and the accompanying disappearance of the threat of attack, in 1989–1991, NATO’s reason to exist ceased.
NATO is unequipped to be a miltary allience
NATO's capacity to support the next step in Afghanistan's reconstruction is limited, however. NATO is the world's strongest military alliance, but it is just that, a military alliance. Unlike the United Nations or the European Union, which also do peacekeeping, NATO is not equipped to undertake the myriad of civil functions, from police training to voter registration to economic development, that ultimately determine the worth of any military intervention.It is, after all, quite possible to imagine an EU-led military operation brought to a successful conclusion without any NATO involvement. It is impossible to imagine the reverse. No nation-building endeavor can succeed without the application of civil as well as military resources.
2006-10-04
11:51:27
·
2 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous