What do the Americans think of NATO?

Question

Re Peter P

If you think and believe that, how come USA always ask NATO for military help?

UK is part of NATO as is Canada.. and who are helping you sort USA mess out in Iraq AND Afghanistan... along with a LOT of other NATO countries????

Answer 1

As a mere Brit, NATO are the UK and USA armed forces.

The rest don't really amount to much.

Answer 2

NATO was never valid and the fighting in Yugoslavia proved that if the U.S. wasn't involved, NATO members would have fallen apart along WWI lines. NATO members would have been attacking NATO members.

Tactically NATO members were lined up in an offensive posture against the Warsaw line. This posture would have been crushed by the Warsaw forces and allowed the Warsaw pact free reign in Western Europe. The reason why this was allowed to happen was no nation wanted to have any fighting in their backyard.

NATO allowed Europe to have a social security and were greatly laxed with their defense. The U.S. forces out numbered the combined forces of the other NATO forces. The money that would have gone into their social programs would have gone into defense if there was no or a low U.S. presence. Afganistan is showing NATO strains as countries would probably have surrendered as soon as possible if there was a Warsaw Pact invasion. A force that was suppose to stop the Warsaw Pact is unable to stop the Taliban.

The EU wants to create a 100,000 expeditionary force which is smaller than the U.S. presence in Iraq and 1/3 the size of the Iraqi army.

There was talk that the U.S. should have gotten allies for Iraq and Afganistan instead of doing it alone. Besides its most trusted allies (Britan, Canada and Australia) the U.S. would have been spending too much time trying to herd its other allies than actually doing anything else.

The U.S. couldn't use French air space to attack Lybia and end theri involvement with terrorism. Turkey refused to use their land for the invasion of Iraq. The people are rioting in Italy because the U.S. wants to expand the base although Italy might not give the U.S. permission to actually make the base useful.

The U.S. should leave much of Europe for stronger allies. It'll probably be cheaper and more effective to do so.

Answer 3

NATO began as a great idea but it slowly deteriorated into a force for peace that became so peace-oriented that it could not get its members to think together.

Maybe, with a little change in inter-national attitude by a few of its members, it may be able to recover and become an instrument of value.

Otherwise it's little more than a noisy ineffective group.

Answer 4

Obsolete. It served its purpose, i.e. keep the reds out of western Europe. The reds are gone so no viable mission any more. Since the end of the Cold War and the rise of the European Union, both the US and Eruope have developed different agendas. The center of power has moved from Brussels to Paris and further away from Washington. Good? You decide.

Answer 5

Just another organization to use to further the hegemonic expansion----The people of America may be individually altruistic and open to sharing: their political choices do not demonstrate the fact quite s well!
Glory does not share the spoils of war; recent history has not proven the US to be generous in spirit toward UNESCO or NATO.

Answer 6

I don`t think NATO serves much of a purpose any more does it?

Answer 7

They think it is time the other countries start doing their share to police the world and protect the WESTERN way of life.
NATO is good and UN is a 'paper tiger'

Answer 8

What should we think about it? Do you understand what NATO means? Or do you mean the UN. To different beast.

Answer 9

No longer a valid alliance. Our European 'allies' have demonstrated that they cannot be counted on.

The next time the want something from us - the answer will be 'no.'

Answer 10

NATO? Does it stands for No Action, Talk Only ?