[avdddcxnelkaxz]

Iran

[Arkadiyas]

Albania has no chance, and I honeslty don't see Macedonia making it either.

Threre really isn't that much more room for expansion. Morocco maybe?

[Tauntenue]

Mexico, they are actually on the North Atlantic (sort of)

[Dapnoinaacale]

Mexico is a nice idea.

[orbidewa]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Mexico is a nice idea. if the going got rough Mexico would probably bail as they have from other collective defense treaties

[praboobolbode]

Why let in new members when we can't even get some of the old members to fill their obligations and support the mission of the organization?

[Caregrasy]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Ukraine is the only worth letting join but they're just to big, to unstable, and it would piss off the Russians to much. The latter sounds like a good reason to let them in immediately

[juidizHusw]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Anyone want to make advanced predictions about who will get in and who will be left cooling their heels? How does Greece feel about Macedonia joining NATO? I remember when Greece was upset about the very creation of Macedonia.

[DumnEuronoumn]

Psst. It's a collective defense treaty.

[tgs]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Psst. It's a collective defense treaty. Very good. This would imply that the obligations I was refering to revelove around defense. I wonder what I could possibly mean when I said members haven't been filling their obligations.

[RenyBontes]

At this rate, NATO is becoming obsolete. The more members join, the more it loses its actual weight. Even though it's arsenal gets bigger, it's capability becomes less.

Soon, it'll be nothing but a sandbox where nothing gets decided, kind of like EU. It's main purpose seems to be, for members, to get better deals getting those weapon systems, and for the rest, to sell those weapon systems. To replace and invade the Eastern market, to replace as much as possible with Western weaponry.

It's a big business, but at this rate, it'll be nothing BUT business. Kind of like EU. Lately, it's been nothing but just another forum to do politics in. So it's the same ****, but now in double vision. Kind of like EU. And at this rate, it'll be more of a problem for security. It's existance is provocation to some entities. I'm not saying we should bow down when someone says you are an insult to me, I'm saying that one of the most important things you can do IN ADVANCE is to avoid provocation when ever possible. It's kind of obvious, but some people think it's a ***** thing to do. It's not *****, it's smart. It's not giving up, it's remaining strong.

It's about stock piling bunch of stuff, when ever there's a new round of crap to be bought. So with all the politics involved, mixed with business, kind of like EU, it'll just be one big mess and the actual effectiveness is not increasing, it's going down. It becomes bloated, like EU, it becomes about medals and all these gizmos and secondary things, things that go WRrooom and things that look nice, it becomes about statistics like "oh yeah we have like 904909409834 ready and willing men standing at this location. Impressive, don't you think? Some of them might have even seen combat!" Well in my eyes and thinking of our security, it's not impressive. It's so dumb it's scary. Just like EU.

Just few ideas to actually do pre-emptive work: reduce provocation, increase the effort for the enemy, reduce the reward for them, and remove excuses for the other side as well. Not that big of an idea, yet rarely implemented. Then again, this does mean close cooperation in the political, military and other sectors, especially allies. Now, screw up all that inside, mix in business interest, mix in politicians that are increasingly interested in that business side of things or just motivated by self interest, get the first result when you combine all the members having the same problem and THEN increase the number of members, namely increase the number of problems and increase the power of business and politicians, and then have more in-fighting and just .... well cooperation with allies will be fudged, everyone thinks they're more important than other members... and soon you'll have a thing that's just about things that go Wrooom and those gizmos. And statistics. Just like EU

[riverakathy]

Why? I found his post intelligent & witty.

[viawbambutt]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Why? I found his post inteligent & witty. That would be more complimentary, if you'd have spelled "intelligent" correctly.

[bixlewlyimila]

I have to agree with DD here. IMO there are only two ways, either you think that the mission in Afghanistan is lost or generally unimportant, then you should get out. Or you think it's important and can be successful, then you should stay and work for this success.

What Germany is doing currently is a half assed job, IMO mainly out of domestic fears of the political elite who can't communicate that the entire reconstruction efforts they favor so much are worthless when the Taliban can't be kept at bay militarily, what they expect should only be done by others in the alliance. No wonder other countries are complaining about it, they are right.

There are also some main differences here how the thing is handled by the US, but as long we don't even get the stuff done we promised to do (like building/training Afghan forces) we aren't in a position to criticise their conduct of the op.

[bahrains27]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


Guess that means you aren't that "inteligent". Dino would agree with you.

Dino --
Clarification: Are you saying all of NATO should be in Iraq or are you limiting the participation to Afghanistan?

[pedFlicle]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Dino --
Clarification: Are you saying all of NATO should be in Iraq or are you limiting the participation to Afghanistan? Which country does this refer to?

As a result of the information he provided to the Council, it has been clearly determined that the individuals who carried out the attacks belonged to the world-wide terrorist network of Al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden and protected by the Taleban regime in Afghanistan.

[Quick$bux]

I should be remembered that the Bush Administration put Afghanistan on the back burner and practically ignored it so it is rich for them to whine the mission there isn't receiving enough attention.

[kennyguitar]

What do I look like, a chair?

No, I looks like this: I.

[blankostaroe]

Originally posted by Patroklos
It is odd then that so many NATO commanders have not been American, placing sometimes hundreds of thousands of US troops under a non-US commander. Irrelevant. Roman Armies weren't always commanded by Romans.

And when has the US not actively encouraged larger more rubust European militaries? I think the last time was 1938-39ish...

Again, not relevant. The American military was always bigger.

[arreskslarlig]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What post do I hold in the Bush Admin? Stop being dense. They spent the last two months berating Germany, France, and Italy for not being committed enough to the Afghan mission.