Using Libya as an example, I don't think of any other organization that could have done what NATO did. The US could, but that would have ended up being another Iraq for the US. By letting German British, French and Canadian forces take the military lead, and the US providing logistical and surveillance support, NATO provided a nice figleaf that gave many Arab nations the excuse to participate or support in the mission. Same with Kosovo and Bosnia in the end. ON the other hand Afghanistan fit within the self defense agreements within NATO (the US was attacked - an attack against any NATO member is considered an attack against all).
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Eric Roberts <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > I would say that  they are not.  Hey are an old cold war idea whose time has > long passed.  We have the UN that can act as a military force to bring > together nations to act as one in a crisis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 8:26 AM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Pics from the NATO Protest > > > My own opinion on NATO is yes. While its original mission was as a self > defense alliance., it now serves as a organizing body for US, European and > other nations to get together for some reason. That sounds very vague but > deliberately so. I suspect that what will be happening with NATO is that its > going to evolve into the military arm for those situations where the  blue > helmets will not longer work. > > For instance the UN was helpless against Charles Taylor's actions in > Liberia, Sierra Leone and other West African countries, but a coalition of > Britain, France, backed by the US was able to stop it eventually, but not > before there was a humanitarian disaster of near epic proportions. The real > problem here was that this intervention could have been against > international law. NATO would provide a good covering organization when more > muscle is needed than just lightly armed peace keepers. That is possibly why > NATO was used with Libya. > Š> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:13 AM, GMoney <gm0n3...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Maureen <mamamaur...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> I would wager a month's salary that if you took the facemasks off >>> those causing violence, you would find that a large percentage of >>> them are plants put their solely to discredit the protesters. I know >>> this was true in the anti-war movement, the free speech movement, the >>> civil rights movement and the WTO protests in Seattle. >>> >>> >> I dunno about a large percentage....but i'm sure there were probably a > few. >> I agree with the anti-war signs and message...but they completely lose >> me when they speak of the evils of capitalism or democracy. >> >> I also agree that it's time to ask the question: Is NATO still necessary? >> Do they do more harm than good these days? >> >> >> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:351199 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
