Iran allows protestors to storm UK Embassy

[Shroom Man 777]

NATO can't accomplish interventions and agressive conquests, big deal.

It is a big deal when the argument was "lol NATO countries don't need the US lol".

"lol NATO countries don't need the US" for what? To defend against the Soviet Union? They'd need the US for that. To invade other nations? They'd need the US for that.

To defend themselves from non-existent enemies now that the Soviet Union has evaporated? Uhh.

Is the number of weapons in Europe inadequate to defend it in case of agression?

Even in the 1960's the average NATO unit had only enough conventional weapons for around 3 or 4 weeks of fighting, and we sure haven't ramped up production since then, so I'd say yes.

Fighting with who? The Soviet Union? Some mysterious enemy from the east threatening to infringe on European lands? Who would they spend 3 to 4 weeks shooting conventional weapons at in defense in case of aggression?

[Guardsman Bass]

Not even one page full of posts, and the thread had already been derailed into Yet Another Discussion about American foreign policy and interventionism. Jesus.

Anyways, I'm not particularly surprised by this turn of events. At least from what I've been reading,

1. The guys that mobbed the embassy were probably organized by factions in the Iranian government, particularly the Basij (a militia that the government has used to suppress protests and dissidents).

2. The UK has had a "little Satan" status to the US's "Great Satan", coming out of their history of intervention in Iran before the 1960s. It makes them an easy target for the Iranian government when it wants to drum up fears of foreign intervention for political support.

[evilsoup]

If the UK doesn't like being called 'little satan' (that's not the case, we don't actually give a shit, and 'little satan' is kind of a cute nickname anyway), then maybe our government should stop with these ridiculous sanctions. Yes, the Iranian government are a bunch of shitheads; but they are shitheads who feed their population a diet of 'the West is out to get us'. Which would be a lot less effective if the West wasn't actually out to get them.

All this aggressive posturing is prolonging the existence of the Islamic Republic. Just like how the blockade around Cuba has prolonged the Castro government for far longer than it would otherwise have survived, or how the isolation of North Korea has allowed their regime to continue.

[Julhelm]

"lol NATO countries don't need the US" for what?

To serve its intended purpose. To perform needed interventions. The Balkans are proof enough.

Fighting with who? The Soviet Union? Some mysterious enemy from the east threatening to infringe on European lands? Who would they spend 3 to 4 weeks shooting conventional weapons at in defense in case of aggression?

I don't know, ask Alkaloid. All I'm saying is since we had so little conventional arms during the cold war (because WW3 was going to be nukes) we probably don't have a lot more with the last 20 years of successive defense budget cuts so yes, in the event of some mysterious enemy (read: Commies) from the east attacking Europe very much needs the raw military power of America to make up for the man gap.

[Alkaloid]

Because while NATO and WP were in an armed standoff over the Fulda gap noone wanted to needlessly escalate into total war, lol? Not out of taboo but out of not being suicidal.

So no one used nuclear weapons because no one wanted to trigger a nuclear WW3, and no one has still used them for 20 years after the USSR ceased to exist, and you think that means its not taboo. Read between the lines a little mate.

How many times has the euro nations actually gotten anything done without relying on the US bearing the brunt of the workload? They couldn't even take on Libya without needing to call the US first, lol?

Have you not read the rest of the thread? If they wanted it badly enough, and the US declined to be involved, the UK and France could still have done the intervention on their own. More time money resources convenient not necessary blah blah I have already repeatedly made these points.

So we'd all move from allying with democracy towards allying with a dictatorship. Protip: The US is still the biggest kid in the playground and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future regardless of what China-fanbois wank about.

If this great and benevolent democracy starts overturning decades of tradition and unspoken agreements that we don't do nuclear first strikes, particularly against countries that have no capacity to retaliate at all? Then probably, yes.
Also, the thing about growing powers like China is that they, well, grow. I'm not a China fanboy, they aren't my favorite country by any means and I have very serious reservations about their leadership[ but that doesn't mean I ignore the facts because they make the world different to how I would like it to be.

Dropping a small nuclear bunker buster at a remote location is the same as obliterating an entire city with hundreds of thousands of casualites? lol?

No, it's a preemptive nuclear strike on a nation that literally cannot hurt you at all. It's the equivalent of a full grown man walking up to a toddler and kicking him in the face. Unnecessary, brutal, and you are going to look at him funny from then on even if the toddler was being a massive dick.

China doesn't have anywhere near the power-projection capabilities of the US.Also there is no way in hell Europe would ally with communist China over the US unless the US somehow ceases to be a democracy, and since that was the context of his argument that means the US is still biggest and the best by default from not being a totaliarian shithole like China or Russia.

No, but they are the only people apart from the US who are making a serious run at actually acquiring those capabilities. And if the US starts using force to get things done more than they are comfortable with, they will have no choice but to pull away from the US and move toward China because there is no other option.

To serve its intended purpose. To perform needed interventions. The Balkans are proof enough.

Ummm, no. The intended purpose of NATO, as a defensive alliance, was to defend the west in case the Soviet Union decide it wanted war. And I've asked this before and I'll ask again, what, precisely, was done by the US in the Balkans that Europe couldn't achieve on its own?

don't know, ask Alkaloid. All I'm saying is since we had so little conventional arms during the cold war (because WW3 was going to be nukes) we probably don't have a lot more with the last 20 years of successive defense budget cuts so yes, in the event of some mysterious enemy (read: Commies) from the east attacking Europe very much needs the raw military power of America to make up for the man gap.

Fuck off. You're the one saying that Europe needs the might of the US military to defend itself against its many enemies, you can provide the details of who these enemies actually are and how and why they will attack. I'm the one saying they don't are are actually doing OK when it comes to their military capabilities.

[K. A. Pital]

To serve its intended purpose. To perform needed interventions. The Balkans are proof enough.

Intervening in a civil war inside a non-aligned nation is "the intended purpose of NATO"? Thanks for confirming my worst fears.

I don't know, ask Alkaloid. All I'm saying is since we had so little conventional arms during the cold war (because WW3 was going to be nukes) we probably don't have a lot more with the last 20 years of successive defense budget cuts so yes, in the event of some mysterious enemy (read: Commies) from the east attacking Europe very much needs the raw military power of America to make up for the man gap.

"Mysterios enemy"? Commies? You're stuck in the 1980s forever?

[Thanas]

"lol NATO countries don't need the US" for what?

To serve its intended purpose. To perform needed interventions. The Balkans are proof enough.

Are you freaking insane? That is not the purpose of NATO. I sure as heck know my country did not sign up for it to play colonial dick somewhere.

[Spoonist]

(Shouldn't the NATO stuff be split so that "Julholt" gets his spotlight in the HoS?)...

I'm not joining the shitfest just adding some data for perspective... (easy to find for non-revisionists of history)

First an in cheek quote...

1952
NATO have three functions: keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down.

Original charter
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-A261C672 ... _17120.htm?
4 April 1949
This was the intent:

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :

The important bit

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/off ... _23847.htm?
07 Nov. 1991– 08 Nov. 1991

Part II - Alliance Objectives And Security Functions
The purpose of the Alliance
15.NATO's essential purpose, set out in the Washington Treaty and reiterated in the London Declaration, is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. Based on common values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, the Alliance has worked since its inception for the establishment of a just and lasting peaceful order in Europe. This Alliance objective remains unchanged.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/off ... _68580.htm?
19 Nov. 2010

Core Tasks and Principles
1.NATO’s fundamental and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means. Today, the Alliance remains an essential source of stability in an unpredictable world.
2.NATO member states form a unique community of values, committed to the principles of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The Alliance is firmly committed to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and to the Washington Treaty, which affirms the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.
3.The political and military bonds between Europe and North America have been forged in NATO since the Alliance was founded in 1949; the transatlantic link remains as strong, and as important to the preservation of Euro-Atlantic peace and security, as ever. The security of NATO members on both sides of the Atlantic is indivisible. We will continue to defend it together, on the basis of solidarity, shared purpose and fair burden-sharing.
4.The modern security environment contains a broad and evolving set of challenges to the security of NATO’s territory and populations. In order to assure their security, the Alliance must and will continue fulfilling effectively three essential core tasks, all of which contribute to safeguarding Alliance members, and always in accordance with international law: a.Collective defence. NATO members will always assist each other against attack, in accordance with Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. That commitment remains firm and binding. NATO will deter and defend against any threat of aggression, and against emerging security challenges where they threaten the fundamental security of individual Allies or the Alliance as a whole.
b.Crisis management. NATO has a unique and robust set of political and military capabilities to address the full spectrum of crises – before, during and after conflicts. NATO will actively employ an appropriate mix of those political and military tools to help manage developing crises that have the potential to affect Alliance security, before they escalate into conflicts; to stop ongoing conflicts where they affect Alliance security; and to help consolidate stability in post-conflict situations where that contributes to Euro-Atlantic security.
c.Cooperative security. The Alliance is affected by, and can affect, political and security developments beyond its borders. The Alliance will engage actively to enhance international security, through partnership with relevant countries and other international organisations; by contributing actively to arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament; and by keeping the door to membership in the Alliance open to all European democracies that meet NATO’s standards.

5.NATO remains the unique and essential transatlantic forum for consultations on all matters that affect the territorial integrity, political independence and security of its members, as set out in Article 4 of the Washington Treaty. Any security issue of interest to any Ally can be brought to the NATO table, to share information, exchange views and, where appropriate, forge common approaches.
6.In order to carry out the full range of NATO missions as effectively and efficiently as possible, Allies will engage in a continuous process of reform, modernisation and transformation.

[K. A. Pital]

The one from 2010 sounds far more sinister than the previous ones from the Cold War. It really seems that NATO's "intended purpose" was simply mutual defence at first and "INTERVENTION WHERE I SEE FIT" in the later times.

[Thanas]

The one from 2010 sounds far more sinister than the previous ones from the Cold War. It really seems that NATO's "intended purpose" was simply mutual defence at first and "INTERVENTION WHERE I SEE FIT" in the later times.

No, not really. The whole convoluted language mess is the result of the USA wanting to push Nato into an auxillary role to the US and other nations (Germany) resisting such a push, this discussion being overshadowed by the increasing irrelevancy of NATO (which is why it has to be pointed out that it will remain the quintessential forum, despite nobody really using it except for the Balkan missions). Hence, we get this language mess which really says everything and nothing depending how you interpret it.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, it does sound like the typical US bullshit War on Terror type of formulations which can mean "war anywhere" and "war nowhere" at the same time. I guess that's what NATO needs the US for - to make their documents look idiotic. I have to wonder though, what would happen if the US exits Europe. I guess the US feeling of military supremacy and continuing stability might be... hurt.

[Thanas]

Exiting Europe makes little sense for the USA now, due to them having their medical center there and needing Europe as a logistics hub. It would also give the EU a reason to feel uppity, so they try not to do it unless absolutely necessary.

Plus, political considerations - Germany likes the US to spend money on bases in Germany (more money for local economies) - and the USA tries not to aggravate Merkel too much considering they need her help right now.