|
|
 | | Re: Value of NATO?
|
| (...) Precisely. For the time being, there is no need for an European Army - there are no threats! Although I argue there is a need to start testing its future appearance, out of precaution alone; after all, the best way to avoid wars is still not (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Value of NATO?
|
| (...) If that attack is in self-defence as result of illegal attacks launched from US bases inside Turkey, then I don't see why they should? If the attack is an unprovoked attack by Iraq, then a NATO level response is justified. I expect the chances (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Value of NATO?
|
| (...) Very few countries could seriously threaten the EU - of those that could, very few would. I'd rather my tax was spent on education. The EU and USA are aligned pretty well, so I see not need to compete with them in terms of military spending… (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Value of NATO?
|
| (...) My reading is that France and Germany (1) are delaying the plan to assist Turkey in the hope the Tukish government becomes frightened of entering war - thus forcing a review of US plans. Besides, given that Turkey does not want to upset the EU (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Value of NATO?
|
| (...) I think this has more to do with politics than military necessity. It seems more a signal that NATO is wary of US intentions than anything - note that the foot-draggers are saying that the planning may be necessary eventually. The US is trying (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
