By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Should Nato members have to respect one anothers alliances?

 

Should Nato prevent members from attacking each others allies?

Yes 17 48.57%
 
No 13 37.14%
 
Other (Explain in thread) 5 14.29%
 
Total:35
Booh! on 13 September 2011
Kasz216 said:
Booh! said:
Lostplanet22 said:
Booh! said:
Lostplanet22 said:
Booh! said:
 

T

And ten years ago it was 1/10th of the GDP of Italy....And?

It won't last, like it didn't last for Ireland and Spain.

Yes agree, if they have to beg in Beijing for money Italy will not last long anymore.

Why not? USA begged China for years now, Italy can do the same.

The US didn't beg anyone.  China buysUS debt because unlike Italy... Chinese Debt is worth something.

It's basically the only economy and currency big enough to act as a decent reserve for the Chinese government to store their money. 

I mean the Euro?  No chance, not while every Eurostate has it's own independent fiscal policy.

Not to mention that the Chinese tie their currency to the Dollar, meaning in dollars they are far less vulerable to exchange rate changes then they would be the Euro.

That's what you think and, while I don't know what the Chinese think, I know what they are saying. They have been saying for the last months that they want to diversify their reserves and cut their dependency on the dollar [1][2][3].

Moreover the Dagong Global Credit Rating, the state-owned chinese credit rating company, rates the debt of the US as A and the debt of Italy as A- (on a scale from CCC to AAA). That's a good hint at what China wants and probably thinks.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 13 September 2011
Booh! said:
Kasz216 said:
Booh! said:
Lostplanet22 said:
Booh! said:
Lostplanet22 said:
Booh! said:
 

T

And ten years ago it was 1/10th of the GDP of Italy....And?

It won't last, like it didn't last for Ireland and Spain.

Yes agree, if they have to beg in Beijing for money Italy will not last long anymore.

Why not? USA begged China for years now, Italy can do the same.

The US didn't beg anyone.  China buysUS debt because unlike Italy... Chinese Debt is worth something.

It's basically the only economy and currency big enough to act as a decent reserve for the Chinese government to store their money. 

I mean the Euro?  No chance, not while every Eurostate has it's own independent fiscal policy.

Not to mention that the Chinese tie their currency to the Dollar, meaning in dollars they are far less vulerable to exchange rate changes then they would be the Euro.

That's what you think and, while I don't know what the Chinese think, I know what they are saying. They have been saying for the last months that they want to diversify their reserves and cut their dependency on the dollar [1][2][3].

Moreover the Dagong Global Credit Rating, the state-owned chinese credit rating company, rates the debt of the US as A and the debt of Italy as A- (on a scale from CCC to AAA). That's a good hint at what China wants and probably thinks.

They've been saying that for the last 10 years.  It doesn't change matters that there isn't anything for them to put their money in.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/14/why-china-needs-u-s/

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2009/02/why_china_needs_us_debt.html



Player1x3 on 15 September 2011
Kasz216 said:
Player1x3 said:
NATO and respect shouldnt be put into one sentence. NATO has shown before that it has no respect for international law nor UN when they bombed Yuoglsavia illegally in 1999. NATO are nothing but a bunch of air strike cowards, who are too affraid of any kind of casualties to fight on ´the ground

If it's ok for Nato to involve itself in Libya to stop potential genocide, i don't see how you can argue that it's illegal for Nato to involve themselves in Yugoslavia where there was real actual genocide.

If you don't see Libya intervention, it's odd you'd bring up Yugoslavia at all.  Libya being more recent, and only being to "prvent" genocide.  Rather then stop it.


I never said bombing Libya is ok because I am not very informed about the situation there. I know a lot more about 1999 bombing campaign tho. And why does it matter if Libya is more recent? Its not like the gap is 50 years or something, its only 12 years difference. And the fact, remains, NATO had no right to bomb civilians or any kind of target without the permission of UN. If they did, well that only shows how useless, biased and corrupted UN is.



blkfish92 on 15 September 2011

War and violence is all the world cares about, I feel like personally beating up the world's major political leaders, though I'm some what a pacifist, but they deserve it.



           

Kasz216 on 15 September 2011
Player1x3 said:
Kasz216 said:
Player1x3 said:
NATO and respect shouldnt be put into one sentence. NATO has shown before that it has no respect for international law nor UN when they bombed Yuoglsavia illegally in 1999. NATO are nothing but a bunch of air strike cowards, who are too affraid of any kind of casualties to fight on ´the ground

If it's ok for Nato to involve itself in Libya to stop potential genocide, i don't see how you can argue that it's illegal for Nato to involve themselves in Yugoslavia where there was real actual genocide.

If you don't see Libya intervention, it's odd you'd bring up Yugoslavia at all.  Libya being more recent, and only being to "prvent" genocide.  Rather then stop it.


I never said bombing Libya is ok because I am not very informed about the situation there. I know a lot more about 1999 bombing campaign tho. And why does it matter if Libya is more recent? Its not like the gap is 50 years or something, its only 12 years difference. And the fact, remains, NATO had no right to bomb civilians or any kind of target without the permission of UN. If they did, well that only shows how useless, biased and corrupted UN is.

Yes it does.

The UN isn't a world government.



Around the Network
MrBubbles on 15 September 2011

any country that has the capacity to stop genocide has the obligation to do so.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Kantor on 15 September 2011

Somewhat.

What I believe is that NATO members should be careful when choosing their alliances. Turkey and Israel should be fine (to be honest, they're just being childish; they are both free and democratic countries and hopefully this will blow over soon). However, a deal with Iran or Pakistan or something like that could be problematic, unless it's a whole-NATO deal.

In the very unlikely event that one country attacks the other, the focus should be on defending the victim, as it always is. As much pressure as possible should be put into preventing a war, but they should not pick sides.

Also, Israel ought to be a NATO member.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

thetonestarr on 15 September 2011

The general conclusion from this thread is that the general public doesn't understand complex things like international relations and stuff like that.



 SW-5120-1900-6153

Player1x3 on 16 September 2011
Kasz216 said:
Player1x3 said:
Kasz216 said:
Player1x3 said:
NATO and respect shouldnt be put into one sentence. NATO has shown before that it has no respect for international law nor UN when they bombed Yuoglsavia illegally in 1999. NATO are nothing but a bunch of air strike cowards, who are too affraid of any kind of casualties to fight on ´the ground

If it's ok for Nato to involve itself in Libya to stop potential genocide, i don't see how you can argue that it's illegal for Nato to involve themselves in Yugoslavia where there was real actual genocide.

If you don't see Libya intervention, it's odd you'd bring up Yugoslavia at all.  Libya being more recent, and only being to "prvent" genocide.  Rather then stop it.


I never said bombing Libya is ok because I am not very informed about the situation there. I know a lot more about 1999 bombing campaign tho. And why does it matter if Libya is more recent? Its not like the gap is 50 years or something, its only 12 years difference. And the fact, remains, NATO had no right to bomb civilians or any kind of target without the permission of UN. If they did, well that only shows how useless, biased and corrupted UN is.

Yes it does.

The UN isn't a world government.


In lot of ways, they actually are. if not,they should have no right to rule over other countries and put sanctions on them. see the bolded part in my last post. also, i don't know about libya, but here, NATO bombed civilians almost exclusively, after realizing they didn't bring yugoslav army any sufficient casualties.



Badassbab on 17 September 2011
Joelcool7 said:

So I have been reading a lot about Turkey's recent statements escalating tensions between Israel and the Middle East and threatening global stability. Nato then issued a statement saying the alliance could not take any action to get involved to stabilize the middle east if Turkey did do something because Turkey is an alliance member and any actions of the alliance need to be agreed upon by all of its members.

But this worries me because Israel is one of Nato's biggest allies. Most of Nato's countries have strategic military alliances with Israel and if Turkey knowingly destabilized the region and took a militarily aggressive stance against Israel they would be playing ally against ally.

I find it hard to see how this could be tolerable to Nato, a Nato member openly threatening other Nato members allies. The US and UK for example have alliances with Israel and if Israel was invaded I am pretty sure both countries would be required to respond in some fashion.

So whats Nato to do? If Turkey attacked Israel , the US and UK would be expected to come to Israel's aid against Turkey. But Turkey is a Nato ally.

So the question that needs to be answered is, should Nato members be allowed to attack each others allies? If Nato members can attack each others allies how are they supposed to respond? I mean can the US retaliate against Turkey for an attack on Israel an ally of the US? Vice versa if the US or another Nato member attacks a Turkish ally, whats Turkey supposed to do?

I think its a pretty dangerous game to start threatening each others allies. I think Nato should address this immediately as if Nato starts fighting within they will not be a global force any longer.

In my honest opinion Nato should be working big time to reign in Turkey, if that doesn't work it should move to prevent Turkey from attacking Israel any means necessary. Then if Turkey attacks its membership from Nato should be dropped. You can't have Nato allies fighting Nato members or Nato members turning on each other to protect their other allies.

So what do you think, should Nato allow its members to attack each others allies? How would you get out of such a mess and prevent in-fighting

Turkey won't attack Israel, nor are they threatening to destabilize the ME, I have absolutely no idea where you got that from. Over the last decade there has been two countries which have caused destabilization in the ME and that is Israel and the US. All Turkey asked for was an apology for killing their civilians and that they will provide escorts to protect their ships in international waters to prevent their ships being attacked again. Also they said they will take Israel to court over the Gaza blockade (that's not exatly resorting to violence).

And why equate ME stability with Global stability? China and Russia won't exactly start a fight with the US over a squabble between Israel and Turkey.

You've got to look at the political side of things and not just from a mass media perspective. Erodgan is extremely popular in the ME right now. Far more than their own leaders or any Western head of state. He's taking advantage of the Arab Spring and spreading Turkish influence (Turkey did use to rule much of the ME for hundreds of years as the Ottoman Empire). Turkey is doing quite well economically (they were never allowed into the EU...and it's serving them well right now) and one way of appealing to the Arab masses and getting substantial Turkish business into Arab nations is by picking on Israel. Turkey is a strong ally of the US and has agreed to host the ABM radar (which is blatently aimed at Russia) so US influence there is weak and US influence in the ME is on the wane as well. Erodgan is just playing his cards quite well from a Turksih pov.

But it's not all doom and gloom for Israeli/Turkish relationships. Turkey wants Israeli military tech. All Israel has to do is vote the hawkish and franky inept Netanyahu out of office, vote for a more  pragmatic PM and it will go back to the way things used to be.

Question:- If Israel is attacked why do you think the UK will get involved militarily? There are no defense treaties along those lines at all. And where did you get your information about defense alliances between most Nato members and Israel? I don't think so. The US might unilaterally decide to defend Israel if it's going to lose a war but there are no treaties.