Quantcast

US, NATO preparing for new cold war.

Fariborz-Zak 2012/05/07 05:36:07
You!
Add Photos & Videos
PRESSTV.com:A political analyst says the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are “expansionist and aggressive” forces that seek to continue the Cold War.


“The ever more extensive breakup of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and the former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia, correlated with - and more than correlated with - the development of NATO as an expansionist, aggressive and bellicose regional and global military force,” Rick Rozoff wrote on the Global Research website.

He said the 21 nations and five smaller breakaway states (including Kosovo), where earlier there had been only two, have created that many more opportunities for the West to “expand southward and eastward from Cold War-era NATO territory.”

Every one of the 21 former Soviet and Yugoslav federal republics is now either a full member of NATO or engaged in a partnership program. Thirteen of them have troops serving under NATO command in Afghanistan.
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • cmdrbnd007 2012/05/07 13:12:38
    disagree
    cmdrbnd007
    +3
    Ok the Soviet Union fell 21 years ago and I see no expansion. This guy seems to be an idiot. So they joined NATO what would you do if you had been them. It provides protection.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • William Zimmerman 2012/05/10 19:07:59
    disagree
    William Zimmerman
    Cold War is an indicator that weapon build up would be occurring. I don't think this will happen. One reason is that neither the Russian Republic or the West can really afford a Weapons race. Economics will force both sides to use diplomacy to settle the issue. One thing I do question is "How can the Russians be almost always on the wrong side of an issue? You would think that at least occasionally they would take the right side."
  • Lord Claremorris 2012/05/09 11:30:16
    agree
    Lord Claremorris
    +1
    Lord Hastings Ismay summed up NATO thus; "It's purpose is to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." The Russians are no longer any threat to Europe, the American soldiers remain in Europe, unnecessarily, and Germany is not about to throw the dice for a round three. The existence of NATO is therefore anachronistic and unnecessary.
  • Wolf97 Lord Cl... 2012/05/10 22:02:37 (edited)
    Wolf97
    I dont understand how that answered the question.
  • Lord Cl... Wolf97 2012/05/11 02:59:52
    Lord Claremorris
    It really didn't. I was saying NATO doesn't need to be around at all anymore, and the implication was that it has changed from a defensive to an aggressive organisation. NATO seeks to bring more members in, and now that its practically incapable of being militarily challenged, it can do whatever it wishes. There can't really be a Cold War, because no nation or coalition of nations currently in existence can hope to challenge NATO.
  • Wolf97 Lord Cl... 2012/05/11 21:29:23
    Wolf97
    +1
    I agree, to a point. I do not think that getting rid of NATO is a good idea, for anyone. The European Union is currently in the balance, it may disbanned. The EU and NATO are two major things that keep Europeans from fighting with each other. Which, if you look at the last thousand years, doesn't end well. NATO should be scaled back so it is not an agressor but should remain united. I know you didn't say anything about it being disbanded but I felt thats what you were getting at.
  • Lord Cl... Wolf97 2012/05/12 02:25:47 (edited)
    Lord Claremorris
    It was. And I tend to disagree. NATO is not doing anything to prevent Europeans from fighting. Economically it's in Europe's interest to not fight, and many European nations (like Germany) are so demilitarised that they have nothing with which to fight. You of course have a point that any conflict breaking out in Europe would not be a good thing, but I think the reason they're not fighting is primarily because they have no need to, and because the United States is still very much a factor in European diplomacy. Any nation seeking to dominate the European Continent will not be opposed by only Britain this time, but by Britain and America in combination. NATO, conversely, is dragging Europe into wars it has no interest in. So indeed, I agree that it should be at least scaled back, but it may or may not be disbanded. I'm not advocating a total elimination of it, but I don't think the consequences of that happening would be too detrimental. With or without NATO, no single European Power can take the entire Continent without subjugating Britain, and with the US behind Britain, the two of them have vastly superior naval power to even all the European Powers combined, so Britain is immune to invasion by conventional means. It will just play out like it always has, France, or Spain, o...
    It was. And I tend to disagree. NATO is not doing anything to prevent Europeans from fighting. Economically it's in Europe's interest to not fight, and many European nations (like Germany) are so demilitarised that they have nothing with which to fight. You of course have a point that any conflict breaking out in Europe would not be a good thing, but I think the reason they're not fighting is primarily because they have no need to, and because the United States is still very much a factor in European diplomacy. Any nation seeking to dominate the European Continent will not be opposed by only Britain this time, but by Britain and America in combination. NATO, conversely, is dragging Europe into wars it has no interest in. So indeed, I agree that it should be at least scaled back, but it may or may not be disbanded. I'm not advocating a total elimination of it, but I don't think the consequences of that happening would be too detrimental. With or without NATO, no single European Power can take the entire Continent without subjugating Britain, and with the US behind Britain, the two of them have vastly superior naval power to even all the European Powers combined, so Britain is immune to invasion by conventional means. It will just play out like it always has, France, or Spain, or Germany, controlling the whole of Europe while Britain alone defies them which leads to their being quarantined on the Continent (since they can't expand by sea), which in desperation throws them at Russia, where they'll waste away in the frozen steppes.
    (more)
  • Wolf97 Lord Cl... 2012/05/12 15:48:11
    Wolf97
    I do see your point on how it does drag Europe into war. Your correct on that. I defer in that it should not be eliminated. I have several reasons for this. One, which I have already mentioned, is that if the EU falls Nato might be the only thing that keeps them together. Two, even if Nato fell apart all of the members would still end up fighting the same wars. They think alike, they are allies. Three, although it may not feel like it, I believe Nato (and nukes) is one of the things that has brought the number of wars down in the world. The number of wars is decreasing because the Europeans don't fight eachother and anyone who wants to take a swing at say, Poland, would not be taking a swing at Poland, it would be taking a swing at Europe and the US and Canada.
  • Lord Cl... Wolf97 2012/05/13 04:25:22
    Lord Claremorris
    But that would be the case with or without NATO. If somebody attacked Poland, they'd immediately find the United Kingdom and France ranged against them, and the United States backing them up. It simply isn't worth it for Germany or Russia to fight the three strongest Western Powers in combination for the sake of Poland. I don't think the number of wars is decreasing, but I think their savagery is decreasing. The Europeans have the means to kill each other on a massive scale, the Africans and Asians are still fighting as much as they were before, but they lack the sheer firepower the Europeans have. So the Africans can fight 100 wars, but if only 1 war broke out in Europe, it would be worse than those 100 wars combined.
  • Wolf97 Lord Cl... 2012/05/13 17:03:38
    Wolf97
    +1
    I see what you mean but, lets say Lybia (just a random country I picked) were to decide it wanted to take a swing at Italy. They would know they would be fighting all of Europe but without NATO they would not be able to fight as a coalition as well. NATO provides training for working with foriegners, standard bullet sizes and codes. Without NATO they would still have drills yes but it would only between 2 or 3 countries at a time. It doesnt help as much if the Brits and the Portugese fight well together but the Greeks and Germans cant seem to work it out. Plus, it takes a lot of tension out of Europe. The Greeks and the Germans are not too fond of eachother right now but war is not even in their vocabulary. Statics do show that the number of inter-state armed conflicts have gone down since World War Two and I think NATO plays a part in that.
  • mountainman 2012/05/08 12:46:20
    disagree
    mountainman
    NATO is getting ready for Martial Law in the United States, for when Obama has completed spending us into bankruptcy.
  • rootbeer29 2012/05/08 06:19:59
    maybe
    rootbeer29
    War is peace
  • Mike 2012/05/08 03:45:02
    agree
    Mike
    but it will be against the citizens of the world , not a gov't
  • Paul 2012/05/07 20:20:37
    maybe
    Paul
    +1
    It all plays into new world order scenary if you want to look at it that way. Iv'e read in another article it is China that we're gearing up to have cold war with, they are much bigger threat than Russia at this time

    Brewing Conflict with China
    http://personalliberty.com/20...
  • mountai... Paul 2012/05/10 15:50:16
    mountainman
    I don't think that China is on the cold war list just because so many companies from the United States have relocated there during the "Most Favored Nation" of the 1980's. No, the United States has too much at stake in our financial system to go to ANY kind of war against Chine.
  • BRIDGET 2012/05/07 18:38:20
    agree
    BRIDGET
    IT MAY NOT REMAIN SO "COLD"-TO:NAM ERA VET #1 GOD BLESS-YOU BLOCKED ME BECAUSE YOU MISUNDERSTAND THAT I SIGN ALL MY EMAILS TO EVERYONE,MALE AND FEMALE WITH XOXO-NOTHING PERSONAL!!! SHEESH!
  • jumpboo... BRIDGET 2012/05/08 02:54:13
    jumpboots 187th PIR
    Blocked for that..Good grief...
  • nightcrawler2005 2012/05/07 16:08:09
    maybe
    nightcrawler2005
    Is NATO preparing for a new cold war? NATO has to prepare for what ever comes up whether its a cold war, a new enemy, terrorism or any other type of threat to the member countries. So yes they are preparing for a cold war and every other scenario possible.

    Is NATO expansionist? What a load of left wing crap. Most of the new members were all either part of the old Soviet Union or part of the Warsaw Pact. They now have their freedom and want to make bloody sure the Russians won't take them over again. To do so they joined NATO. Also if the want to join the European Union one of the prerequisites is that they are members of NATO.

    Is NATO aggressive on its membership. NO in fact they have been trying to slow down some countries trying to get into NATO like the Ukraine and Georgia because they don't want the Russians to start thinking their being surrounded by NATO. But like other parts of the ex-Soviet Union they are worried about the Russians taking them over again.

    NATO troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere. It seems NATO has agreed to be more or less the military force for the UN. Since the UN is totally useless and couldn't run an outhouse UN troops are only good for peace keeping. If they need actual combat troops fighting then they have to ask NATO to do the job.
  • James Rowntree 2012/05/07 15:09:03
    disagree
    James Rowntree
    +1
    Why is America disarming? Funny way to prepare for a new cold war... unless you are planning to help the enemy win it! As for 'expansionist and aggressive' consider China.
    Since the Communists took over in 1949, China has expanded aggressively... taking half of what was Turkestan, non-Chinese territory (the Soviet Union grabbed the rest)...
    Then they invaded and occupied Tibet. Border wars with India and Vietnam, border skirmishes with Russia... Threats to invade democratic and free Taiwan. Massive expansion of the Chinese navy, to project power and enforce Chinese claims to disputed islands also claimed by the Philippines. Yes, if you want an expansionist and aggressive power, look at China, not America. Consider Iran too... the world's leading exporter of terrorism and violent Islamic revolution. Consider too, North Korea... and wonder why this small country ruled by loons letmillions of their people starve while they put all their efforts into acquiring nuclear weapons and long range missiles... and export this to unstable anti-Western states. So why is Obama disarming America?
  • LADY LI... James R... 2012/05/07 15:23:36
    LADY LIBERTY SILLY WORDSMITH
    TO HELP HIS MUSLIM BROTHERS AS HE DID IN EGYPT!
  • James R... LADY LI... 2012/05/07 16:54:34 (edited)
    James Rowntree
    True... but it goes a lot further than that. Obama wants to destroy America as an independent country and merge America into a global One World Government,
    or New World Order, call it what you like... with the UN running our lives.
    Hussein Obama is... a clear and present danger to the existence of America.
  • Paul James R... 2012/05/07 22:08:26
    Paul
    If your buying into NWO, whether we have Obama or Romney will not matter so much. I think more so, now more than ever. our Presidents are chosen for us in reguards to who will support the evolution toward globalization of the world. NWO consiracy has evolved into realistic thought of how the world is forming where governments can't seperate themselves from the rest of the major powers without considerable damge to a countries economy and safety.
    You look at who Romney is, hardly the pure conservative you would think the right would have chosen. If anything, Romney is going to go with the Rothschilds that want globalization to accumulate all the wealth of the world easier than different countries with different ideas about government and economy
    . If you think about that, it could be scarier than some ideas about the working class of our country having more rights with a few ideas that seem socialist to the conservatives of today in the US. What the hell, blame Obama if you like, vote for Romney, and in four years we can all still be complaining about the cost of living rising, working for low wage, the rich accumulating more wealth, gas prices continuing to be higher, and the threat of NWO bigger than ever.
    Even if we could get someone like Ron PAul as President, his actions will still be limited by the same powers that dictate what is going to happen no matter who holds office.
  • James R... Paul 2012/05/08 18:02:21
    James Rowntree
    +1
    I guess you could sum up your post as... whoever wins in November we are headed over the cliff anyway... which is true. Most people have no idea how bad things are going to get...
  • Paul James R... 2012/05/11 12:45:20
    Paul
    yea, but what the hell, I was on a roll, I knew what I meant, whether I got it across or not. I guess I like to go through it all and maybe I can find something that might indicate we're not doomed no matter what we do.
  • Paul LADY LI... 2012/05/07 22:14:02
    Paul
    save the bullcrap for your fiction novels. Anything President Obama does has nothing to do with any alliance with any "Muslim brothers" aside from the same treaties and allies we've had long before Obama took office.
  • CassieRosaVioletta 2012/05/07 14:46:54
    agree
    CassieRosaVioletta
    I don't think the Cold War ever really ended...here we have the US warring with the Middle East, and Russia providing the Middle East with weapons. It's the Korea situation all over again..
  • Alien Ramone 2012/05/07 13:31:57
    agree
    Alien Ramone
    Back in the 1960s General Lemnitzer as the Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff tried to get the U.S. into a war with Cuba, but his plan for false flag attacks on Miami, Washington D.C., and U.S. military interests was rejected by President Kennedy. According to Wikipedia:
    "Following presentation of the Northwoods plan, Kennedy removed Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, although he became Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in January 1963."

    NATO is part of the destabilization, globalization, and centralized control that is in the works now.
  • cmdrbnd007 2012/05/07 13:12:38
    disagree
    cmdrbnd007
    +3
    Ok the Soviet Union fell 21 years ago and I see no expansion. This guy seems to be an idiot. So they joined NATO what would you do if you had been them. It provides protection.
  • Paul cmdrbnd007 2012/05/07 22:20:11
    Paul
    +2
    Yes it does, NATO is very important to protect our much needed allies of Europe to protect the free world as we know it.
  • Jimbo 2012/05/07 12:56:37
    disagree
    Jimbo
    +1
    A Russian general has threatened Nuclear war already, while the US is pulling troops out of Europe. SO who's threatening war??
  • LADY LIBERTY SILLY WORDSMITH 2012/05/07 12:31:30 (edited)
    maybe
    LADY LIBERTY SILLY WORDSMITH
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: REPUBLICANS AREN'T SERVING THE USARMED-

    FORCES. THE GREAT MEN & WOMEN WHO HAVE SERVE D THEIR TIME ARE

    99.99% (For/LOL; don't go CRAZY, creating your RECORD,)*****REPUBLICANS!


    **OUR SON IS AN IRAQ VET**HIS MOM WAS AN ARMY/RANGER SOCIAL WORKER,

    WHO ESCAPED VIET-CONG COMING TO THE USA WITH 25 ORPHANS & HER

    TWO SONS ON ONE OF THE LAST BABY-LIFT-FLIGHTS.

    SHE IS NO-JANE-HANOI!
  • Angus LADY LI... 2012/05/07 12:47:29
    Angus
    +1
    With all due respect, it's the Obama Administration that has proposed severe cuts the last time I checked. I suggest you do better than just writing everything in capital letters and instead provide some actual backup.
  • LADY LI... Angus 2012/05/07 14:22:11
    LADY LIBERTY SILLY WORDSMITH
    +1
    1) WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I WISH TO CLARIFY: I DIDN'T SHOUT BY USING

    CAPS LOCK: I'M LEGALLY BLIND: ZOOM-3X. SOMETIMES, I CAN SEE BETTER

    THAN OTHER TIME/ HANDS CRIPPLED BY AGENT ORANGE DIOXIN, I HAVE

    TWO DIGITS CAN TYPE.
  • Angus LADY LI... 2012/05/07 17:40:29
    Angus
    Didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification.
  • LADY LI... Angus 2012/05/07 14:49:47
    LADY LIBERTY SILLY WORDSMITH
    2) 99.99% (For/LOL [...]) IT'S FOR LAUGH, ONLY!!! DID I MISLEAD ANYONE???

    THANKS TO YOUR SUGGESTIONS, WELL TAKEN. GOOD DAY!
  • EdVenture Angus 2012/05/07 15:26:16
    EdVenture
    With two wars that have cost trillions ending why wouldn't you? I know why the reptiles wouldn't. And its not for security.
  • Angus EdVenture 2012/05/07 17:40:01
    Angus
    So you roll over to our enemies instead?
  • EdVenture Angus 2012/05/07 18:53:57
    EdVenture
    I'm not sure i understand what u mean, why continue to fund a war that's ended? Or for that matter, if in the military budjet there is waste it needs to be cut.
  • Angus EdVenture 2012/05/08 00:54:33
    Angus
    +1
    The war has not ended. Instead it is moving towards different shores.
  • Alfred 2012/05/07 12:11:24
    disagree
    Alfred
    +2
    The Globalists are beyond this step, Russian and Chinese troops will be training on US soil (and have been), to fold us into the One World Order via Agenda 21, Codex Alimentarius, and other various schemes to destroy what's left of our economy and sovereingty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?... this has been planned for decades; no surprise here.
  • LADY LI... Alfred 2012/05/07 12:33:26
    LADY LIBERTY SILLY WORDSMITH
    I LOVE A PERSON WHO TELLS THE TRUTH!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/24 20:31:22

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals