General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAre you generally in favor of the US being a member of NATO?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NATO
6 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes, I am generally in favor of the US being a member of NATO. | |
4 (67%) |
|
No, I am generally opposed to the US being a member of NATO. | |
2 (33%) |
|
1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
dembotoz
(16,832 posts)we sorta have to
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)my question is more about whether you are happy, on balance, that this treaty exists. I am not sure that a majority of DUers would be in favor of the military support that NATO would require that we provide to Estonia, for example, in the event of that country being attacked.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)There's no end to the laughs we get here on DU, is there.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)until I clicked on the link that you provided.
Are you suggesting that those DUers who voted "No" are Ron Paul fans? I don't think they are.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Opposition to NATO is a libertarian position and has no place on the left.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)NATO is an organization built for war. Lots of us on the left oppose NATO for the same reason we oppose ANY American military adventurism. It's a tool designed for the sole purpose of killing people (though, allegedly, NATO killing people is OK, so long as it's the OTHER GUY it's killing, and not us).
I oppose NATO for the exact same reasons that I oppose all military alliances, and most military spending. It represents an agreement to kill people, and is an investment in making sure we can do so efficiently.
That's about as "left" as you can get. To even suggest that the anti-war left isn't really "left" is nothing but centrist bullshit.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I am in favor of NATO. I believe while it may be a PitA sometimes and require commitments of us that are unappealing, it is a force for global security and peace.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Suppose Russia invades Lithuania, are you willing to go to nuclear war over that? Our obligation under NATO requires us to go to war in such a situation.
thucythucy
(8,086 posts)much as Putin might like to.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)thucythucy
(8,086 posts)But then the whole point of NATO, as I understand the history, was to deter aggression and thus minimize the chances of a wide scale European war--nuclear or otherwise, happening. It was called "collective security" and had it been tried in, say, 1938, Europe and the world might have been spared some misery.
NATO was organized in 1949, and since then not a single NATO nation, as far as I know, has been invaded by either the Soviet Union or the Russian Federation.
Nations not NATO members, or not NATO members at the time--Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the DDR, Georgia, Ukraine--not so much.
Which may be one reason why Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, were so eager to join.
You disagree?