MilitaryForums.co.uk

NATO should have wound up when the Soviet Union collapsed, it now serves almost entirely as a device for giving the US an unfair look into European foreign policy.

KlinkKlank,
I gather from your posts, that you are just a little anti-American.
I happen to think that NATO would be useless without the US (and Canada, of course!!)
Sneaky

''''''The United Nations has in its history been able to overcome many more difficult crises: the blockade of Berlin, the aggression against Egypt in 1956, the war in Korea, the war in Vietnam... it survived all of these and continued to work. ''''

The UN survived these crisis by not doing anything about them. It hasnt worked at all. Sure Korea was supposedly a UN mission but who did all the heavy lifting, the US and Britain.

In particular the UN receives the bulk of its funding and potential military clout from the americans. Considering the fact the UN without the US is completley ineffectual, why should the US cowtow to its demands. Bit like the tail wagging the dog.

Whats happened is that Europe and the US have drifted further and further away from each other. Theres no Soviet bloc-type threat any more to keep common cause with. The Yanks would say terrorism is just as big a threat but Europe by far and large doesnt agree.

The UN is imperfect but its the best we've got. Its ironic that its the US who founded it in the first place! Do we really want a world where everybody says screw the UN and does whatever they want? The world would slide into anarchy and chaos.

UNRU,

True the US did found the UN and NATO, which is not dead by the way.

Russia just today announced "new missle systems" and won't elaborate. Russia will continue to spend Bill Clinton's money on attempting to gain a military advantage. The Baltic countries just recently couldn't wait to get on board NATO and Russia was furiously opposing any new membership, some dead organisation. The threat from Russia is still there, its just dormant.

Some parts of the world did slide into chaos after the UN's founding but what prevented World War 3 was the USA and the USSR being armed to the teeth and that both sides were aware that massive retaliation was certain. Luckily the leadership of both countries had seen first hand the horrors of war, too.

The UN intervened where it could, small, regional conflicts with the exception of course, of Korea in 1950. Word is, Russia inexplicably abstained from the Security Council's vote on the matter as a protest instead of using its veto. What would have happened if Russia did use its veto?

The UN has been ignored on many occasions. Once the public forgets about Iraq as they did Vietnam, the US will again assume its role as the policeman of the world.

The UN needs to have the capability of intervening rapidly, but as long as sovereign countries with voters provide the manpower the battles will continue to be picked and chosen as politics dictate.