Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Gates blasts nato.....

  1. #1
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    May 2010
    Posts
    9,658
    Thanks
    9

    Gates blasts nato.....

    Secretary Gates Blasts NATO, QUESTIONS FUTURE of ALLIANCE.....

    Gates blasts NATO, questions future of alliance - Yahoo! News

    By ROBERT BURNS, AP National Security Writer Robert Burns, Ap National Security Writer Fri Jun 10, 5:30 am ET
    BRUSSELS America's military alliance with Europe the cornerstone of U.S. security policy for six decades faces a "dim, if not dismal" future, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday in a blunt valedictory address.
    In his final policy speech as Pentagon chief, Gates questioned the viability of NATO, saying its members' penny-pinching and lack of political will could hasten the end of U.S. support. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed in 1949 as a U.S.-led bulwark against Soviet aggression, but in the post-Cold War era it has struggled to find a purpose.

    "Future U.S. political leaders - those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me - may not consider the return on America's investment in NATO worth the cost," he told a European think tank on the final day of an 11-day overseas journey.

    Even so, Gates' assessment Friday that NATO is falling down on its obligations and foisting too much of the hard work on the U.S. was unusually harsh and unvarnished. He said both of NATO's main military operations now Afghanistan and Libya point up weaknesses and failures within the alliance.

    "The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress and in the American body politic writ large to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense," he said.

    Without naming names, he blasted allies who are "willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets."

    The U.S. has tens of thousands of troops based in Europe, not to stand guard against invasion but to train with European forces and promote what for decades has been lacking: the ability of the Europeans to go to war alongside the U.S. in a coherent way.

    "Despite more than 2 million troops in uniform, not counting the U.S. military, NATO has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a deployment of 25,000 to 45,000 troops, not just in boots on the ground, but in crucial support assets such as helicopters, transport aircraft, maintenance, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and much more," Gates said.

    But reluctance of some European nations to expand defense budgets and take on direct combat has created what amounts to a two-tier alliance: the U.S. military at one level and the rest of NATO on a lower, almost irrelevant plane.
    Gates said this could spell the demise of NATO.

    ALRIGHT GATES.....that a way. Give them Hell. Time for NATO to hear it nice and loud and Apply it to the UN.

    IN the AP Gates gives some interesting statistics on Libya. But he is really laying into them and Especially about Afghanistan. He hits them hard about not putting out any money for their own defense budgets, and he didnt Specify names but he did mention the EU.

    The one thing that bothers me is when Gates said this and I quote: "
    He said the "vast majority" of the 30,000 extra troops Obama sent to Afghanistan last year will remain through the summer fighting season. He was not more specific." End Quote.

    Does this tell anybody all about pulling out our Troopers by July????? I mean it is par for the course in the sand-trap as well as on the fairway. The American People WERE LIED to Once Again.....Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    May 2011
    Posts
    6,188
    Thanks
    0

    From
    New Jersey, USA
    I think that NATO is a Cold War relic. If Europe (or shall I say the European states to make our Euro[pean members happy?) desires to be relevant then Europeans need to reinvigorate their militaries.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    20,209
    Thanks
    10

    Quote Originally Posted by Midwest Media Critics View Post
    Secretary Gates Blasts NATO, QUESTIONS FUTURE of ALLIANCE.....

    Gates blasts NATO, questions future of alliance - Yahoo! News

    By ROBERT BURNS, AP National Security Writer Robert Burns, Ap National Security Writer – Fri Jun 10, 5:30 am ET
    BRUSSELS – America's military alliance with Europe — the cornerstone of U.S. security policy for six decades — faces a "dim, if not dismal" future, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday in a blunt valedictory address.
    In his final policy speech as Pentagon chief, Gates questioned the viability of NATO, saying its members' penny-pinching and lack of political will could hasten the end of U.S. support. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed in 1949 as a U.S.-led bulwark against Soviet aggression, but in the post-Cold War era it has struggled to find a purpose.

    "Future U.S. political leaders - those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me - may not consider the return on America's investment in NATO worth the cost," he told a European think tank on the final day of an 11-day overseas journey.

    Even so, Gates' assessment Friday that NATO is falling down on its obligations and foisting too much of the hard work on the U.S. was unusually harsh and unvarnished. He said both of NATO's main military operations now — Afghanistan and Libya — point up weaknesses and failures within the alliance.

    "The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress — and in the American body politic writ large — to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense," he said.

    Without naming names, he blasted allies who are "willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets."

    The U.S. has tens of thousands of troops based in Europe, not to stand guard against invasion but to train with European forces and promote what for decades has been lacking: the ability of the Europeans to go to war alongside the U.S. in a coherent way.

    "Despite more than 2 million troops in uniform, not counting the U.S. military, NATO has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a deployment of 25,000 to 45,000 troops, not just in boots on the ground, but in crucial support assets such as helicopters, transport aircraft, maintenance, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and much more," Gates said.

    But reluctance of some European nations to expand defense budgets and take on direct combat has created what amounts to a two-tier alliance: the U.S. military at one level and the rest of NATO on a lower, almost irrelevant plane.
    Gates said this could spell the demise of NATO.

    ALRIGHT GATES.....that a way. Give them Hell. Time for NATO to hear it nice and loud and Apply it to the UN.

    IN the AP Gates gives some interesting statistics on Libya. But he is really laying into them and Especially about Afghanistan. He hits them hard about not putting out any money for their own defense budgets, and he didnt Specify names but he did mention the EU.

    The one thing that bothers me is when Gates said this and I quote: "
    He said the "vast majority" of the 30,000 extra troops Obama sent to Afghanistan last year will remain through the summer fighting season. He was not more specific." End Quote.

    Does this tell anybody all about pulling out our Troopers by July????? I mean it is par for the course in the sand-trap as well as on the fairway. The American People WERE LIED to Once Again.....Thoughts?

    No, Obama didn't lie. History has shown that it is normal for a number of troops to remain in a previously occupied country. The Korean war ended in 1953 but there were still 50,000 US troops there in 1961.

  4. #4
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    May 2010
    Posts
    9,658
    Thanks
    9

    Quote Originally Posted by Gypsy View Post
    No, Obama didn't lie. History has shown that it is normal for a number of troops to remain in a previously occupied country. The Korean war ended in 1953 but there were still 50,000 US troops there in 1961.
    What I meant by that to clarify Gyps was that he said the vast majority of the EXTRA 30,000 will remain and if that is the case. Then there will hardly be any draw-down, as in the Extra 30,000 was not part of what we originally sent. To me, one cannot draw-down if one is not taking from the more part of something extra.

    But I do agree with you about it on not being uncommon for us to keep troops in another country. Even tho China never occupied all of Korea during that time.

    Thanks for responding.....btw why does the Heading keep going back to small case letters When I capitalized even NATO went small case.
    Last edited by Midwest Media Critic; 10th June 2011 at 07:02 AM.

  5. #5
    AWESOME LIMIT EXCEEDED. (R)IGHTeous 1's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,685
    Thanks
    2

    From
    southeast Pennsylvania
    NATO does need to step it up. Libya is a start......

  6. #6
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    76,560
    Thanks
    5476

    From
    Richmond Va
    Sounds like NATO may be starting to realize who the real aggressors are on the planet.

  7. #7
    Drone Killer Liberal Doses's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    4,021
    Thanks
    369

    From
    Ever changing
    Quote Originally Posted by Gypsy View Post
    No, Obama didn't lie. History has shown that it is normal for a number of troops to remain in a previously occupied country. The Korean war ended in 1953 but there were still 50,000 US troops there in 1961.
    Neither did Bush. But tell me. Where are the anti-war groups now? Why are the demands that were placed on Bush simply discarded under Obomber?

  8. #8
    AWESOME LIMIT EXCEEDED. (R)IGHTeous 1's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,685
    Thanks
    2

    From
    southeast Pennsylvania
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberal Doses View Post
    Neither did Bush. But tell me. Where are the anti-war groups now? Why are the demands that were placed on Bush simply discarded under Obomber?
    Epic hypocrisy is part of the left's life blood man.

  9. #9
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    May 2010
    Posts
    9,658
    Thanks
    9

    I do like the tone that Gates set with them. AT least we have one that is into their shit. Especially showing that EU countries still did not put our for their defense budgets. What also does this say. That they were not including defense spending as any mainstay of their budget.

    Then his remarks on libya pointing out that already the UN Coalition is running our munitions, as well as helicopters and transport, plus logistics.

  10. #10
    Veteran Member Kropotkin's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    7,536
    Thanks
    739

    From
    New York
    Quote Originally Posted by Gypsy View Post
    No, Obama didn't lie. History has shown that it is normal for a number of troops to remain in a previously occupied country. The Korean war ended in 1953 but there were still 50,000 US troops there in 1961.
    Well yes, empires tend to leave troops occupying their conquered territories.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberal Doses View Post
    Neither did Bush. But tell me. Where are the anti-war groups now? Why are the demands that were placed on Bush simply discarded under Obomber?
    Bush didn't lie? This is seriously your argument?

    Unless you neocons, we value honesty regardless of whether its a Republican or a Democrat in the White House.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. At least 7 blasts rip through Baghdad, killing 49 (AP)
    By Devil505 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 6th April 2010, 12:19 PM
  2. Gore blasts Bush Sr.
    By justoneman in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12th June 2007, 12:26 PM
  3. Bush Blasts Congress, and he's right.
    By Sparta in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 28th March 2007, 08:08 PM
  4. Olberman Blasts Rumsfeld
    By Fishmint in forum Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2nd September 2006, 04:20 PM
  5. At least 23 dead in Egypt blasts
    By News Poster in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 24th April 2006, 10:02 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed