PDA

View Full Version : Guiliani suggest expanding NATO



Fiber
09-20-2007, 02:29 AM
Giuliani says NATO should admit Israel, Japan

LONDON (*******) - Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani urged NATO to admit Australia, India, Israel, Japan and Singapore on Wednesday as part of proposals to combat Islamic extremism.
ADVERTISEMENT

Speaking to a U.S.-British conservative group in London, Giuliani said Britain and the United States must stand side-by-side in tackling Islamic terrorism.

"This is no time for defeatism and appeasement," he said.

He also ruled out a "pre-determined timetable" for a U.S. pullout from Iraq and said British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was right to reject such a timetable for British forces.

Victory there should depend on reaching a point at which Iraq could be maintained as a U.S. ally "in the terrorist war against us," said Giuliani, Republican frontrunner in the race to succeed George W. Bush in the November 2008 election.

Iraq was part of a much larger war, Giuliani said, urging Washington and London not to be distracted from Afghanistan, where he called for a redoubling of efforts.

Among his proposals for the United States and Britain to take the lead in "winning this war," Giuliani urged the two countries to push for an expansion of NATO into a global body.

"We should open the organization's membership to any willing state that meets basic standards of good governance, military readiness (and) global responsibility, regardless of location," he said.

"I think we should consider countries such as Australia, Singapore, India, Israel, Japan ... and there are probably a whole group of others that we could put on that list," he said.

The defense alliance has expanded in recent years but its current membership is 26 countries in North America and Europe.

CALL FOR EXPANDED U.S. MILITARY

Facing increasing war-weariness in the United States, Bush last week ordered gradual troop reductions in Iraq but defied calls for a dramatic change of course.

Giuliani, giving the first "Margaret Thatcher Atlantic Bridge" lecture to an audience that included the former British prime minister, called for an expansion of the U.S. military, saying it had cut back too much after the Cold War.

"We need to add at least 10 new combat brigades, that's probably just the beginning," Giuliani said, adding the United States faced not only Islamic terrorism, but also had to consider the possibility of a "large war with a nation state."

Speaking earlier, Giuliani said the United States should spell out clearly to Iran that it would not allow Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons. Giuliani said he had discussed Iran with Brown, his predecessor Tony Blair and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in the past few days.

The West suspects Iran is developing atomic weapons but Tehran says its nuclear program is aimed solely at generating electric power.

"The policy of the United States of America should be very, very clear: we will use any option we believe is in our best interest to stop them from being a nuclear power," Giuliani said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070919/pl_nm/iran_giuliani_dc_3

Fiber
09-20-2007, 02:35 AM
Why should NATO be expanded to fight the GWOT? Should you expand a permanent alliance to accommodate a temporary situation? Or is the situation we are in, with the GWOT, a permanent situation?

How would, US ally, Pakistan feel about India becoming a NATO member? Israel is a hot potato as well...

LRPV
09-20-2007, 02:38 AM
Perhaps this guy is just seeking to raise his profile. He's too junior to be consulting with the countries mentioned on the issue of NATO membership.

Jaeger07
09-20-2007, 08:51 AM
Perhaps this guy is just seeking to raise his profile. He's too junior to be consulting with the countries mentioned on the issue of NATO membership.

Current politics in Japan could be positive of a NATO membership IMHO.
The others i dont know.

Always good to have more allies IMO. As long as they are trustworthy ofc.

seer
09-20-2007, 10:09 AM
He is out of his mind. That would be the end of NATO.

Thor
09-20-2007, 10:22 AM
NATO must keep focusing on the transatlantic link.


The Bush administration had a better proposal ahead of the NATO summit in Riga (NATO Global Partnership Programme).

Freedom-Fries
09-20-2007, 02:34 PM
Giuliani has let that Churchill analogy go to his head

gaijinsamurai
09-20-2007, 04:03 PM
Agreed.
When it comes to foreign policy, he's showing the worst judgement of all the GOP pack. Except that guy who wants to bomb Mecca.

TR1
09-20-2007, 04:04 PM
Since when does India want to be part of NATO....

Ordie
09-20-2007, 04:14 PM
Expanding collective defense agreements on the NATO model had been done before. But ultimately failed because of lack of political stability and military will.

Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) was set up as an organization to deter Communist exapnsion. Unlike NATO, there was no joint command and member states were not obligated to provide aid to each other. It eventually disolved in 1977 after the collapse of the Republic of Vietnam.

Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) was also set up as a collective defense organization in the Middle East to deter Communist expansion. CENTO included Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, UK and USA. Much of its emphasis was to create a buffer between the Soviet Union and the Arabian Peninsula.
It's weakness and eventual downfall was internal. The overthrow of the Hashmite Iraqi monarchs, Turkey's invasion of Cyprus, Pakistan's wars with India and the overthrow of the Shah of Iran disolved CENTO.

Australia, New Zealand, and United States Treaty (ANZUS)
A mutual military aid treaty only to be marginalized by New Zealand's policy of banning nuclear warships and weapons.

NATO strength is not so much on weapons, but the political will to cede military control to a central command and to act on the premise of "an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all NATO members".

If anything, I would welcome Mexico's membership into NATO.

Dragunov
09-20-2007, 04:32 PM
And what about Chavez's South American Military Alliance?

Alliances are worthless. Every country seeks its own interests.

Ordie
09-20-2007, 04:56 PM
And what about Chavez's South American Military Alliance?

Alliances are worthless. Every country seeks its own interests.

Alliances are treaties between nations for thier advantage. In many cases, for small countries, an alliance may be viewed as an insurance policy.

The real test of a treaty is whether or not an alliance has the political and military will to comply.

South American nations, regardless of language and cultural similarities, have a strong identity towards the Patria (Fatherland) rather than the region. Moreover, there are many historical animosities between the countries to overcome. Some of them still instigated by thier own governments. For example: Bolivia's claims to the Pacific Coast of Chile.

Overall Latin America is blessed and cursed by its geography. In once sence its far away both physically and socially from most trouble spots of the world. On the other it is too close to the most powerful country in the world. Yet, for the last 25 years, the US is aloof in Latin American affairs.

How does one define defense for Latin America? and defend it from whom?

Latin American Defense Alliance as proposed by Chavez, given the history of the region, will only be strong as it weakest link.

Asheren
09-20-2007, 08:56 PM
All kinds of international greements are baset on mutual trust and will to comply. Its also based ability of memmber countries to create political economical and military pressure if necessary to enforce their goals. Japan with their economy pressure potential would be more than welcomed in NATO. It could also solve some issues with North Korea and JDF first strike ability concerns.

shocker1
09-20-2007, 09:02 PM
Here is a headline: Former New York Mayor calls for expansion of NATO.

Roy Batty
09-20-2007, 09:06 PM
How would, US ally, Pakistan feel about India becoming a NATO member?...

Who cares? The ISI has a hand in a lot of bad pies in Afghanistan. They are in no position to dictate to NATO.

little icebear
09-20-2007, 09:11 PM
I think we should invite Russia to the club! p-)

Ordie
09-20-2007, 09:17 PM
I think we should invite Russia to the club! p-)

Good idea.
Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.

TR1
09-20-2007, 09:26 PM
Russia wanting to join NATO is about as likely as Iran wanting the US mission in Iraq to succeed.

LRPV
09-20-2007, 09:35 PM
I think we should invite Russia to the club! p-)

But if we are all friends, then we have no 'enemies'. There goes the defence budget and all the good toys.:-( (But let Russia in long enough to get a good deal on a few Sukhoisp-)).

little icebear
09-20-2007, 09:42 PM
Russia wanting to join NATO is about as likely as Iran wanting the US mission in Iraq to succeed.

Well, the CCCP wanted to join... Come on, don´t be shy. You´re gonna love it. :)

GazB
09-21-2007, 10:04 PM
I think Edmond Blackadder stated it best.

Blackadder: In order to prevent war in Europe. Two super blocks were developed.
Us (UK), the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro Hungary on the other.
The idea was to have two vast opposing armies each acting as the others deterrent, that way there could never be a war.

Baldrick Says: But this is sort of a war (ie World War I) isn't it?

Blackader: Yes that was the tiny flaw in the plan.

George: What was that?

Blackadder: It (the Plan) was b0ll0cks.


Well, the CCCP wanted to join... Come on, don´t be shy. You´re gonna love it.

The CCCP or USSR no longer exists, but parts of the USSR have already joined NATO. The baltic republics.

The US has a track record of post cold war promises. We wont expand NATO to the east. We wont expand NATO to include former Soviet republics. We wont permanently base NATO forces in the new Eastern member states.
Now we will only place 10 interceptors. Wonder how long before that is proven wrong.

Fortunately the Russians have simply realised that is what the US wants to do and their best response is to change their force structures and withdraw from treaties that prevent them from preparing their forces to meet these new threats.

Some might say that is a waste of Russian money and effort, but now that they have said they are prepared to use nuclear weapons in response to even a conventional attack they can safe a lot of money and use nuclear assets... it just means that the nuclear threshold is much lower than most in the west think it is.

RECON DOC
09-21-2007, 10:11 PM
I have a problem with a having cross dresser as the POTUS.

Rudy is a Drag Queen. :|

http://www.youtube.com/v/E_90nRRoXK8&mode=related&search=

shocker1
09-21-2007, 10:34 PM
I have a problem with a having cross dresser as the POTUS.

Rudy is a Drag Queen. :|


He is the Teflon Don of politics. He has so many skeletons that he ran out of closets years ago. Scandals just slip away leaving a crisp new suit. This video is nothing to him.

RECON DOC
09-21-2007, 10:39 PM
He is the Teflon Don of politics. He has so many skeletons that he ran out of closets years ago. Scandals just slip away leaving a crisp new suit. This video is nothing to him.

Here's an areal view of his skeleton warehouses.

http://www.garland.pt/pics/aerea_bodegas.jpg

shocker1
09-21-2007, 10:41 PM
HAHA Organized

Ddavid
09-22-2007, 04:43 AM
Since when does India want to be part of NATO....

You don't get it, theRussian. It's like the JSF or anything, countries are not asked by the Versailles on Potomac. "You join so it's cool"

Remind me the good old Varsaw Pact ;)