NATO vows to stay out of Libyan conflict

[Guest guest]

http://chippewa.com/news/world/europe/article_21c51f12-a632-5598-bdb4-a4700a91f1\

aa.html

NATO vows to stay out of Libyan conflict

Associated Press | Posted: Thursday, February 24, 2011 7:06 am

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen says the Western military alliance

will not intervene in the Libyan conflict.

[Guest guest]

Aside from the US, NATO has very little deployable military power. It is unlikely that most NATO nations could secure themselves let alone fight a major action overseas. England could have at one time, but in the last few years the government has been cutting the navy and other elements which makes it hard to deploy armed forces without and airport somewhere close by. The US doesn't have the forces to manage it either. We'd probably need a force bigger than what went into Iraq because a large section of the population wouldn't be happy about our presence and would gladly fight us.

In a message dated 2/24/2011 10:29:55 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

NATO vows to stay out of Libyan conflict

[Guest guest]

" Aside from the US, NATO has very little deployable military power. It is

unlikely that most NATO nations could secure themselves let alone fight a major

action overseas. England could have at one time, but in the last few years the

government has been cutting the navy and other elements which makes it hard to

deploy armed forces without and airport somewhere close by. The US doesn't have

the forces to manage it either. We'd probably need a force bigger than what went

into Iraq because a large section of the population wouldn't be happy about our

presence and would gladly fight us. "

All true. Interestingly, by NATO not intervening, it goes toward showing that

the major military powers in NATO have no interest in securing oil producing

states or the oil itself. Ironically, by NOT intervening, they are going to

allow the world's economy to be destroyed.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

That's true as well. Most NATO nations tore down their militaries during the cold war because they expected the US and Germany to do all the fighting if there was a war with the Russians. What military they did have was seen more as a jobs program than a national defense force. They kept enough showy units for parades to pretend they still had a military. Most maintained some elite forces mostly for intelligence and counter-terrorism functions, but even then only after the embarassment of the Munich incident.

NATO has been sending some forces overseas, but they were small forces. Capable in some cases like the Canadian sniper teams and some others. Again though these were elite forces and even the regulars had had extensive training before going overseas. England's government has been trying to thoroughly gut their military since before the Falkland's War even in defiance of NATO obligations. About the time of the Falkland's War, the government was very close to scrapping England's few light carriers and most of its sea lift capability, leaving it with a barely adequate coast guard. This was so even though England was supposed to be a major player in defending the North Atlantic, just as Germany was to defend the land route against the Russians.

You are right about the global economy. These oil prices are going to hurt. Its just unconscionable that our own government has for decades stifled domestic production and that so much time and energy has been wasted on ethanol and other nonsense.

In a message dated 2/24/2011 10:50:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

All true. Interestingly, by NATO not intervening, it goes toward showing that the major military powers in NATO have no interest in securing oil producing states or the oil itself. Ironically, by NOT intervening, they are going to allow the world's economy to be destroyed.Administrator