RSN April 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Intro: "The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is not a benevolent organization. NATO is not about the North Atlantic and it's not about our collective defense. NATO is a cost-sharing organization that finances aggressive military action."

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). (photo: AFP)
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). (photo: AFP)



NATO Talks a Sham

By Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Reader Supported News

22 May 12

 

he North Atlantic Treaty Organization is not a benevolent organization. NATO is not about the North Atlantic and it's not about our collective defense.

NATO is a cost-sharing organization that finances aggressive military action. By hiding behind the claim that the organization provides for 'common defense,' NATO allows us to wage wars of choice under the guise of international peacekeeping. The most recent example was the unconstitutional war in Libya where NATO, operating under a United Nations mandate to protect civilians, instead backed one side in a civil war and pursued a policy of regime change.

Today, NATO leaders are meeting in Chicago to discuss the future of Afghanistan. The talks are being billed as discussions of plans to end the war. The war in Afghanistan is not ending. These talks are simply about financing the next phase of the war.

The Strategic Partnership Agreement between the U.S. and Afghanistan commits us to the country for at least another decade, despite public support for the war being at an all-time low. The United States will pay for half of the estimated $4.1 billion per year cost of supporting 352,000 Afghan army and police officers. Afghanistan's contribution will be $500,000. The rest will be financed by our 'NATO partners.' It is not surprising that support for the war among NATO members is waning, with France threatening to pull out its troops by the end of this year.

Our participation in NATO comes at a great financial cost to the U.S. We contribute the majority of funds for NATO's common budget, including 25% of the military budget. Between fiscal years 2010 and 2012 alone, we contributed more than $1.3 billion to NATO's military budget. We also incur significant costs through the deployment of our forces in support of NATO missions. According to The Atlantic, the war in Libya cost the United States $1.1 billion.

NATO was originally founded to provide a strategic counterbalance to the Soviet Union. Its founding purpose no longer exists, but NATO continues to circumvent the authority of the United Nations and to provoke other nations. NATO is an anachronism. Instead of trying to bolster the organization, we should begin serious discussions to dismantle it.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+114 # Dean 2012-05-22 07:20
Thank you for being forthright, Dennis. No surprise to me!
 
 
+5 # anarchteacher 2012-05-23 11:40
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/112559.html

Watch this excellent documentary, The Power Principle: Corporate Empire and the National Security State.

It fully outlines exactly what NATO critics such as Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul have been saying for years.

Conservative Senator Robert A. Taft, "Mr. Republican," opposed NATO from its inception. From 1940 to 1952 he battled New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey, the leader of the GOP's moderate Rockefeller "Eastern Establishment" for control of the Republican Party. In 1957, a Senate committee chaired by John F. Kennedy named Taft as one of the five greatest senators in American history, along with Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, and Robert La Follette.

Also opposed to NATO was Congressman Howard Buffett, father of the billionaire investor, Warren Burrett:

"Even if it were desirable, America is not strong enough to police the world by military force. If that attempt is made, the blessings of liberty will be replaced by coercion and tyranny at home. Our Christian ideals cannot be exported to other lands by dollars and guns. Persuasion and example are the methods taught by the Carpenter of Nazareth, and if we believe in Christianity we should try to advance our ideals by his methods. We cannot practice might and force abroad and retain freedom at home. We cannot talk world cooperation and practice power politics."
 
 
+80 # CoyoteMan50 2012-05-22 07:29
NATO is the forefront of the war for oil, gas and coal.
In the future it will be the front for the war for water and land.
CAn you say "GENN-O-Cide?"
 
 
-165 # Skep41 2012-05-22 07:34
Only Kook-Sin-Itch could desribe the spineless nematodes of NATO as an aggressive organization. Even describing it as an organization is a stretch. The idea that a gaggle of imploding welfare states, technically bankrupt, is some kind of aggressive threat to anyone is laughable. But that's our Dennis. He got conked with a shovel in 1968 and hasnt yet recovered.
 
 
+64 # Kwelinyingi 2012-05-22 08:01
To describe NATO's aggressive nature as laughable is, wel,l quite laughable. The criminal occupation of a country (Afghanistan) and the destruction of yet another country (Libya) under the guise of saving civilians smacks of aggression to me! NATO is a ragtag collection of the Old Empire (England, France, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Portugal) cowtowing to the new American one.
 
 
-97 # Robt Eagle 2012-05-22 08:57
Yup, yup, yup...let's just leave Afghanistan to go back to Taliban rule so they can once again invite AlQaida back to set up training camps. Good f'n plan!
 
 
+47 # bluepilgrim 2012-05-22 10:50
There wouldn't be a Taliban in Afghanistan if the US wasn't instrumental in starting it with their proxy war aginst Russia. The US and NATO is like using a rag full of wet black paint to try to wipe the bird droppings of the hood of your car.

Al Qaeda was not invited into Afghanistan by the Taliban, but tolerated there -- even though it was originally a CIA invention.
 
 
+53 # KrazyFromPolitics 2012-05-22 11:03
Quoting Robt Eagle:
Yup, yup, yup...let's just leave Afghanistan to go back to Taliban rule so they can once again invite AlQaida back to set up training camps. Good f'n plan!

Maybe, as you say, a good f'n plan, would be to stop f'n with the sovereignty of the rest of the world, and stop fighting WWII. Also, bring troops home from Japan and Europe, and find better ways to spend our treasure than the military-indust rial complex. In no way does this mean we have to be apathetic about our security and well-being. Just reducing our greedy overreach would reduce the recruiting rationale of the Al-Quidas of the world
 
 
+15 # lexy677 2012-05-22 15:36
Ignorance thy name is Skep41.
 
 
+53 # jwb110 2012-05-22 08:44
Amen, Dennis.
 
 
+35 # Kootenay Coyote 2012-05-22 08:49
& of course here in Canada Prime Minister Harper has just committed us to abundantly more money down the Afghan hole....
 
 
+33 # Vardoz 2012-05-22 09:06
Of course and the 99% and OWS know this full well. If the people are to gain traction we must remember their are strength in numbers- They will do everythign to try and maginalize protests, but if enough people - like over 100,000 take to the streets and tell their reps they will be out if things don't change then we are just flies on the windshield.
 
 
+34 # PoetForPeace 2012-05-22 09:48
I share the comments of many here. From a different perspective: How is spending these insane figures on injuring/killin g so many REPRESENTING WE THE PEOPLE? How do these so-called "leaders" continually pander for money and votes all with a SMILE while the World's children/others suffer, hunger and wonder WHY? WHEN WILL THE MAJORITY OF THE 99% RISE TO TELL THEM NO MORE GENOCIDE? Peace IS our only way to move this hell toward a paradise so many say is earned after death. Pure IGNORE-ANCE!
 
 
+43 # Elusive Pimpernel 2012-05-22 09:56
The total cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so far (according to Huffington Post) is $3.7 TRILLION, the annual cost to support NATO is $1.3 BILLION per year.

Just imagine what we in the US could do with these monies (our money) right here at home.

Just imagine:

. More Jobs
. Affordable housing
. Less homeless
. Less welfare
. Affordable healthcare
. Less hungry children
. Affordable fuel
. and on and on....just imagine!
 
 
+37 # billhabedank 2012-05-22 09:58
I agree whole heartedly with Dennis. That is precisely why I carried signs in the Chicago march on Sunday, May 20th saying:
"NATO - please re-define your mission"
and
"NATO - do you really want to support U.S. Empire?"
 
 
+22 # anarchteacher 2012-05-22 10:11
Dennis Kucinich is not the only courageous congressman to speak truth to power concerning NATO.

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/04/01/ron-paul-disband-nato/print/
 
 
+5 # lexy677 2012-05-22 15:49
The difference is that while Mr. Kucinich is a principled, humane, decent human being, Mr. Paul is a dishonest, racist corporatist cloaked in the undefined and broad overcoat of "Libertarianism."

The main purpose of his campaigns over the years has been to pave the way for his equally "venereal" son whom I believe will be President someday soon; and when that happens, God help us all...including his blind and thoughtless supporters.
 
 
+1 # Cassandra2012 2012-05-24 11:11
And he is a hypocritical sexist who is only for less government when it doesn't involve tampering with a woman's right to her own body .....
 
 
+14 # anarchteacher 2012-05-22 10:19
"Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?"

— George Washington, Farewell Address [September 17, 1796]

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1205q.pdf

"No More Entangling Alliances," by Laurence M. Vance
 
 
+26 # genierae 2012-05-22 10:19
Thank you Dennis for your life's work making our lives better! You can do more on the outside than as a member of congress, and I am looking forward to being a part of your peace initiative. I agree that NATO is a front for aggression, and I think that it will not be a part of our future. I think that we need to bring all of our troops home from around the world and put them to work fixing this country. Bless you Dennis!
 
 
+24 # Peace Anonymous 2012-05-22 10:36
Its your money. Follow it. NATO and all of the defence initiatives primary purpose is to start wars for profit. Those who suggest there is a threat out there should stop and figure out who created those organizations and why? Without an enemy where would you $400 Billion plus every year go? The minute the Berlin Wall came down and peace in our world looked possible the terrorist threat was created. What a coincidence.
 
 
+20 # bluepilgrim 2012-05-22 10:57
Dennis -- you should join the socialist party (WSWS / SEP) and work with them to advance sanity. It's like going home and finding your relatives there.
When the empire collapses (real soon now) we need all the organized help we can muster to rebuild a sane world.
 
 
+21 # thedave108 2012-05-22 11:45
Wow, a lot of the comments show a real lack of knowledge. Criticizing one of the few honest reps in the US and warning about the CIA created terrorists in Afghanistan? My gosh, do you all still read the main stream propaganda machine for your info?

We destroyed Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, so US and NATO country corporations could benefit. And that's the tip of the criminal iceberg. This is public knowledge, not an opinion. Feel free to get a little informed
 
 
+1 # Cassandra2012 2012-05-24 11:12
Cheney's Halliburton and KBR profiteering so soon forgotten>?
 
 
+24 # Rich Austin 2012-05-22 12:18
For the historically-ch allenged, please re-read what bluepilgim wrote...

Osama bin Laden, with aid from the CIA program Operation Cyclone, trained jihadists. After the Soviets withdrew from the country in 1989, the United States referred to him and his soldiers as "Freedom Fighters." He was “befriended” much the way the U.S. coddled Saddam Hussein when he was warring against Iran. Values are not considerations. “Free market” profiteering and neoliberal expansionism are.

If there was only sand under the sand in Iraq would we have invaded that nation? And here is more news: Afghanistan will start pumping oil before the end of the year. Hmm, what is the connection? Could it be OIL?

The arms race is built on fear, or more appropriately, downright lies. Carl Sagan opined that the arms race is like two people entering a gasoline soaked room. One has 5000 matched and the other 10,000. Get the picture?

NATO is being maintained on fear. And every dollar the U.S. pours into it is money denied to the people of our nation...to the schools, job creating infrastructure upgrades, health care, security in retirement.

The US is no longer a democracy. It has become a corptocracy, and the might of the US military, and state and city police is used to beat back any attempts to return it to a democracy. That is true at home and abroad. Eschew fear. Embrace democracy.

In summary: Kucinich is correct. Case closed.
 
 
+4 # bluepilgrim 2012-05-22 19:33
Ran into this just now, with video:

http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2012/05/hillary-clinton-admits-us-government-created-al-qaeda

Hillary Clinton Admits the U.S. Government Created al-Qaeda
by grtv

The Mujahideen were the "database" of Al-Qaeda assets. Al-Qaeda are a controlled opposition force of the Central Intelligence Agency to promote their middle east destabilization process, to give empirical U.S. Military Industrial Complex a reason to invade wherever they want in the ever widening "war on terror" fraud.
 
 
0 # brux 2012-05-22 22:41
Hillary Clinton did not say the US created Al-Qaeda … it was an unintentional byproduct of our interference in Afghanistan when we left creating a power vacuum.

This kind of stuff I am hearing from the Left now really rivals the Right in deliberate obtuseness and dissembling.

You used to be able to count on the Liberals not to do these kind of simpleton lies, but not anymore.
 
 
+2 # bluepilgrim 2012-05-23 12:49
If you look it up you will find that Al Qaeda means the data base the CIA established. It was no unintentional. They even supplied books for the violent madrassa. They did it as part of the covert war against Russia.

The US often supports terrorist organizations (such as the MEK and various oens in Central America).

The problem is that you are uninformed.

BTW -- I am not a liberal -- I'm a socialist. (Do you know the difference?) Read WSWS and you can get some quality news.
 
 
+20 # walt 2012-05-22 12:32
As stated, the original purpose of NATO is long gone and we are seeing now just a forum for the military-indust rial complex to profit using war.

And make no mistake about it. The US pays the biggest share in all of NATO! At a time we are cutting from our own people, this is shameful at best!
 
 
+1 # cordleycoit 2012-05-22 13:57
NATO is amuseme to the non logic of the Cols War. It is a rotting dead thing to be buried and forgotten. Right now it wanders about killing in a random fashion, a free world zombie. Bury this thing at the cross rads.
 
 
+12 # Kathymoi 2012-05-22 15:15
Can we have Kucinich for president??
 
 
+8 # honestangel 2012-05-22 16:03
Thank you Dennis,I wish you were running for president,I would vote this year,but as it stands there is no one else to vote for.I really agree with so much you say.I look forward to your comments.
 
 
+7 # Harold R. Mencher 2012-05-22 18:06
Let's get down to the nitty-gritty here. NATO has become a military arm of the U.S., it's proxy army to be used as we wish it to be used, & the U.N. is now completely under U.S. control, & I include in that statement the current U.N. Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, who is South Korean, a country that is also under complete U.S. control, & the head of IAEA, Mr. Yukiya Amano of Japan, another country that is completely under U.S. control.

Every nation that is a member of NATO, and I include all those nations that used to be part of the old Soviet Union (SU)that were stupid & naive enough to give up their newly found freedom when the SU broke up just to relinquish it to the U.S., should hold their heads in shame. They don't deserve freedom. They had it and they gave it away.

I condemn the French people & the English & the Germans, and the people of all the other nations who are members of NATO for continually voting in leaders whose fealty is more to satisfying U.S. needs & demands than that of their own people.

I have come to the irrefutable belief that human beings, in the end, are self-destructiv e and will always vote against their own personal interests. It is my strong belief that what happened in Nazi Germany was no fluke, that, in the end, will always be the natural way of things.

Canada is another example of this when Canadians keep on voting Prime Minister Stephen Harper into office.
 
 
+5 # Douglas Jack 2012-05-22 18:40
Thanks Dennis. Truth sets us free! The way out of NATO's constant regime change, arming the worst and murder mess is to engage our whole population in truth through 'dialectic' ('both-sides') discourse / dialogue / 'debate' (French 'de' = 'undo' + 'bate' = the fight'). Engaging NATO / USA / Canada / Britain / France etc to debate and publishing the results by well-informed researchers is our way of revealing their confused thinking and downright lies. When corporate and government higher-ups refuse to debate, then we go to their underlings, think-tanks and university professor theoretician / lackies. When these refuse, we engage their students and public supporters to debate. Once these debates are published it will flush out the puppeteers who hide behind the screen manipulating death. Our population has been under top-down imperial corporate rule for so long, we need to engage every person, issue and situation. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/structure/1-both-sides-now-article If you like this 'indigenous' (Latin = 'self-generatin g' strategy, join us by implementing debate wherever, with whoever and about whatever concerns you.
 
 
-9 # brux 2012-05-22 22:30
The stick here is that Kucinich is great on domestic stuff, but his idea of the world and foreign policy stinks in my opinion and it kills his chances for high office - a pity.

But it also kills Liberals chances to affect the government because they all seem lax on defense. The world is a scary place and we are not perfect, but what other country is more fit to lead? And someone will if we pull back and lose control.

We should not allow that …. what we ought to be concerned about as Liberal/Progres sives in my opinon is worrying about domstic policy and giving a little to the Republicans who are right on this defense things and the American empire.

The only way this world is going to work right and work for Americans is if America leads the world. We can make it better, a lot easier than we can affect China Russia or Radical Islam.

We need to give the Republicans their due - regulated of course, and work on making life better for the American people - that is the deal, that is the compromise, and it needs to happen soon.
 
 
+6 # bluepilgrim 2012-05-23 12:53
I don't find the world to be as scary as I do people like you with this manifest destiny and imperial arrogance. Those ideas become the instrument of destoryin the world -- as they are doing now.
 
 
+1 # Granny Weatherwax 2012-05-25 06:34
Quoting brux:

[...]
The world is a scary place and we are not perfect, but what other country is more fit to lead?
[...] the Republicans who are right on this defense things and the American empire.

The only way this world is going to work right and work for Americans is if America leads the world.


The "American Empire"?
"America leads the world"?
Do you lead your neighborhood, or can you live in peace with the guy next door?
I am not a bleeding heart pacifist (I even have been in the Army) but the world is a scary place when stupid people find it that because their country happens to be dominent economically at some point in time it becomes their due to own the world - and f**k it up in the process.
No, it is not the end of History.
Don't do unto others...
...becasue the times will change and one day you or your children will be on the receiving end.

I agree that some level of defense is required, I agree that America is more benevolent a power than others have been, but this "policing the world" business rakes of fascism andd empire.

If you want some perspective, read "Exterminate all the brutes" (by Sven Lindqvist) and see if you can reconcile "Empire" with "Moral" or even "Christian".
 
 
+1 # Joemailman 2012-05-23 03:18
Unfortunately for the human species opportunities for survival are like opportunities in every other field of endeavor. They come about in a world of scarcity very rarely and are taken advantage of only by those who are in a position to impliment their benefits. We live in a world of competition, scarcity, religion, free will and a host of other forms of ignorance and superstition that do nothing to support the postive direction that is so sorely needed for physical and intellectual growth. This human species may be past the point of no return and may degenerate into chaos which, of course, can and predictably should retard growth for many many decades. The very fact that humans are light years more alike than they are different is for the most part ignored and rejected based soley upon opinion and a very superficial but pervasive interpretation of reality. Every nation and body of people compete and every nation eventually goes to war which is the ultimate expression of competition just as murder is the ultimate expression of personal competition. We as a spedcies of animal may very well be headed in that direction. It is only the insane that will behave as A. Einstein defined insanity.
 
 
+2 # David Starr 2012-05-23 11:41
"Between fiscal years 2010 and 2012 alone, we contributed more than $1.3 billion to NATO's military budget."

Now that is money that can be put to good use. All the more reason to desolve NATO. In all fairness, if the Warsaw Pact had to desolve then NATO is obligated to desolve.
 
 
+1 # Cassandra2012 2012-05-24 11:14
dissolve?
 
 
0 # David Starr 2012-05-29 10:29
Cassandra2012,

Thanks for that spell check. Upon typing it I knew it looked rather odd, but forgot there's an (i).
 
 
0 # Rich Austin 2012-05-23 17:43
..."And while the U.S. percentage of overall costs might not rise, actual dollars spent will, in the Obama Administration' s FY2011 budget. Its military contribution would increase to $462.488 million, its civil budget contribution to $90.2 million, and its NSIP contribution to $258.884 million."
 
 
+1 # bluepilgrim 2012-05-24 00:33
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31406.htm

Kucinich: US 'Sanction Warfare' Makes Real Iran War Inevitable

War mentality has saturated Washington and arms merchants want to benefit, says Congressman (d) Dennis Kucinich. He opposes sanctions against Tehran that could lead to war, and is sure the US should forget about trying to conquer other countries.

Video By RT - Posted May 23, 2012

[...]

Transcript too
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN