Should NATO include Australia, Israel, Singapore, Japan & India?

[gf0012-aust]

Agreed that UNO need restructuring and independent policies but ,if UNO with the support of China,Pakistan and Few central Asian states they will be more effectice then NATO in Afghanistan.

Pakistan is irrelevant when its the Security Council that will decide traction issues - history has already shown how effective it's been.

Same response as above

and irrelevant to actual events

I know that member forum members from NATO countries already very much irritated with too long Afghanistan mission but NATO cammanders are specking realistically that there is need to revise the strategy.

err, the whole idea of strategy is that it evolves. you're dumbing down a complex conflict into simplistic solutions which are also unworkable

UNO proved sucessful espacially countries effected by muslim exterism ,sudan,somalia,bosnia and where long term strategy is more effective to restore peace and rehabilation and development required

UNO successful in sudan, somalia and bosnia? rubbish. the UN has been completely ineffective. 2 are completely failed states with no coherent governments. Bosnia was not a UN successful intervention. It was due to military intervention that change was generated.

Not Agreed for India and Israel because they both are part of problem in their areas.

Irrelevant and be careful how you continue this line of response. You're bordering on trolling and baiting. Read the rules.

Singapore have very less population but Japan can provide more financial support .

Terrorism and extremism can be fixed with money? In that case the Saudis. Gulf States and other members of the Arab League would have solved it years ago.

Money is not the solution

 

[waraich]

Where is there evidence that it's failing - outside of the general media announcements what evidence is there of the military and reconstruction efforts being unsuccessful? This is a 20+ year event



How, the UNO has been spectacularly unsuccessful in stopping extremism because it's geared for nation state resolution - and even then its been incompetent

stellar examples of UNO's efforts in non state events are coherent responses in Rwanda, Congo and Bosnia. (it was the US that ended up doing the heavy lifting in the end



Not one successful outcome since creation - hardly a decent track record. The Security Council structure means that nothing gets passed unless recalcitrant members forget to attend or make a bad political move (Korean War being a good example)

Afghan society is very conservative society ,they dont want modren facilities ,they love their tradition and living style,
Do you drink water if you dont have desire of it.This is the case of Afghanistan.NATO may have 50 years plan but main thing what is their need, in this area in which NATO failed.

In short use of power is not always the right solution.Problem in Afghanistan is very simple , with the help of their local jirga system it can be resolved.
Russia used the same tactics to supress these afghan tribes but failed.

Fighting is in part of their tradition.They can continue war for more then 100 year with out any support.Environment also in their favor.

I think UNO can be a better choice for afghanistan but task forces should be selected from muslim countries.

 

[waraich]

Pakistan is irrelevant when its the Security Council that will decide traction issues - history has already shown how effective it's been.




and irrelevant to actual events



err, the whole idea of strategy is that it evolves. you're dumbing down a complex conflict into simplistic solutions which are also unworkable




UNO successful in sudan, somalia and bosnia? rubbish. the UN has been completely ineffective. 2 are completely failed states with no coherent governments. Bosnia was not a UN successful intervention. It was due to military intervention that change was generated.




Irrelevant and be careful how you continue this line of response. You're bordering on trolling and baiting. Read the rules.



Terrorism and extremism can be fixed with money? In that case the Saudis. Gulf States and other members of the Arab League would have solved it years ago.

Money is not the solution

I appreciate your grip on subject.

But due to limitation of this forum i could not go into further depth.I think limited liberty should be given to critis the wrong policies of world major players.

We can not reach to right conclusion until we are able analyse the problem with details.

 

[SABRE]

I appreciate your grip on subject.

But due to limitation of this forum i could not go into further depth.I think limited liberty should be given to critis the wrong policies of world major players.

We can not reach to right conclusion until we are able analyse the problem with details.

Every member has his/her autonomy and right to criticize even a major power as long as it remains in the limits of the rules of the forum. However, sometimes people turn discussions into debates & debates into trolling which ends up getting member(s) banned & thread(s) locked. So, if you can keep manage to keep your posts rational, backed by proper proofs rather then just what ever comes to your mind, you are allowed to say what you want.

Remember, we are not here to debate but share information. Sharing of right & correct information eliminate the misinformation & mis-perceptions. This cannot be achieved via a debate or fight.

 

[OPSSG]

Dear Sabre, gf0012-aust and waraich,

Thank you for your all comments and insights.

Pakistan is irrelevant when its the Security Council that will decide traction issues - history has already shown how effective it's been... and irrelevant to actual events... you're dumbing down a complex conflict into simplistic solutions which are also unworkable [OPSSG=Agreed]

I am writing to let gf0012-aust know that I agree with and support your reply.

Terrorism and extremism can be fixed with money? In that case the Saudis. Gulf States and other members of the Arab League would have solved it years ago... Money is not the solution. [OPSSG=Agreed]

Terrorism and extremism needs to be fought and we (each country and each person) should do what we can to fight it. Money alone is not the solution.

Not Agreed for India and Israel because they both are part of problem in their areas.

You may not remember, but Singapore was subject to a terrorist act by individuals from Pakistan in 1991 (where 4 extremists hijacked SQ-117). This resulted in Operation Thunderbolt. The Singapore Special Operation Force were force to storm the plane as the terrorist had threaten to start executing someone every 5 minutes.

We moved on. Singapore has not blamed any other country or group for this terrorist act.

How does blaming other countries contribute to the discussion. Move on. What can be done now? Only bring up past history, if history is important to the current context.

Every member has his/her autonomy and right to criticize even a major power... if you can keep manage to keep your posts rational, backed by proper proofs rather then just what ever comes to your mind...

Remember, we are not here to... [share]... information, eliminate... misinformation & mis-perceptions.

Dear Waraich,

1. The UN is often seen as ineffective but Singapore will do what it can to support UN efforts.

(i) We have sent small numbers of police and soldiers as peace keepers (click to see SAF peacekeeping missions) abroad - in support of operations in Nambia, Cambodia and Timor-Leste (click to see photo essay) to name a few.

(ii) We also recognize the limitations of the UNO and as such have also in our little way contributed to the US, Australia, NZ and Nato efforts (the coalition of the willing) - be it in sending our combat engineers or even medical personnel to aid in reconstruction of Afghanistan. Our contributions are small and our people are embedded with other forces there (as part of NZ's provincial reconstruction team).


2. Understand the situation (don't be biased)

(i) Afghanistan is a failed state. The status quo - of lawlessness and terror - is not acceptable.

(ii) Without the fighting forces supplied by the US, UK, Australia and France - who are doing much of the hard fighting (and dying) there is no hope for a better tomorrow for Afghanistan.


3. Do you know what you are talking about?

(i) My former commander, BG Leong had served as Singapore's military advisor, in Singapore's permanent mission in the UN - dealing with the issue of UN peacekeeping (click on the link to see the recommendations made in 2005). Singapore is aware of the UN's limitations.

(ii) In the past, I served in the Singapore military. In the 1990s, my battalion took part in an overseas planning operations (training) under UN auspices.


4. You need to read more about Afghanistan (especially about what the ISAF is doing there).

(i) I have had the benefit of studying international relations at tertiary level because of some of my prior degrees and post-grad qualifications.

(ii) If you are interested, I've included a link to an article on "Modern Peacekeeping Operations" written by LTC Benedict Ang. This article supports what gf0012-aust earlier and the importance of the deployment of NATO fighting forces in Afghanistan (as coercive inducement).

(iii) You come to this forum to discuss but you do not understand what is being written by others.

(iv) Like Sabre said above, please come to discussions with an open mind. That way, we can share and lean from each other.

 

[waraich]

Dear Sabre, gf0012-aust and waraich,

Thank you for your all comments and insights.



I am writing to let gf0012-aust know that I agree with and support your reply.



Terrorism and extremism needs to be fought and we (each country and each person) should do what we can to fight it. Money alone is not the solution.



You may not remember, but Singapore was subject to a terrorist act by individuals from Pakistan in 1991 (where 4 extremists hijacked SQ-117). This resulted in Operation Thunderbolt. The Singapore Special Operation Force were force to storm the plane as the terrorist had threaten to start executing someone every 5 minutes.

We moved on. Singapore has not blamed any other country or group for this terrorist act.

How does blaming other countries contribute to the discussion. Move on. What can be done now? Only bring up past history, if history is important to the current context.



Dear Waraich,

1. The UN is often seen as ineffective but Singapore will do what it can to support UN efforts.

(i) We have sent small numbers of police and soldiers as peace keepers (click to see SAF peacekeeping missions) abroad - in support of operations in Nambia, Cambodia and Timor-Leste (click to see photo essay) to name a few.

(ii) We also recognize the limitations of the UNO and as such have also in our little way contributed to the US, Australia, NZ and Nato efforts (the coalition of the willing) - be it in sending our combat engineers or even medical personnel to aid in reconstruction of Afghanistan. Our contributions are small and our people are embedded with other forces there (as part of NZ's provincial reconstruction team).


2. Understand the situation (don't be biased)

(i) Afghanistan is a failed state. The status quo - of lawlessness and terror - is not acceptable.

(ii) Without the fighting forces supplied by the US, UK, Australia and France - who are doing much of the hard fighting (and dying) there is no hope for a better tomorrow for Afghanistan.


3. Do you know what you are talking about?

(i) My former commander, BG Leong had served as Singapore's military advisor, in Singapore's permanent mission in the UN - dealing with the issue of UN peacekeeping (click on the link to see the recommendations made in 2005). Singapore is aware of the UN's limitations.

(ii) In the past, I served in the Singapore military. In the 1990s, my battalion took part in an overseas planning operations (training) under UN auspices.


4. You need to read more about Afghanistan (especially about what the ISAF is doing there).

(i) I have had the benefit of studying international relations at tertiary level because of some of my prior degrees and post-grad qualifications.

(ii) If you are interested, I've included a link to an article on "Modern Peacekeeping Operations" written by LTC Benedict Ang. This article supports what gf0012-aust earlier and the importance of the deployment of NATO fighting forces in Afghanistan (as coercive inducement).

(iii) You come to this forum to discuss but you do not undertsand what is being written by others.

(iv) Like Sabre said above, please come to discussions with an open mind. That way, we can share and lean from each other.

NATO have no experience to work under the present strategy of US in Afghanistan.

I have no doubt that NATO may have very good plans for rehabilitation and infrastucture in afghanistan.

But this type of strategy is sucessful when there is complete peace and local population willing to take part in construction activities.

But this not case in Afghanistan .US forces are very involved in gurrila war with talaban from last seven years and you know that in gurrila war may prolong for 25 years or more.Talaban are very much trained for Gurilla War and have full support from pakistan FATA Tribes.

I think UNO peace keeping force need to deploy first to restore peace then after restoration of peace NATO can be successful.

Talaban have shown their will to stop war if US forces agree to quit Aghanistan.

I think long term peace can only be restored in Afhanistan through involvement of pakistan FATA tribes,talaban and jirga only.

 

[StevoJH]

NATO have no experience to work under the present strategy of US in Afghanistan.

I have no doubt that NATO may have very good plans for rehabilitation and infrastucture in afghanistan.

But this type of strategy is sucessful when there is complete peace and local population willing to take part in construction activities.

But this not case in Afghanistan .US forces are very involved in gurrila war with talaban from last seven years and you know that in gurrila war may prolong for 25 years or more.Talaban are very much trained for Gurilla War and have full support from pakistan FATA Tribes.

I think UNO peace keeping force need to deploy first to restore peace then after restoration of peace NATO can be successful.

Talaban have shown their will to stop war if US forces agree to quit Aghanistan.

I think long term peace can only be restored in Afhanistan through involvement of pakistan FATA tribes,talaban and jirga only.

The problem with the ISAF countries pulling their troops out and leaving it for the Taliban and Pakistani's to sort out is that the situation will revert to exactly the same as it was pre-2001. The Taliban will rule the country and it will once again host Terrorists. The Pakistani's have enough problems administering their tribal area's (with the aid of a couple of dozen thousand troop's) let alone helping to sort out Afghanistan.

 

[mattyem]

people often talk about expanding NATO to a much larger organisation around the globe to help "police" situations around the world etc etc, to me that sounds alot like the UN..... people tend to forget about that.

I dont know alot about the NATO agreement, but I do know there is like a teir system of its member nations. From teir one being fully fledged nations putting troops on the ground through to teir 4 or so in which nations in that those teirs offer services such as admin, information sharing etc etc with out sending people out into the feild or foreign soils. There is actually a large number of nations and you will prob find a few of the countries suggested are already active with NATO but playing a lesser of a role

 

[waraich]

people often talk about expanding NATO to a much larger organisation around the globe to help "police" situations around the world etc etc, to me that sounds alot like the UN..... people tend to forget about that.

I dont know alot about the NATO agreement, but I do know there is like a teir system of its member nations. From teir one being fully fledged nations putting troops on the ground through to teir 4 or so in which nations in that those teirs offer services such as admin, information sharing etc etc with out sending people out into the feild or foreign soils. There is actually a large number of nations and you will prob find a few of the countries suggested are already active with NATO but playing a lesser of a role

I think NATO performance can be improved a lot by improvement in its cammand and control structure.Recent failure of NATO in Afghanistan is due flaws in cammand and control structure of NATO.

 

[waraich]

The problem with the ISAF countries pulling their troops out and leaving it for the Taliban and Pakistani's to sort out is that the situation will revert to exactly the same as it was pre-2001. The Taliban will rule the country and it will once again host Terrorists. The Pakistani's have enough problems administering their tribal area's (with the aid of a couple of dozen thousand troop's) let alone helping to sort out Afghanistan.

Talaban did lot of mistakes , but now again gaining the strength in afghanistan because they have roots in afghan society .They provide better governance to afghan people then war lords.

Pakistan alone cant resolve this problem because US has long term intrests in central asia and east asia ,this problem could not be resolved untill china or russia directly or indirectly force Usa to withdraw forces and a united neutral force permanantly deployed for peace acceptable to both talaban and northern alliance .

 

[willur]

my war, your war

Talaban did lot of mistakes , but now again gaining the strength in afghanistan because they have roots in afghan society .They provide better governance to afghan people then war lords.

Pakistan alone cant resolve this problem because US has long term intrests in central asia and east asia ,this problem could not be resolved untill china or russia directly or indirectly force Usa to withdraw forces and a united neutral force permanantly deployed for peace acceptable to both talaban and northern alliance .

yes and no nothing that is happening over there is ideal in hindsight as we all seem experts in that....remember we are in a foriegn land and operating as part of an international effort this alone produces communication problems. How many members here speak the accepted UN language or the required OP NATO language spoken in afghanistan. Yes the Tailban have a way with the people, they have had years to win hearts an minds at gunpoint or by positive reinforcement. We may lose some battles and have a wanting to win the war although it would not be tactically advisable to leave the tailban in power in it's current state or make this girly ideal of peace that you desire because it's something your political science professor implanted in to your chocolate starfish after 1 or 2 hash cookies an milk.

China has ecomonic interests in the USA-asia so will only go the indirect route and they want the slight of hand to handle their increasing problems in the western part of china. Russia has got a chip on its shoulder about USA not providing support during their downturn so they would rather let USA have a dismal fail there. next time look at the type and quality of weapons used by the tailban and perhaps you might be able to see who really is supporting the war.......
War is hell, sure give peace a chance, although remember the story of Samson.

 

[Chino]

(ii) In the past, I served in the Singapore military. In the 1990s, my battalion took part in an overseas planning operations (training) under UN auspices.

Dude, were you in Ops S3 or something even more "rare"?

During NSF I was (firstly) helping out in Bde HQ NDP planning committee. Served the second year in the Bde HQ S2 cell and did a exercise in Starlight.

During reservist I was initially in Battalion HQ S2 cell of a Guards unit. I wasn't heliborne-qualified so SAF realized the mistake and transfered me to infantry rifle coy. The Guards S2 offered to retain me at HQ but I much preferred coy line and had a lot more fun there.

I served NSF early to mid 80's.

 

[Teindva]

Nato is an alliance made by western countries to counter Russian, China and Muslim nations.

Admin: Text deleted. I suggest that you revisit the way that you seek to engage in these forums. Reading the Forum Rules would be a good start.

 

[Teindva]

Mr. Administrator! I think you have made a haste, there was no talk of personal prejudice, abusive language or propaganda. You might have let people oppose the idea.

The text deletion by the Supermoderator was not done in error as a copy of the deleted text in question has been retained for future reference. The text/language of the post in question resulted in the post being reported as inappropriate by a senior member. On reviewing the post in question, it clearly violated two of the forum rules, specifically #'s 15 and 20. Depending on how one interprets the deleted text, one could also consider it in violation of forum rules #'s 5, 8 and 12 as well. While you are entitled to believe the comments that have been deemed in violation of the forum rules, you are not entitled to post or discuss them on DefenceTalk. If you still feel that the comments should not have been deleted, contact myself or another member of the Admin or Mod team and we can talk the discussion offline.
-Preceptor

 

[StingrayOZ]

Nato was origionally created to eyeball off the Warsaw pack and the USSR. They were preparing for a very real prospect of all out war, nuclear war, limited incursion, invasion or defence of an invasion.

Its not against Muslims (what the whole religion?), or China specifically. If it was against China, Japan and korea would already be in the deal.

I don't know of many countries that can claim to be purely peaceful, India has been developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems, while having a luke warm war with pakistan. Not exactly peace loving. India doesn't exercise in the same way or share exactly the same goals as most NATO and near NATO countries. It has lots of russian equipment, and the sheer logistics in getting India into NATO would be mind blowing, a 15 + year mission of which many members would be opposed..

Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea have contact status, in which they regularly provide equipment and troops to nato missions and regularly train in NATO operations. More so they already are involved in regular training exercises with the major NATO nations outside of any large multinational agreement.

 

[Feanor]

[Mod Edit: Info self deleted. Credentials presented to Mod team.]

I belive it's considered a requirement in this forum to provide evidence to an admin or moderator of your military service record if you claim one. Please send one via pm to me or another moderator.

 

[pramodkumarca]

Nato was origionally created to eyeball off the Warsaw pack and the USSR. They were preparing for a very real prospect of all out war, nuclear war, limited incursion, invasion or defence of an invasion.

Its not against Muslims (what the whole religion?), or China specifically. If it was against China, Japan and korea would already be in the deal.

I don't know of many countries that can claim to be purely peaceful, India has been developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems, while having a luke warm war with pakistan. Not exactly peace loving. India doesn't exercise in the same way or share exactly the same goals as most NATO and near NATO countries. It has lots of russian equipment, and the sheer logistics in getting India into NATO would be mind blowing, a 15 + year mission of which many members would be opposed..

Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea have contact status, in which they regularly provide equipment and troops to nato missions and regularly train in NATO operations. More so they already are involved in regular training exercises with the major NATO nations outside of any large multinational agreement.

man you lost your mental

indian is a peace loving country and donot forget that india exercised restrain even it is instigated by it neighbor countries thru proxy war but it donot bother as India will get in to security council permanent member then people like you can keep your napenfloorl: wet

 

[Feanor]

man you lost your mental

indian is a peace loving country and donot forget that india exercised restrain even it is instigated by it neighbor countries thru proxy war but it donot bother as India will get in to security council permanent member then people like you can keep your napenfloorl: wet

Your commentary is off-topic and rude. Love of peace has little to do with NATO candidacy, and the points raised against you were valid. Your response to them was rude and has been reported as flamebaiting. I'm inclined to agree so:This forum is for serious defense-oriented discussion. It is not for political discussion, it is not for flaming or trolling. It is expected that you respond to other members in a relatively polite and intelligent fashion. This is your first warning. Read the rules and follow them. - Feanor

 

[Teindva]

Strategically it is the organisation of Atlantic. There is another ocean namely Indian 'Bahr-e Hind' with the Bay of Bengal, Arabian sea and Persian Gulf being its parts. It is the eastern section of the world that needs a proper defence plan of itself.

 

[willur]

actually NATO(1949) was formed first and USSR responsed with the WARSAW(1955) pact. there is movement towards other defence agreements like NATO. With Australia we already have agreements with US.