Amazon.com Widgets

NATO expansion: Have NATO missions been legitimate?

  • Yes. NATO missions are legitimate.

    Yes. NATO missions are often characterized as being a peace keeping operations. Often, NATO will take control of specific arms in an effort to thwart specific military actions, or they will "police" a combat zone. Although there are times when NATO controls combat missions, these missions are almost always meant to create future peace.

  • NATO is lived up to its charter

    The NATO charter was for each country to defend each other in case of attack by an outside force, whether the Soviet Union or otherwise. While the USSR never attacked a NATO country, the NATO alliance responded to the September 11th attacks by forming a coalition to invade Afghanistan. While maybe unpopular, this is within the scope of a freely formed charter, determined as legitimate in the eyes of NATO member country governments.

  • Legitimate maybe, but moral - NO

    NATO mission in Serbia was a violation of international law, no UN council consent was approved.
    Also, NATO's engagement in Libya destroyed a lot of cities and cost a lot of civilian's lives. NATO is only protecting US national interests and to prove the need of its existence there must be conflicts.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.