Livingstone questions NATO membership

[Bad Dog]

From the BBC.

The co-chairman of Labour's defence review, Ken Livingstone, has said it does not matter whether the UK is in Nato as the Cold War is "over".

The former London Mayor told the BBC's Daily Politics Nato membership would be one of the issues his review would probably be looking at.

Labour put out a statement afterwards saying it was not part of the review.

Nato is a military alliance between the US and European nations founded in 1949 to counter any Soviet Union threat.

In his Daily Politics interview, Mr Livingstone questioned the 29 nation organisation's role in the modern world, saying: "My main view on this is that it doesn't really matter whether you're in Nato or not terribly much because the Cold War is over.




"If we're to stay in Nato, the question is what's its role? Invading more countries in the Middle East? I'm not in favour of that."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35251427

I honestly don't know what I think of this. Part of me thinks it's what's kept peace in Yerp for the last 60 odd years, but when you think about what can be measured you end up with being a target during the Cuban missile crisis, foreign troops on British soil and our involvement in American imperialist adventuring.

Is Ken right? (And lets not forget about the Chagos Islanders kicked out of Diego Garcia)

[T_i_B]

1. Sorry Ken, but I totally disagree

If anything, NATO is going to have to be at the center of how we approach military action in Syria. IMHO it's the best vehicle we have for getting the various western countries intervening in Syria to work together.

[Bad Dog]

2. I don't think this one will fly.

Either, there'll be too much parliamentary opposition to it. I don't think even Farage wants to leave NATO.

[LeftishBrit]

3. Withdrawal from NATO isn't going to happen; too many people would oppose it

And our involvement in American imperialist adventuring is not because we're in NATO - or all NATO countries would be similarly involved; it's because of abuse of the 'special relationship' by certain Presidents and their pals: specifically Maggie 'n Ronnie, and Bush 'n Blair. I think if we got out of NATO such problems might become even worse, because these sorts of rogue alliances could happen without restraint or regulation from other countries. (Or the rogue alliance could even be with someone else, such as Putin.) Also, co-ordinated response and information exchange are more important now in many ways, with the threats currently coming from highly mobile, and not geographically defined, organizations like ISIS. I don't think NATO is an ideal set-up, but for the moment I'd be inclined to 'keep a hold of Nurse/ for fear of finding something worse'.