Keep the name and call it NATO: Nations Against Trump Organization
Comment on Instead of everyone leaving NATO, could everyone else just kick the US out?
lime@feddit.nu 17 hours ago
as far as i understand it, nato does not have any democratic principles in its rules because was assumed that everyone in it wants the same thing, so everything needs to be done with full agreement. that’s why sweden and finland were blocked from entering for multiple years, turkiye would not allow them in.
so basically, as long as the us wants to be in nato, it will be in nato. better to scrap it and start again. i propose the name na2.
Typhoon@lemmy.ca 7 hours ago
Buffalox@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
i propose the name na2.
Clever, but I don’t see why it should be limited to North Atlantic countries.
If for instance Australia and South Korea want to join, that should be an option.PlutoniumAcid@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
Eurovision 2
Damage@feddit.it 12 hours ago
I think we should go with GDI, Global Defence Initiative
lime@feddit.nu 15 hours ago
doesn’t necessarily need to be short for North Atlantic, could be Not America’s no. 2
Cowbee_Admirer@reddthat.com 7 hours ago
What if China wants to join? Or Russia? What would be the policy?
Buffalox@lemmy.world 13 minutes ago
The standard for NATO has always been to only accept democracies.
I see no reason why we would change that requirement for a new alliance.
I’d even go so far as to make respect of human rights a demand too like we have in EU, so we for instance exclude countries with death penalty.There needs to be common values that we want to protect, with NATO it was democracy, based on our experience with USA, we need to extend that to include respect for international law and human rights as well as protecting democracy.
14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 7 hours ago
the policy shoud be “this is union of democratic countries”
Cowbee_Admirer@reddthat.com 7 hours ago
And who decides which countries are democratic and which are not?
Klear@quokk.au 16 hours ago
2na2to
Zombie@feddit.uk 6 hours ago
nato does not have any democratic principles in its rules because was assumed that everyone in it wants the same thing, so everything needs to be done with full agreement.
Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process in which participants work together to develop proposals for actions that achieve a broad acceptance. Consensus is reached when everyone in the group assents to a decision (or almost everyone; see stand aside) even if some do not fully agree to or support all aspects of it. It differs from simple unanimity, which requires all participants to support a decision. Consensus decision-making in a democracy is consensus democracy.[1]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
Consensus is far more democratic than majority rule, which is the norm in most Western democracies.
lime@feddit.nu 2 hours ago
only if all actors are working in good faith.
Strider@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
How about nay2? Thst way, when it comes to the unavoidable acoustical misunderstandings, it’s also the answer to what’s talked about.