I have not supported any of our recent military adventures. The principal of collective defence is supportable, but the practice of collective aggression is not. NATO has failed most horribly in the backing of authoritarian leaders in the past, and urgently needs to transform from a western myopic viewpoint to the promotion of stability and the broader ideals of democracy.
No. NATO has outlived it's purpose.
I entirely back Caroline Lucas's principled stance against the Libyan intervention, believe the troops should immediately be withdrawn from Afghanistan, and opposed the Iraq war. I've spoken for the party against military intervention in Iran. I entirely support the Green Party's policy of unilateral withdrawal from Nato. I'd also like to campaign against the continuing government promotion of the UK arms industry.
No and no.
No and No. The focus of NATO is a very military one. The Green Party should focus resources on organisations more focused on building peace.
I am a pacifist and have been for more than 50 years. I do not and have never supported our military intervention in other Countries. While NATO believes in military intervention I cannot support our membership.
The answer to both questions is 'no'. NATO was primarily set up as a defence organisation, however, in the late 1990s their mission changed to become overtly offensive and interventionist. NATO's strategy is also heavily dependent upon the continued use of nuclear weapons. I am incredibly sceptical of an interventionist foreign policy, be it 'humanitarian' or 'liberal.'
No answer supplied