NATO's obsolete... but like all entrenched bureaucracies, it grows and grows

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: rahvin
NATO if for no other purpose serves to keep our interests and Europes interests aligned. History has told us that if we leave the Europeans to themselves they will run off and do something terrible to the world that will have centurys long effects.

Interesting theory. In thise case NATO is essential; we cannot allow the Europeans to yet again murder the entire world. With their waning power, they might be itching to lay waste to the planet again before it's too late. Fortunately some of their former colonies seem to be up and coming and they can also join in the fight against European colonialism.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Hmmm, now that's a very interesting argument... that it's a tool to keep the communication and cooperation high, to basically keep Europe in check.

I still have some worries and doubts about NATO, but you make an excellent point rahvin.

The arguement I presented is the central arguement used by our government for involvement in NATO, I'm just supprised more Euro's didn't jump in and call me a twit.

Our alliance with Japan is along the same lines, the Japanese are just sensible enough to pay us to defend them (close to 150million a year in direct cash subsidation) so it's much easier for the US to swallow the pill of keeping all those troops in Okinawa and to keep Japan moderate by continuing to influence their culture.

It's funny, but consumerism is probably the one force in this world that can bring about real world peace, and the US influence brings consumerism to all the nations we interact with. Europe and Japan are completely different places today because we imposed our popular culture on them through interaction with our troops and their families. That popular culture that they have adopted and modified to fit their circumstances has brought real lasting peace to nations that 100 years ago no one believed could ever remain at peace for any extended period of time. Because of this France and Germany are better friends these days than Briton and France. If we were to disband NATO and seperate ourselves from them they would begin to travel a different cultural path than the US and the end result of that would NOT be good. We must keep our cultures and values aligned if we are ever to have lasting peace.

To give the other side of the arguement to this for Europeans that are reading. NATO helps Europe influence the US to keep from being radical. As the export country of all the European radicals in the 19th century the US still bears the burden of a reactionary and at time radical populous that is not only intensely isolationist but also has fits of relgious ferver that make the Islamists look like the British. The European influence on the US helps moderate US extremeism and the cultural advances you make today we will adopt in approximately a generation (20 years).

NATO is and will continue to be a win-win alliance for both spheres of influence. Do not listen to the French and isolate yourself from the US because it will only serve to make your bastard stepchild more radical and more dangerous.

Excellent post... makes a lot of sense to me. US and Europe have a lot to offer one another and NATO serves as a bridge. But I wonder if the bridge can remain intact without NATO? That would be preferable IMO.

On a side note, your points on consumerism are spot-on with my vision (I think). For centuries upon centuries the primary means of people dealing with one another was through force and violence. Economic interaction, growth and interdependency breeds a more civilized culture that's more interested in having a nice car rather than conquering neighbors. Commerce breeds peace and stability. Prosperity breeds progress.

 

[Infohawk]

Interesting that certain posters like a pro-Nato idea when it is presented in a euro-bashing tone. Shows how they are more moved by emotions than actual policy considerations...

 

[staeiou]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Doesn't Russia have a border with China?? hmmmmm

Russian Integration into NATO is key to prevent a Russia-China war, which goes nuclear.

1) Currently, some Russian nationalists (which are growing in power) oppose the West, US hegemony, and non-cartel free market economics. However, NATO integration stops the spread of nationalism, and leads to a stabilization of democracy, a more stable economy, and improved relations with the US and her allies. All of these things help the Russian military grow in power and numbers.

Without a strong military deterrant, the state of Russia will deteriorate even worse than it already is. While the cat's away, the mouse will play; every group in Russia that wants its own country will get it. Russia will become Balkanized, and each of these new countries will have little to no army.

Some Americans say that they don't want a strong Russia (cold war part II fears), but this is just an emotional response. A Russia so weak that it couldn't resist a Chinese land grab without resorting to nuclear weapons is a recipe for disaster.

2) The trend in Soviet states is to go independant. This isn't going to change in the future, even though it might slow down somewhat. These independant states have little to no military, and are relying on simple international deterrence to not be invaded by China. If Russia doesn't join NATO, then the promise of international assistance once little border skirmishes doesn't happen.

While China won't attack Russia right now, once they get developed (they're starting now), it's my prediction that they're going to want some Lebensraum sometime soon. And what better than all the countries that end in "-stan"?

Cliffnotes:
Russia + NATO = Bigger Russian Military and NATO deterrant
Bigger Russian Military doesn't Balkanize Russia
Balkanized Russia is a target for Chinese expansion
AND
NATO deterrant and Bigger Russian Military stops Chinese expansion

Someone had this exact topic as a research paper.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: staeiou

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Doesn't Russia have a border with China?? hmmmmm

Russian Integration into NATO is key to prevent a Russia-China war, which goes nuclear.

1) Currently, some Russian nationalists (which are growing in power) oppose the West, US hegemony, and non-cartel free market economics. However, NATO integration stops the spread of nationalism, and leads to a stabilization of democracy, a more stable economy, and improved relations with the US and her allies. All of these things help the Russian military grow in power and numbers.

Without a strong military deterrant, the state of Russia will deteriorate even worse than it already is. While the cat's away, the mouse will play; every group in Russia that wants its own country will get it. Russia will become Balkanized, and each of these new countries will have little to no army.

Some Americans say that they don't want a strong Russia (cold war part II fears), but this is just an emotional response. A Russia so weak that it couldn't resist a Chinese land grab without resorting to nuclear weapons is a recipe for disaster.

2) The trend in Soviet states is to go independant. This isn't going to change in the future, even though it might slow down somewhat. These independant states have little to no military, and are relying on simple international deterrence to not be invaded by China. If Russia doesn't join NATO, then the promise of international assistance once little border skirmishes doesn't happen.

While China won't attack Russia right now, once they get developed (they're starting now), it's my prediction that they're going to want some Lebensraum sometime soon. And what better than all the countries that end in "-stan"?

Cliffnotes:
Russia + NATO = Bigger Russian Military and NATO deterrant
Bigger Russian Military doesn't Balkanize Russia
Balkanized Russia is a target for Chinese expansion
AND
NATO deterrant and Bigger Russian Military stops Chinese expansion

Someone had this exact topic as a research paper.

Yeah, what he said.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Interesting that certain posters like a pro-Nato idea when it is presented in a euro-bashing tone. Shows how they are more moved by emotions than actual policy considerations...

Not really, if you're referring to my post. You failed to read my post.

Interesting that a certain poster fails to read a post and jumps to wild conclusions.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Interesting that certain posters like a pro-Nato idea when it is presented in a euro-bashing tone. Shows how they are more moved by emotions than actual policy considerations...

http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/p99-065e.htm

The dangers of the Cold War have given way to more promising, but also challenging prospects, to new opportunities and risks. A new Europe of greater integration is emerging, and a Euro-Atlantic security structure is evolving in which NATO plays a central part. The Alliance has been at the heart of efforts to establish new patterns of cooperation and mutual understanding across the Euro-Atlantic region and has committed itself to essential new activities in the interest of a wider stability.

The Alliance has an indispensable role to play in consolidating and preserving the positive changes of the recent past, and in meeting current and future security challenges. It has, therefore, a demanding agenda. It must safeguard common security interests in an environment of further, often unpredictable change. It must maintain collective defence and reinforce the transatlantic link and ensure a balance that allows the European Allies to assume greater responsibility.

NATO's essential and enduring purpose, set out in the Washington Treaty, is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means. Based on common values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, the Alliance has striven since its inception to secure a just and lasting peaceful order in Europe. It will continue to do so. The achievement of this aim can be put at risk by crisis and conflict affecting the security of the Euro-Atlantic area. The Alliance therefore not only ensures the defence of its members but contributes to peace and stability in this region.

The fundamental guiding principle by which the Alliance works is that of common commitment and mutual co-operation among sovereign states in support of the indivisibility of security for all of its members.Solidarity and cohesion within the Alliance, through daily cooperation in both the political and military spheres, ensure that no single Ally is forced to rely upon its own national efforts alone in dealing with basic security challenges. Without depriving member states of their right and duty to assume their sovereign responsibilities in the field of defence, the Alliance enables them through collective effort to realise their essential national security objectives.

Well I won't quote the whole charter, but it's safe to say that if you can read diplo-speak you shouldn't have any problem finding everything I said in the document in numerous places expressed fairly plainly. NATO is about keeping Europe and North America closely tied, the motivations for that alliance are differnt in each country but what I said has been stated policy of this country since the formation of NATO. We forced europe into the alliance at the point of a gun at the end of WWII to prevent WWIII, and that alliance was as much about the soviet union as it was about a millenia of intra-national hatred that needed to be erased to stabilize Europe. The alliance has now evolved and both continents need the influence of the other to help keep us both in check.

Infohawks assertion that my tone was euro-bashing is as silly as the arguements he has used to defend NATO. The arguements he conveyed are weak and don't establish the real reason this nation has participated in NATO, why we surrendered our history of isolation and neutrality to join this alliance, the root of the problem that truman and eisenhower saw and decided to fix before we were dragged into another WW that we didn't start but had to finish.