The alliances

1. NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was intended as a TEMPORARY alliance of U.S. and Western European nations to counter the threat posed by the Soviet-led Eastern Bloc nations.

2. The Soviet Union disbanded in 1991, which removed the need for the TEMPORARY alliance.

3. Former president George H.W. Bush promised Gorbachev that NATO would never encroach on Russia's doorstep. In 1999, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined. In 2004, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Romania joined. Now, NATO has promised Ukraine and Georgia membership.

4. Bush has marketed the ABM "missile shield" as protection against rogue threats, such as Iran. For one thing, Iran has neither nuclear weapons or ICBMs. Additionally, if Iran was really the threat, the missiles would be installed in Hungary or somewhere closer to Iran. Putting them in Poland without admitting they are there to contain Russia is just plain disingenuous. This is not considering that the U.S.-Soviet ABM treaty of 1972 was put in place specifically to make sure that MAD stayed a reality and nuclear exchanges were not believed to be winnable because the ABM could block enemy missiles.

5. Bush had a chance to have Russia as an ally and not an adversary on at least two occasions. Post-9/11, Vladimir Putin offered to help Bush find the terrorists by giving Bush intelligence gathered. He was rebuffed. When Bush started talking about a missile shield to protect against Iran, Putin offered to have a cooperative effort with Bush to build a joint missile shield in Azerbaijan, which is right on Iran's border. Again, Bush refused.

6. Russia refused to back Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq and Bush hasn't forgotten.

What this all tells us is that it is Bush and not Putin that cannot be trusted, who cares little for diplomacy, and who is pursuing a policy of encirclement of Russia by any means necessary. Since Putin holds the energy reserves of all of Europe under his control, NATO is not going to risk an all-out war with Russia just to appease Bush.

You should stop looking for dragons to slay in other countries and think about the one currently in the White House. Bush's avarice and hubris will get us into a hot war with Russia sooner than later--good thing Bush only has a few months left, although McCain is Bush Lite.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

Needless to say that I have been living under one of the Soviet Union satellites for 18 years and, regardless of what you say, think, or believe, I can claim to have a little more knowledge and understanding of what is and what wants Russia. Until the generation of hard core communists die and a new more progressive and freedom loving leaders rise, Russia is and will continue to be a threat to world peace and stability. Whatever we do, wherever we go to try to make the world a safer and more stable place, we will encounter Russia's resistance and opposition. You can continue to post all the liberal, biased, irrational and ignorant sources, the truth, the historical truth cannot be denied. Unless, of course, you chose to live in a dream world, totally detached from the reality.

To read my posts and articles click here:

http://www.xomba.com/xombyte/lmorovan

• Login or register to post comments
|

The question was about NATO. Do you have something substantive to add, perhaps supported with quotations not vetted by the Republicans in Washington, that would lead the reader to believe that the TEMPORARY NATO is still relevant today?

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

NATO was created with a purpose, and that purpose still stands. Perhaps when and/or if Russia joins the alliance, then it would become obsolete. Needless to remind you that NATO forces are fighting in Afghanistan, and the last time I checked, Afghanistan is not near the North Atlantic area. NATO has been and is evolving and expanding. The alliance serves its purpose and should continue to exist. It has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats or the US Government. It is an International Alliance. Get it?

To read my posts and articles click here:

http://www.xomba.com/xombyte/lmorovan

• Login or register to post comments
|

That time has passed, but the bureaucracy lives on and NATO has become another UN. But, I won't waste my time debating it with you any longer. I will point you and anyone interested in reading about it to the following articles by Dr. Ron Paul:

Against NATO Expansion

NATO Expansion Is Aggression

Ron Paul's Speeches and Statements

I chose these specifically because they convey the meaning I want in re: NATO has outlived its usefulness and because you whine incessantly about the source of my quotations. It doesn't get any plainer than from a United States Congressman saying we should get out of NATO. And Dr. Paul is a Republican.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

The last time I checked, NATO is neither Republican, Democrat or Communist. It is an international alliance, and our presence is essential to its existence.

You would surrender to Satan himself if it would promote your agenda. Get real, please.

To read my posts and articles click here:

http://www.xomba.com/xombyte/lmorovan

• Login or register to post comments
|

Short answer: Congress. That makes our continuing to support NATO and its expansion the responsibility of both the Republicans and Democrats. The NATO expansion during the latter half of Clinton's administration was funded by a Republican Congress, which means the NATO mission creep in Serbia took place as a result of that funding.

Dr. Paul is absolutely right in saying that NATO has outlived its usefulness. The EU can handle its own internal affairs and we have a UN to take care of the rest of the world. This idea that our government has an obligation to ring Russia with American NATO military bases is going to get us all into a very real nuclear shooting war.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

lmorovan...

NATO is a fairly solid alliance for most of Europe and some surrounding nations, as well as for the U.S. and Canada. At the time of its formation, NATO was primarily established to defend European countries against military conquest like that of the recent Nazi regime. It was also part of a defense strategy against the up-and-coming Soviet states.

At the core of the NATO alliance was a key feature in Article V that made NATO quite formidable against potential threats:

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all..."

What constitutes Europe or the "North Atlantic area" (referred to later in the article) is not precisely defined. But considering the fact that Turkey joined NATO in 1952, it must be assumed that the areas around Turkey fall into the regions in question. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - to form a defense alliance with a variety of nations stretched beyond our immediate borders or the borders of Western Europe.

Russia has never been interested in joining the NATO alliance...but then again, the organization was formed partly to protect Europe from Soviet military conquest. Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has worked with NATO as a nation in the Partnership for Peace program. But this recent dispute with Georgia will certainly impact that involvement.

As long as Russia continues to make threats to nations like Poland and invades countries like Georgia, they certainly should not be extended any special privileges or be asked to partner with NATO for collective security operations and training exercises.

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

To th best of my knowledge, all nations which have requested to join NATO after the Cold war was over, did so on their own initiative, especially with the present and real threat of the dismembered Russia to potentially try to take them back. The threat continues and the Georgia incident is more than proof. NATO must not only stay but continue to grow in both strength and numbers.

To read my posts and articles click here:

http://www.xomba.com/xombyte/lmorovan

• Login or register to post comments
|

If Georgia had been a member of NATO, Russia certainly would not have invaded the country, but if so, the response would have been much stronger. And if they think that threatening (or eventually attacking) Poland will help their cause, they are sorely mistaken.

What I have yet to figure out is, if Russia truly has no intention of invading any Eastern European nations or launching any IBM attacks against them, why are they so agitated by a defensive weapons system? And why would they care about who joins NATO?

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

A defense system is simply that: a defense system. The argument is moot, just as if I would offend and threaten a robber because I install an alarm system in my house that would warn against his breaking in.

Now, it would make perfect sense if we would install medium range missiles in Poland aimed at Russia, but that is not the case. Europe has the right to defend and protect itself.

To read my posts and articles click here:

http://www.xomba.com/xombyte/lmorovan

• Login or register to post comments
|

If the missile system was for what Bush claims, then Bush wouldn't have to lie and claim that it is to protect Europe from Iranian and North Korean nuclear ICBMs that Iran certainly and North Korea more than likely do not have. Let's also not forget that the missile system barely functions as designed, so the $110 Billion that has already been spent on the program is a false hope at best.

Plus, the character of the system changes when the character of the government using it changes. If the missile system goes into place and Bush (or the other warmonger, McCain) use the belief that the system will prevent Russian ICBM's from acting as a reasonable deterrent to American/Western nuclear strikes, then the nuclear option looks more favorable and the risk of a very real hot war becomes possible.

The system has not been proven to work and it only stops (or purports to stop) ICBMs. Cruise missiles will get through. Countermeasures will certainly defeat it. Therefore, it is risking much and gaining little.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

Do you honestly expect that the President of any nation in the world speak out in details about all the programs and strategies they come up with? every time you read a word from them, there are many that are not spoken, because, after all, would you tell all your secrets publicly? They know much more that you or I could ever know, therefore, I trust their judgment based on information that I do not have. and neither you.

The defense system is a deterrent, pure and simple. If the Russians are so concerned about it, let them build one of their own. I don't think any American President will have any problem with them doing so.

The threat of a nuclear war will cease to be such the moment a nuclear war is rendered futile and useless. Let all the nations in the world build their own defense shield and nuclear war becomes history. In the meantime, it makes perfect sense to build anything that could render a nuclear attack useless, especially when the threat is constantly present, mainly from rogue nations.

To read my posts and articles click here:

http://www.xomba.com/xombyte/lmorovan

• Login or register to post comments
|

Technically and Constitutionally, the president works for me and for every other American citizen since we pay his salary. Plus, the Congress, which at one time represented the People of this country, has to answer to the constituency for whatever is happening in the country.

Therefore, what the President and the Congress do in my name matters to me and I am entitled to some degree of oversight.

Maybe it works differently for you, but my being lied to by anyone especially the government does not sit well with me. If Bush or anyone else is going to market a specific system and seek my approval, there should be some element of truth to what he says.

It works the same way with major events happening in the U.S., such as Watergate, IranContra, 9/11, the Iraq War, or anything like that. The fact that the government so easily and so readily lies to our faces should tell me that we should not take everything the government says at face value.

Lastly, I find your M.A.D. logic as curious as it is worrisome. You are saying that the way to end the risk of a nuclear annihilation of mankind by making sure that any nuclear missiles fired will be shot down before they reach the target. From 1972 until recently, the idea was the best way to not have a war was to make sure the missiles were never launched. Given a choice, I prefer the latter since it is safer and saner.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

... signed, Uncle MythMan---Big Fan of the 2008 Olympics, Megan Fox, Laur. Franco, Fussin`, Vanessa Montagne & Lena Li--Xombie Plan