Hello, Goodbye
__________________Why? Because the French are the newest members of NATO, and the U.S. would like a bailout -- merci! -- from NATO in the Afghanistan PWOT.
But there is that niggling problem of human rights, the compromising of which hangs over the U.S. like a Damoclean sword. Meanwhile, they ask NATO to in effect invade Afghanistan and force western ways upon an unwilling population.
Ironically, the U.S. is asking this of the same participants who joined NATO to prevent the Soviet Union from doing exactly the same thing to central Europe that the U.S. is attempting in Afghanistan and Iraq. NATO was defensively arrayed to keep the Soviets from invading Europe; it was never envisioned as an offensive force, nor was it ever construed to be a strike force for U.S. policy use.
Nonetheless, this is the U.S. goal for present-day NATO members. Maybe it is time for the U.S. to leave NATO, and for the organization to be disbanded. The Soviet threat no longer looms.
It is not a U.S. concern, but the EU could create their own protective alliance, if they felt such a thing necessary.
posted by rangeragainstwar at 7:54 AM
5 Comments:
never, ever, for any reason turn your back on russians.
if there is ever a lessening of the fulva gap watch they just might decide that it is time for them to roll through.
MB,
Nato has less use than Cheney's dick.
The last time the Russians rampaged central Europe it was as a US ally. So much for old allies. You know this history better than I but Russia generally was not an aggressive war proponent. Russia only invaded and expanded to protect their borders. In the Napoleonic Wars they saw this as being achieved by the strategic offensive- but it was forced upon them. But screw history, let's talk today. If you want to protect the Fulda Gap then by all means do so, but this means that the Russians had already stomped the Ukraine, Poland, Czech/ Slovaks and all related countries. Come on MB they had a tough go in Georgia and Checnya is still touch and go. If they are a threat then let Germany/France/Poland assume the burden for their own defense. The US obviously has more important economic priorities than the defense of weiner schnitzel. Let Europe defend Europe, do they not have their own nuclear umbrella?
jim
The Russians have problems of their own, and the way their going they'll be creating new ones long into the future in which to occupy themselves.
I'm with Ranger on this one.
The Euro's, not just the gov's but the hoi poli have been able to afford their luxurious socialist economies and lifestyles because the US was footing the bill to put bone to their soft, cartilidge-like military spine.
Our defense spending on just "reinforcing" the Euro line runs in the billions. If we close our bases, and bring home all those "resources" we will save billions upon billions of dollars.
Not to mention, the Euro's, for the first time in 55 years, will be responsible for their own damn security.
BTW, part and parcel of our defense of Europe is our nuclear forces, which part of the strat that we "openly" let the Soviets know about was our willingness to opt for First Strike should they get "antsy."
Keeping and updating nuclear arms is a costly, messy process. But mainly, costly, oh...so...very....very...costly.
We pull everything, my G-d, the amount of money we'll save...just boggles the mind.
Pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, along with closing our European bases and pulling all resources home from those locations...we'd think we won the World Lotto.
Sheer,
What you say is well and good up to the point that it'd be like winning the world lotto. As MB always says- it wouldn't be a bonus or peace dividend b/c we're funding this garbage with money we don't have.
When one thinks about it the mind is boggled by the stupidity and mindlessness of the entire concept.
jim
Sheer:
Nuclear weapons are inexpensive compared to the cost of arming and maintaining large ground forces that could thwart the cold war Soviet army.
As far as first strike on our part: West Germany in a NATO without France lacked battlefield depth. Tactical nukes would need to be used to strike Soviet forces on their side of the Fulda, Hof and Cheb Gaps (for example)that were choke points behind which lucrative nuclear targets would be staged, waiting to get through.
During my time in Germany, we did not have a good feel for how far the Soviets could go before the war would go nuclear. Actually, it was a function of the NATO Council of Ministers. Germany had a say in the mayhem that would take place over its lands.
My involvement was with use of Atomic Demolitions Munitions (ADM) that were used for large demolition targets - think of large bridges such as the Golden Gate. Creating large obstacles with conventional explosives is possible but there is a considerable logistic element, as well as the manpower to emplace. We had to assume that ADMs would not be used early on in a battle.
Post a Comment
<< Home