European Tribune

Display:
This entire conversation has made me more opposed to NATO.  If a country's argument for NATO being necessary is "Left to our own devices we can't behave responsibly and our irresponsible behavoir will piss off Russia, making it a threat, so we need NATO to protect us" it is offensively stupid.

I know that is not really what any country is saying.

But it seems to be the argument left standing in this game of "what would happen if NATO dissolved."

Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.

by poemless on Fri Apr 4th, 2008 at 02:50:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The original issue was whether the Western European countries would face any downside from forcing the dissolution of NATO. My argument is that they would be virtually certain to face greater difficulty in pursuing EU integration and that there is a small but real chance of causing the political destabilization of some EU members. You seem to be saying that the fears that would lead to those negative consequences are irrational and should therefore be ignored. I agree they're irrational, but so what? It won't make them go away. And therefore it is only sensible to take them into account.  

PS, you seem to be focussed on this war thing, but that's not what I was talking about.

by MarekNYC on Fri Apr 4th, 2008 at 03:08:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nato is a military alliance.  It is a "war thing."

Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
by poemless on Fri Apr 4th, 2008 at 03:24:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recent Diaries
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series