Monday, October 27, 2008

Someone agrees with me on NATO

This may be a first, someone agrees with me on NATO. The comments I think does a good job explaining the pros and cons of continued US membership in NATO


William R. Barker said...


For the 714th time...


...the reason for keeping NATO is to keep the Europeans tied to us.

That's it.

We want the Europeans militarily dependent upon us. We don't want the Europeans to possess (either individually or collectively) independent military abilities beyond... say... what France already possesses.

Aside from that, every critique against NATO is indeed valid. (*SHRUG*) It's just that the "larger good" - at least from our selfish national security perspective - is that we "waste" money in and on Europe now and in the near future rather than face the risk of having to spend far more in or on Europe in the future.

Either Europe as an "independent" military block or a non-NATO Europe under Russian shadow is a far worse scenario from our point of view than the situation which exists at present.


Anthony said...

The purpose of NATO was threefold

1. Keep the Americans in
2. Keep the Russians out
3. Keep the Germans down.

All of that in the context of just bearly defeating a horrible collectivist idology only to see another horrible collectivist ideology threaten to take over Europe and the world.

There is no such threat today.
NATO served its purpose. I assume post-NATO there will be a European security alliance just like NATO, they may even continue to call it NATO. We just won't be in it.

We can still have annual summits and the like. But in Brussels they should have a nice ceremony, lower our flag, and have the band play Auld Lange Syne while the last of our troops get on the transport to leave.

While that will cause Europe to spend more on their militaries, do you REALLY believe the Europeans will suddenly turn into an empire builder again?

As for Russia, oil is now below $70/bbl. Their economy is something like 1/15th of the EU. Their population is something like 33% of the EU. If Europe cannot handle that, Europe is not worth defending.

William R. Barker said...


You're a grown man, a practicing attorney, please tell me you're capable of reasoning beyond your stale talking point of "the purpose of NATO was..." blah, blah, blah.

I mean... you ARE understanding the point I'm making - right...???

Oh... and beyond law... isn't your professional area of expertise... err... numbers focused? (*SMILE*)

Oil WAS approximately $35 a barrel prior to the beginning of the oil boomlet of the past few years. What's DOUBLE 35, Anthony...???


Just in case I have to lay THAT one out for you too Anthony, get it in your head... $70 a barrel oil... $60 a barrel oil... even oil fluctuation between $40-$60 means ONE HELL OF A LOT OF MONEY FLOWING INTO THE COFFERS OF OIL PRODUCING NATIONS - like Russia.

BTW, a poor violent man with a gun usually wins in a mano o mano (sp?) with the stockbroker who earns 15 times what he does but only has a nail file in his grooming kit. (*SMIRK*)

Beyond that, no, my fear isn't a "European Empire" spreading out to terrorize the world; my fear is a Europe not firmly tied to us militarily deciding - either proactively or reactively - either on their own terms or Russia's terms - that they should "ally" with Russia or at least not stay allied with us against... err... whoever.