Does the U.S. need to make a new global organization with like minded nations?

[Ozz]

Re: Does the U.S. need to make a new global organization with like minded nations?

Originally posted by Vesayen
The U.N. and NATO are now both worthless, filled with petty squabling beurocrats......is it time for the U.S. to pull out of both, and found a new organization with those who are still friendly with it?

I wouldn't call the US, Israel and UK (until the next
election) exactly an organization. More like a Nation,
a colony, and a vassal.

[KrazyHorse]

Ned is always overly dramatic.

Rule 1 of dealing with him is to ignore that (or to endlessly mock it)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Frogger
Both of those were set in motion by the bosnians/serbians themselves, though.

How exactly does that stop those adventures from being aggressive acts? Is NATO only in the business of facilitating a limited number of aggressive wars?

[Kramerman]

yes, and within a time limit too

[Agathon]

The state of the US is actually more precarious than it appears. Among other things it is running a huge deficit and will have to borrow, thus making itself dependent upon the Europeans for whom it has such contempt.

Secondly, the US needs to exert military power over at least some of Eurasia if it is to remain in the role of global hegemon. In short, as Mr Brezinski argues, control of the Eurasian continent is the key to global primacy (there are various reasons for this: proximity resources, control of trade routes, population, etc. You can buy his book quite cheaply if you look around on the net - I recommend it).

If the US were to lose its allies in Europe and fail to make gains anywhere else on the Eurasian landmass it would be in a much weaker position than it currently is, since it would find it much harder to extert military control over the various Eurasian states. A US isolated in the Western hemisphere, as some Republicans envisage, would be finished as far as global dominance goes. Why? Just look at the map. If you've ever played Risk (which isn't as dumb a game as it seems) you will understand.

The problem for the US is that it has no politically justifiable reason for remaining in Europe; the Soviet Union is beaten and its successor states show no interest in returning to the Cold War model. Indeed they cannot, for their own populations would not stand for it. The US needs to remain in Europe to remain the global hegemon. Unfortunately, this is not the sort of reason you can parade to a democratic electorate, which is one reason why American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War looks so strange (what happened to the peace "dividend"). This is the problem they face with the Iraq war. The US would like to shore up its influence in the area to prevent other states (China, Russia) from doing so (again, look at the proximity of Iraq to China and Russia on the map), but it can't come right out and say that to the people. Hence the parade of ridiculous excuses for war currently being offered by Bush, Powell and co.

The problem for the US is that the "natural gravitational pull" of the EU is inexorably drawing all the nations in that area into a new superstate. A state that will have a larger economy and a better educated populace than the US. The Europeans have also managed to solve the problem of war - there will likely never be a war between European states again because of the experiences of the 20th century and it is doubtful that such a state will be excessively belligerent for much the same reasons.

I believe that the current situation is one of the first significant symptoms of the inevitable break of Europe with the US (Britain is an anomaly, but is slowly being dragged into the new order). In my view this is a good thing, since the European model represents a much kinder and less belligerent prospect than the US remaining as boss.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger
I haven't heard it put that way, Duncan. What's your source?

All the major media outlets are saying that what the countries have done is veto planning to defend Turkey in case of war with Iraq.

That still leaves the fact that there's no realistic threat of Iraq attacking Turkey unless Turkey attacks Iraq first (or allows US troops to do so from its soil). Asking for aid in case of an attack in a war that you start is a hell of a stretch for a defensive alliance.

Get technical if you like. Technically, Turkey and the US are allies. How we got into this mess is a different debate. One side says that Saddam is the cause one side says that the US is at fault. The thing is the France and gang are not suppose to be Iraqs allies. They are suppose to be part of NATO. I hate to put it this way, but they SUCK!

They broke the alliance.

[Ned]

Agathon, I for the life of me do not know why we still have a large deployment of troops in Germany. Do the Germans want us there because the bases help the local economy? I don't get it. They can't possible still fear the Russians, can they?

We should withdraw, and soon.

[DinoDoc]

As an aside, why is France even allowed to take part in the military decisions of the alliance given the fact that they aren't part of the military structure?

[DuncanK]

I'm actually wondering at this point if it would have been so bad to let the Soviets have them.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

How exactly does that stop those adventures from being aggressive acts? Is NATO only in the business of facilitating a limited number of aggressive wars?

Did you bother to read the rest of my post or not?

The adventures were not properly under the auspices of NATO, although at least more of a case can be made for them, since the integrity of nearby NATO members was threatened by the actions of outside parties, whereas Turkey's integrity is not threatened by Iraq except insofar as it chooses to participate in an attack against Iraq.

Duncan: I'm sorry you feel that way, but NATO is not obliged to facilitate its member countries in attacking nonmember states unless those states have attacked them. NATO is not an offensive alliance and should never be.

[DuncanK]

Agathon,

Our relationship with the European continent is surely breaking down. I think it's safe to say that WWII is the last time that we will save their ass.

I disagree that the US will be isolated and weakened from it. Europe is not the only game in town. British history shows us that. Well, actually American history shows us that. Europe has depended on us. We haven't depended on them.

Do you really think they are going to get along when we are gone. What basis in history do you have for this. France doesn't get along with anyone. They are the biggest cause of **** getting ****ed up in the world in the damn history of the world. Anyone who trusts them is seriously ****ed up. And yes that includes the Americans who ever joined in alliance with them.

[KrazyHorse]

Man, this Iraq **** just gets more and more twisted, doesn't it?

I never thought the diplomatic rift would have gotten this far. Now regardless of whether you see American or French/Russian/German etc. intransigence as the driving force behind this war of words, it certainly is amusing.

All the national leaders involved are beginning to act like spoiled brats, and personally I'm content to watch for now.

[Kramerman]

but NATO is not obliged to facilitate its member countries in attacking nonmember states unless those states have attacked them

But NATO would just be setting up defences in Turkey, in case they are attacked as a result of a (hopefully) UN led invasion, or (hopefully not, but oh well) US led invasion. Turkey is an ally, and they should be protected like one.

[Kramerman]

All the national leaders involved are beginning to act like spoiled brats, and personally I'm content to watch for now.

This is true, tho i think theyve always acted like this. When you really get down to it, world politics is sooo childish. Watching all the countries get along with each other is just a hyper complicated version of children in a daycare getting along with each other... the anlogy could be exteneded to women too... gah, the world is acting like such women

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Frogger
Did you bother to read the rest of my post or not?

Yes, I did. I considered it irrelevent to the issue.

although at least more of a case can be made for them, since the integrity of nearby NATO members was threatened by the actions of outside parties,

How is that a military problem as oppossed to a border control problem? Or why intervene in what is for all intents and purposes an internal conflict instead of sealing your border with a problem area?