Reading Current Events

Oct 06, 2006 12:16 # 43490

charlie *** wants to note...

NATO and the war on terror

95% | 5

When I read this BBC article my first thought was "Why is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in Afghanistan?" When I read Wikipedia I was suprised to read that the first time the rights of the treaty were actually invoked was directly after the Sept 11th attacks.

The treaty was originally designed as a sort of mutual protection against the USSR and communism. I began to wonder why NATO still exists at all. I think this is the answer: the Western nations have the privilage of protecting their interests at all costs.

True, back in the cold war, there was a reason to build up armies. And we are still vulernable to attacks. But really, even if all the people in the WTC had died, how much is that compared to the amount of people around the world dieing from civil war and terrorism in their own countries? We had an opportunity to get a taste of what daily life is like in many countries, but instead we used it as an excuse to go on a conquest again.

So here it is, western nations protect themselves, but never anyone else. We aren`t helping Afgahnistan because we are concerned for them. We are occupying Afganistan because we can protect ourselves at any cost.

We can do it, so we do. But I think this sort of attitude is what brought on the first attacks anyway. I`ve read an arguement that The UN, NATO, the WTO, etc. exist as a system that keeps the Western nations on top, and others below. A new kind of colonialism. And I would like to think that these organizations are beyond reproach from that critism. Maybe they were twenty or thirty years ago, but I just don`t know anymore.

Wouldn`t it be crazy if NATO or the UN asked part-time and non-member countries what they would like help with? Not that they need to do it, but at least they could ask. I know I`m hopelessly ideal.

Please contiune to vote AND post.

Feb 26, 2007 09:41 # 44032

eljefe *** replies...

Re: NATO and the war on terror

?% | 1

Wouldn`t it be crazy if NATO or the UN asked part-time and non-member countries what they would like help with? Not that they need to do it, but at least they could ask.

Well, it would be interesting, but NATO exists to serve itself currently. And of course, in reality NATO doing anything typically means US money and US power.

I'm torn on these issues. I'd love to see NATO or the UN do some real good, but that means exterior intervention into local affairs. I've come to the realization that change means nothing unless it's created from within. Basically, the people of the non-member/part-time member countries need to rise up and declare what they want, and do the best that they can to get it done, AND ONLY THEN should there be outside intervention.

I`ve read an arguement that The UN, NATO, the WTO, etc. exist as a system that keeps the Western nations on top, and others below.

Well of course, why would a group of people create an organization with the purpose of undermining themselves?

As for the middle east... the have OPEC, don't think they aren't well defended. OPEC still holds quite a bit of sway.

Fond memories


Small text Large text

Netalive Amp (Skin for Winamp)