(no subject)

Date: 22/4/10 16:25 (UTC)
An excellent post.

From my side of things, I consider NATO an increasingly obsolete relic of the Cold War. There's no Soviet Empire to contend for hegemony with, and expanding it into the former Warsaw Pact and SSRs has in a lot of ways done more harm than good. What would be better would be more of a UN with actual teeth instead of a global NATO, at least IMHO.

NATO had its origins in defending the imperial interests of the United States against those of the Soviet Union, but the problem is that the days of Soviet power are going to reach 20 years gone next year, and absent something like the USSR there's no real justification for an Alliance which nowadays is, as you noted, simply a fig leaf for US interests that gives them a more international glamour.

I think that creating a greater alliance of nations is necessary, but my view is less NATO, which was an imperial alliance against another imperial alliance, and more what one would get if UN peacekeepers were turned into an actual military with punitive power.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


MONTHLY TOPIC:

Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
       1
2 345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30