But NATO has no concrete ties with the UN. This idea of NATO as the "militant arm of the UN" is unsettling to me. NATO was an alliance formed in the face of the Warsaw Pact, who's sole purpose was to directly confront communist expansion. The world has changed so much since the inception of NATO and the UN....these groups need to either be re-structured, or replaced.
And really, isn't NATO just a backdrop for unilateral US military operations? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Graeme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 12:12 PM Subject: Re: Dying for the United Nations > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:43:52 -0500, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree with you Gruss. > > > > Question: Wouldn't the flip side argument to this be that, when faced with a > > legitimate threat that requires swift action, the ambiguous nature of the UN > > would become a dangerous hindrance? > > That's what NATO exists for, no? As I understand it, the UN is there > to try and help people during peacetime and to try and prevent a > serious threat from devleoping. NATO is there to band countries > together to respond when a legitimate threat materializes. > > -Kevin > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Protect your mail server with built in anti-virus protection. It's not only good for you, it's good for everybody. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=39 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:132024 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
