Romania's Decision to enter NATO

[Führerul]

I'm not entirely sure why Romania made the decision to enter NATO, but I suppose it was mainly to "neutralize' Hungary as a threat.

I think that the main task of the Romanian army is to keep the country's borders intact and for the last 60+ years...ever since the end of World War 2 the main adversary of Romania is Hungary and her territorial anbition. Some hungarians "dream" after the Austro Hungarian empire,..their moment of greatness, so I suppose from this point of view it was the right thing to do, to have entered NATO, because NATO countries don't fight eachother so Hungary and Romania are not likely to be involved in a conflict as long as they are part of NATO.

I agree with this, but I dislike everything else NATO stands for, and I should say that I hate all oragnizations that are 'above the country level' like NATO, EU, UN and so on.... "Organizatiile "Supra-statale" :x

What do You say?

[Geto-Dacul]

Führerul wrote :

QUOTE

Some hungarians \"dream\" after the Austro Hungarian empire,..their moment of greatness, so I suppose from this point of view it was the right thing to do, to have entered NATO, because NATO countries don't fight eachother so Hungary and Romania are not likely to be involved in a conflict as long as they are part of NATO.

Well, some Western European countries like Austria, Germany and France were once working on a project called the "Habsburg Plan" which would turn Central and Balkan Europe in a kind of federation, very similar to the dead Austro-Hungarian empire. Of course, for Romania, only Transylvania will be part of it... The idea is to fractionate and decentralize those regions.

The Americans look to be opposed to such a plan, actually, and prefer to maintain "stability" in the region, to install their new bases.

QUOTE

I agree with this, but I dislike everything else NATO stands for, and I should say that I hate all oragnizations that are 'above the country level' like NATO, EU, UN and so on.... \"Organizatiile \"Supra-statale\"   What do You say?

Those international organizations are part of the process of GLOBALIZATION. Globalization can bring some economical wealth for the most powerful, but culturally, it is disastrous for everyone. Globalization means UNIVERSALISM, and does not bother to take in account the relativity of moral and culture. Globalization is a dangerous utopia, which is part of every empire at its apogee. During the ancient ages, it was done on lower scales. But now, with growing technology it can be done on planetary scale.
UN is one of the most perfidious of those international organizations, because it pretends to help "human developpment". In reality, UN was created and is manipulated by the most powerfuls, in order to justify their imperialism. UN never prevents conflicts ; it arrives only after the damage was done. The war in Iraq was a classical example... Another example are civil wars and "genocides" in Africa, which are actually happening but the UN "peace" forces are nowhere.

See :


Freedom on the Altar: The UN's Crusade Against God and Family
by Grigg

William Norman Grigg convincingly shows that the fulfillment of UN objectives would mean not only an end to nationhood, but the destruction of traditional morality, culture, and values, and the supplanting of the family with the totalitarian state.


The United Nations Exposed
(Formerly "Global Tyranny ... Step by Step")
William F. Jasper

Below the surface of public attention, internationalists have been working for decades to build the United Nations into an all-powerful world government. In this carefully documented study, William F. Jasper shows that, with the United Nations, the American people are being offered what amounts to poison disguised as candy. this book replaced title "Global Tyranny ... Step by Step" - An excellent introduction and overview of the UN and its far-reaching involvement in many areas of our lives. Chapters on the military objectives, the founders, the UN's role in World Government, treaties, the war on children, population control, economic systems, New Age religion, planned regionalism, and more!

It is 'conspiracy theories' as you love them, Adolf!!!
But I agree that we must read every point of vue, to better understand the truth! :wink:

Best regards,

Getu'

[inahurry]

Fuhrerul,

I think you might be right when you believe US is more inclined to maintain the current situation (which serves its interests well in any case) but I'd like to point out 2 things :

1. US's power apparently is unparalleled (true from a military point of view). In reality, US power is declining. And this has to do a lot with what happened (and happens) inside US, mostly after WW2, which is a constant erosion of the traditional values there in favor of a dehumanizing, anti-Christian, "politically correct" society. The election of Bush Jr. is just a very distorted reaction from a very confused people. As long US will continue to build a world empire that is actually the future Earthian police state for an elite who despises American people as much as it despises any other people the US, as a nation, is digging its own grave.

2. Eventually, for "little fish" like Romania, some obscure assistant in the State Department, lobbists, dubious businessmen etc., can be the "mediators" between Romania and the US. Despite Geoana's boasts I'm afraid the policy toward Romania may be horribly influenced by a Tom Lantos and I refrain to mention others.

From the EU I don't expect anything. Anything good, that is. The EU political construct is entirely anti-national. How far this utopian project can go is difficult to say but usually internationalists don't stop by themselves.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

From the EU I don't expect anything. Anything good, that is. The EU political construct is entirely anti-national. How far this utopian project can go is difficult to say but usually internationalists don't stop by themselves

They have to be stopped by force ! Give us a splendid little war mein Führer(ul) !

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

I agree with this, but I dislike everything else NATO stands for,

Then stay far away from it.

QUOTE

and I should say that I hate all oragnizations that are 'above the country level' like NATO, EU, UN and so on....

There was a time in my life when I was very young I hated the idea of any organization above family level. In fact I disliked my own pluricellular structure and wanted to be an autonomous, proud and independant unicellular. And then I stopped being silly and I grew up.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

UN never prevents conflicts

Heck, what do you know ? When UN is successfull the conflict is prevented and you don't see anything.

Based on your previous post, I would venture to suspect that you know close to nothing to the UN charter.

QUOTE

William Norman Grigg convincingly shows that the fulfillment of UN objectives would mean not only an end to nationhood, but the destruction of traditional morality, culture, and values, and the supplanting of the family with the totalitarian state.

As an author & analyst, Norman Grigg is a joke. He would tell you that he was raped by an elephant if that would get him published.

[mabadesc]

I also am skeptical about these multi-national organizations, like the UN, EU, and even NATO.

In addition to thwarting the national and cultural identity of countries, I'd also like to point out that these institutions have not yet proven themselves to be smooth and efficient, as other member(s) seem to believe.

1. UN is total confusion - it's like watching the 3 Stooges or Laurel and Hardy (Stan si Bran). Someone on this forum mentioned that whenever UN has intervened, it has done so successfully and peacefully.
In my opinion, the result of every "successful" UN intervention has been appeasement.

2. The EU is far from working out its problems. Economically speaking, Europeans within the EU have financial difficulties since the switch to the Euro because in a lot of countries the conversion rate became 1:1 (ex: a salary of 2000 German marks became a salary of 1000 Euros, but the prices remained the same, though now in Euros).
Political struggles for leadership are getting worse. A lot of Europeans believe that France and Germany, as EU leaders, are using the EU to counter and compete for economical supremacy against the American and the Asian markets.

3. I suppose NATO has been the most efficient of the 3 (leaving aside the fiasco in Serbia/Bosnia). But its relevance following the end of the Cold War has been declining.
One member in this forum was an ardent supporter of NATO and the EU at the same time. That's his opinion and he's certainly entitled to it. But I should mention that it's becoming illogical to be a supporter of both, since their goals are more and more different. We shouldn't forget the disagreements between NATO's leaders (the GB and the US) and the EU's leaders (France and Germany) with respect to the latest Iraqi war. The latter two countries have done everything to thwart NATO's authority. And with recent talks about the possible formation of a EU military organization, one can foresee NATO and the EU becoming competitors, if not adversaries.

[Dr_V]

Well, you guys have some points in this matter, but try to see the other side of the picture. I think there are mainly 3 aspects of this matter that plede for Romania entering UE and NATO, even if these organisations are not the best idea for future progress:

1. Forgive my laguage, but what do you know it happends when you "spit against the wind"? This "globalisation" process is in full development and good or bad it's too powerfool to counter it now. What position can have a small and poor country as Romania but go along with what the rest of the world asks from it?

2. No major change can be done without braking some eggs. I don't say UE is a good idea, but the unification of the human race IS needed in order to save the human race from self-destruction. Do you expect such a process will take place without mishaps?

3. Show me one example of loosing the traditional habits in a region after it was concuered or federalised even by force. The "Pax Romana" united dousins of concuered nations for more than 1000 years and did not demolished the national identity, even it the romans did tried to.
I ask you: what is more important to you, the future of the national identity or the future of the human race? I'm convinced that even if the state borders would be forever erased from the maps a degree of regional particularity will survive indefinetly. That's because the very conditions of living in a place or another are so variable on this Earth that men will never be a uniform species. This is the essence of our progress but also of our destruction. If the differences are used to analyse a problem from different angles, the result is progress, but if they are "used" to ever create conflicts between differend groups the result will be a sterile planet in a future not so far away.

Well, that's what I had to say. I hope I didn't hurt anyones feelings, I don't try to create a dispute here.

[Chandernagire]

QUOTE

In addition to thwarting the national and cultural identity of countries

I challenge you to prove this point.

QUOTE

In my opinion, the result of every \"successful\" UN intervention has been appeasement.

We must not read the same charter and history books. UN is not designed to be a deus ex machina, or more than the sum of the parts.

QUOTE

Economically speaking, Europeans within the EU have financial difficulties since the switch to the Euro because in a lot of countries the conversion rate became 1:1 (ex:  a salary of 2000 German marks became a salary of 1000 Euros, but the prices remained the same, though now in Euros).

To put it simply : this is false.

QUOTE

One member in this forum was an ardent supporter of NATO and the EU at the same time. That's his opinion and he's certainly entitled to it.  But I should mention that it's becoming illogical to be a supporter of both, since their goals are more and more different.

I'm not a supporter of NATO.

QUOTE

We shouldn't forget the disagreements between NATO's leaders (the GB and the US) and the EU's leaders (France and Germany) with respect to the latest Iraqi war.  The latter two countries have done everything to thwart NATO's authority.  And with recent talks about the possible formation of a EU military organization, one can foresee NATO and the EU becoming competitors, if not adversaries.

Indeed. Eventually EU will develop it's own military structure. NATO's future is foggy but I wouldn't bury it too soon. You never know what the next US administration will bring us.

[Chandernagire]

QUOTE

but the unification of the human race IS needed in order to save the human race from self-destruction

Albeit this is looking very like sci-fi, it happens that your are fundamentally right in the principle. You do not become great by remaining "balkanized". And union does not equal to destruction of diversity.

Ok, now I'm leaving until either officially reinstated or definitively banned. I'not going to play with the admin's feet for the sole pleasure of doing so (ever looked at Matrix 2 ?) :twisted: - there are more intelligent things to do. I suspect that one of the admin simply can't bear with me and my opinions. If censorship is his way then I have nothing to do here anyway and I would gladly have banned myself if he didn't. On the other hand if off topic posting if the reason then I wonder why he doesn't simply use the "delete post" functions to moderate such things.

[mabadesc]

Ok, first off about Chander's ban, my opinion is that it should be lifted and he should be reinstated. God knows I disagree with over 90% of what he writes, but as long as opinions are presented in a non-insulting manner, one should be free to express them.

Now, with regards to Dr_V's statement:

QUOTE

This \"globalisation\" process is in full development and good or bad it's too powerfool to counter it now. What position can have a small and poor country as Romania but go along with what the rest of the world asks from it?

I agree. This is a pragmatic/practical approach, but you are correct. I also support Romania's entry in the EU because of the general trend and because of the benefits we stand to gain.

About your Pax Romana, argument, I don't think however that it's a valid analogy. It happened app. 2000 years ago when there was no mass-media, no propaganda immediately available to the popular masses, etc...
Plus, romans were already stretched thin over their provinces. Even so, nevertheless, national identies were changed. The Gauls were no longer Gauls, they became the French. The "Dacic" identity and culture slowly evolved towards the Romanians. So on and so forth...
I'm not saying these changes were bad (or good), I'm only stating that national/cultural changes did occur.

Now, moving on to Chander's replies.

1. This is far from being a valid analysis, but virtually *all* the people I spoke with from the EU (German & French friends, Dutch taxi drivers and waiters, etc) told me that prices have adjusted to the Euro while salaries haven't. Granted, a lot of them were still pro-EU, but they were not content with their diminished financial purchasing power. From what I was told, in Germany especially, blue-collar workers are quite unhappy and nationalistic feelings (especially against immigrants) are on the rise.
One more disadvantage regarding the EU is the Euro vs. the Dollar. A weak dollar is good for American exports, bad for Euro countries. Until a couple of years ago, the dollar would weaken against, let's say, Germany (bad for Germany), but it could very well increase against the French Franc (good for France). Not all countries would suffer. Now, with the single Euro currency, there is no more balance. A weaker dollar influences ALL EU countries.

2. The UN - well, enough said about them. Unofficial alliances, vote-trading, and confusion reigns supreme.

3. NATO - you're right, it's far from being dead. In fact, I don't think it's future is foggy. NATO's backbone has always been the US-UK historical alliance. As long as this continues (and I think it will), NATO will be fine. On the contrary, NATO may well redefine itself and gain strength by "abandoning" hostile EU countries such as France and Germany, while welcoming the loyal Eastern countries, such as Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria. These countries may well become part of the EU politically and economically, but militarily, they will always trust the US/UK NATO to any Franco/German-led EU military alliance. Example: Poland is pro-EU but militarily it remained loyal to NATO even when being chastized and criticized by Chirac and Fischer.

So, to conclude by getting back to the original topic question in this thread (Should Romania join NATO?), I would have to say YES. Joining NATO doesn't exclude joining the EU, but it does provide more security than any EU military alliance. Let's be serious, based on past actions (recent and not so recent), which military alliance would you trust? One that's led by the US and the UK, or one that will be led (it doesn't even exist yet) mainly by France?

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

This is far from being a valid analysis, but virtually *all* the people I spoke with from the EU (German & French friends, Dutch taxi drivers and waiters, etc) told me that prices have adjusted to the Euro while salaries haven't.

Well, my salary and the prices were converted to Euro. The prices did not increase and my buying power remained the same. Anything else would not have been accepted. What more can I say ?

QUOTE

A weak dollar is good for American exports, bad for Euro countries.

Naturally it's bad for exports but good for imports, it's not all one sided. Having a weak money is not that rosy either and it's far more easy to devaluate than the reverse.

QUOTE

A weaker dollar influences ALL EU countries.

Likewise the EUR starts influencing everything else, nations currency reserves most notably.

QUOTE

As long as this continues (and I think it will), NATO will be fine.  On the contrary, NATO may well redefine itself and gain strength by \"abandoning\" hostile EU countries such as France and Germany, while welcoming the loyal Eastern countries, such as Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria.

"Loyal" to what ? Countries entering EU will inevitably take part in European geostrategy building and not sell themselves to the pack of neocon business men in office in the white house. A few countries may well stay outside EU it won't matter that much in the long run.

QUOTE

These countries may well become part of the EU politically and economically, but militarily, they will always trust the US/UK NATO to any Franco/German-led EU military alliance.

They will trust the military alliance they are part of and contribute to it's power.

QUOTE

Example:  Poland is pro-EU but militarily it remained loyal to NATO even when being chastized and criticized by Chirac and Fischer.

This was a deplorable diplomatical mess. Chirac was rather right on the principle but he behaved like a bear and many Europeans criticized him for that. After that he had to backpedal a bit. Now Poland has also to make up her mind what she really wants. You cannot ask for European subsidies to buy US military stuff and piss off the whole community with "I don't care the others" behaviour while at the same time pretending to step into the Union. It generated some understandable anger during a time when EU is busy developping some level of (much needed) political unity. The Poles have gone in Irak to play the mercenary Hessians for Bush. Fine. Let them become the 51st state in the US then. But they cannot have it both ways.

QUOTE

Joining NATO doesn't exclude joining the EU, but it does provide more security than any EU military alliance.

I strongly believe that joining EU is by far the greatest security garanty. Joining NATO provides the greatest military strength right now but security in not a question of sole military power.

QUOTE

Let's be serious, based on past actions (recent and not so recent), which military alliance would you trust?  One that's led by the US and the UK, or one that will be led (it doesn't even exist yet) mainly by France?

I will trust a European alliance any time over a US led alliance. US and European interests are on diverging courses. This may change of course but the fact remains that an economically strong EU is not exactly in everyone's interest in the US.

[mabadesc]

Chander said:

QUOTE

Well, my salary and the prices were converted to Euro. The prices did not increase and my buying power remained the same. Anything else would not have been accepted. What more can I say ?

I believe you, I have no reason not to, especially since you live in a EU country. I was just visiting...I'm just a bit confused as to why all these people were telling me they were unhappy with the Euro conversion.

Next quote:

QUOTE

Quote:   A weak dollar is good for American exports, bad for Euro countries.   Naturally it's bad for exports but good for imports, it's not all one sided. Having a weak money is not that rosy either and it's far more easy to devaluate than the reverse.

Actually, exports are the key factor. Any country wants to have a high export/import ratio. If imports surpass exports, then that country is in serious financial debt.
It IS true that a weaker currency produces the danger of an uncontrollable devaluation, leading to inflation, but I highly doubt that the US dollar is in danger of going into an uncontrollable slide.

Now getting to the main issue, EU vs. US/NATO, you mentioned:

QUOTE

US and European interests are on diverging courses. This may change of course but the fact remains that an economically strong EU is not exactly in everyone's interest in the US.

I agree with you, and I think this is really the core of the issue.
Personally, though, I believe that at the center of the EU stand France and Germany who want to regain economic supremacy and realize they cannot by themselves. Therefore, let's get all of Europe involved so we can defeat those mean, superior americans...
We won't force the smaller European countries to join, but they'll be forced to if they want to do business with us. See, to me this sounds a bit like economic blackmail.
I hope I'm wrong, but the European Union as it is today (esp. with Chirac's bullying) vaguely reminds me of the former USSR and the Eastern Bloc, only on an economic level - not a political one (yet). You're pretty much forced to get in to survive, and you can't really leave.

By the way, try this (as a joke). Go to google.com and type "French military victories" in the search field. Then press the "I'm lucky" button, and read carefully the results. You'll get a laugh out of the results.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

I'm just a bit confused as to why all these people were telling me they were unhappy with the Euro conversion.

Don't know. Maybe because price comparison suddenly became much more easy the taxi drivers could no longer rip off EU tourists ?
Before the EUR was introduced the governments took steps to set up controls so that the conversions would not become a general opportunity for shopkeepers and traders to increase prices. It worked reasonably well. The only excesses I ever saw was with rounding up to the next digit.

QUOTE

Personally, though, I believe that at the center of the EU stand France and Germany who want to regain economic supremacy and realize they cannot by themselves. Therefore, let's get all of Europe involved so we can defeat those mean, superior americans...

This way of looking at France and Germany as continental conspirators is extreme. I would expect that from the current US admin, not from Rumanians . The history of EU building and the reality and working mode of it's institutions insure a certain equilibrium. Granted big countries have bigger political influence in the parliament, you couldn't realistically expect someting else. Actually integrating big countries into EU will dilute that influence not increase it.

If France & Germany are willing to accept that it's not to "defeat the Americans". We are not attempting to defeat anyone. Our economics are not much different from theirs. In that field we are pretty much playing with their rules. If they crumble, the shit will hit the fan in EU as well, so we certainly don't hope they will. We are simply concerned with building a better future for Europe, nothing else.

QUOTE

I hope I'm wrong, but the European Union as it is today (esp. with Chirac's bullying) vaguely reminds me of the former USSR and the Eastern Bloc, only on an economic level - not a political one (yet).  You're pretty much forced to get in to survive, and you can't really leave.

God I hope not :-) The cement of EU is not military power. It's a common set of values, a European way of life blending common social and democratic preferences. The more EU grows the more it takes critics, I guess it's normal.

When EU started with a few countries a half century ago many were laughing their ass off. Then as it kept advancing the bull got kicked all the way but kept moving anyway. Now as it starts making cautious moves toward political unity (thank you, Bush) it's being seen as dangerous by those who don't like the idea of EU speaking with one voice. Sure they would prefer the lamentable cacophony of diverging opinions and infighting that we witnessed during the Irak affair.

QUOTE

By the way, try this (as a joke).  Go to google.com and type \"French military victories\" in the search field.  Then press the \"I'm lucky\" button, and read carefully the results.  You'll get a laugh out of the results

Yeah Comes oozing right out of the white house frog bashing department but it's fair game. Actually one my best friends is a US Marine and we often joke on the topic. He starts mocking the French and naturally I rush to defend the...European position
We don't have quite the same view of the world but we understand each other and, for me, that's a small ray of light and hope for the future.

[inahurry]

Not all EU countries were hit the same by the abandon of their national currencies for euro.

Credible sources (people who went to Germany) I’ve talked to told me Germans aren’t pleased, their buying power was reduced. Would be interested to hear what Thomas V. opinion on the matter is.

As time goes by, the shock will be absorbed and it’s easy to rip off the people in countries with their own currency (see Romania).

The euro is not dangerous because you can buy more or less, is more inflationary stable or not than the former national currencies. It is dangerous because, the financial policy is even more remote now from the democratic decision (and national interest) than it was when the national currencies gradually slipped from governmental control to independent central banks. While there isn’t much difference between a central bank governor who obeys IMF directives and the financiers behind the euro, at least, from a national point of view, it is easier to reverse policies if you still own a national central bank than if you depend on a supranational, uncontrollable force. If one of the EU countries would like to revert to national currencies, unless it is a EU unanimous decision, it would face havoc with terrible economic consequences. Abandoning national currency means abandoning sovereignty, much more so than delegating political decisions to a EU government.