We still need NATO?

You seem to constantly forget that one of the basic precepts of Communism is to "liberate" all proletarians in the world through violent means.

Is NATO or is USA?

Commander: US Wants Bases in Romania, Bulgaria


Source: Voice of America news


" The commander of U.S. forces in Europe, General James Jones, says the United States is ready to begin negotiations with new NATO members Romania and Bulgaria about basing U.S. forces in those countries.

General Jones told a House of Representatives committee Wednesday that officers under his command have made repeated visits to Romania and Bulgaria, and the time has come to begin formal talks on basing U.S. forces in those countries. "We are definitely at the launching point, as opposed to the conceptual point," he said.

General Jones says the possibility of basing U.S. forces in Romania and Bulgaria fits into the Defense Department's plans re-structure its force deployment around the world. The plan is to move away from large bases far from potential conflict zones, to smaller bases closer to where the forces might be used.

"We're very excited at the possibility, in the European transformation, of basing an Eastern European brigade, a rotational brigade, in Bulgaria and Romania, along with the accompanying air assets and logistical assets necessary to sustain that presence," he added.

A brigade would be between 3,000-5,000 troops, plus supporting units.

General Jones, who is also the NATO supreme commander, says talks with the two new NATO members should begin soon on details of the basing arrangements, which he said could include ports, airfields and facilities for ground forces.

"I believe that this year we will now turn to dialogue with both nations to work out the basing agreements, the status-of-forces agreements, and the most important one is the access that the United States wishes to have to its forces,” General Jones said. “I think the secretary of defense has been very strong in saying that we don't want to put forces where we can't get at them. And so we have to work out those agreements. But I think that in the case of Bulgaria and Romania we will."

In the past, some countries that host U.S. forces have refused to allow those forces to be deployed directly to conflict areas, or the base facilities to be used in operations that the host country does not support. This was a problem with U.S. forces in Turkey when the Iraq war began two years ago.

But General Jones indicated he does not expect such issues with Bulgaria and Romania, which he described as "extraordinarily accommodating" and expressing a strong desire to have part of the U.S. European Command on their soil.

The general did not mention the incident last week in which U.S. forces apparently killed a Bulgarian soldier by mistake in Iraq. "


Iama

Evan the kids knows the answer : Today NATO = U.S.A.

You seem to constantly forget that one of the basic precepts of Communism is to "liberate" all proletarians in the world through violent means.

It's all semblance, not worth . Liberating through violent means do not make of you a mad gambler. You can do that with calculated, low risk methods.

I'm sure you would agree that the violent liberation of Irak is not the work of a mad gambler. Or is it too ?

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on March 11, 2005 12:51 pm

Pure conjecture The only indicator that we have is that the Russians backed down from possible nuclear escalation during the Cuba crisis. That may not fit the cold war stereotype very well but they didn't appear to me like mad gamblers.
I agree however that their downfall would have been much slower (if at all) if they had controlled the whole European continent.

Well, of course it's conjecture; isn't that what we do best here? haha

That Cuban missle crisis was closest yet, I guess; "we were eyeball to eyeball, and the other side just blinked"

But more to the point, without NATO, is Europe safer/better place?

Why does everybody want to blow off NATO now? I guarantee if the Russians ever started massing at the borders again, the naysayers would be the first to come yipping, demanding the U.S. beef up NATO with Hueys, Abrams and oh yes, boots on the ground pronto, so they can go on peacefully reading Der Speigel in the cafe.

Not that u can actually read there, all the cig smoke limits visibility to about 5 cm (2 inches for u anglophiles) in front of your face. Bah... bring back Brezhnev!

Well, safe from what exactly?

Change it, not blow it off. As the strategic context changes, the calls to change the alliance also are legitimate. I see no tragedy.

But wouldnt the Americans do it for the sake of their own interests? Afterall, it was said that Western Europe dominated by the USSR would have made a stronger opponent out of the latter...

this is a good question. most of NATO officials have been quite elusive of answering that because for some time at least, ther was no definite need for it. now, however, after 911. the nato guys got a breath of fresh air. and i expect the war against terrorism to last as long as there is no idea for a next step in nato's form and meaning.

unfortunately, it may take a while....

Not just crass self interest. We do it for freedom. Haven't u heard?
There is now an official confluence of the two. The more freedom there is, the more "safe" we all we be is the new dogma.

Hmmm....Shhhhh!!! Don't tell the Saudis yet.

Personally, I never underestimate the power of ideology; it has a life of its own, as the new proprieters of the Soviet "Union" have discovered.

The puny concepts of national self interest went out with Metternich and Bismarck.

In the age of mass psychology, leaders need "big" ideas and vessels to hold them. NATO would fill the bill nicely. The United States of Europe is too parochial, pacifist, and oxymoronic. Plus NATO is already armed to the teeth, thanx to..guess who?

Not just crass self interest. We do it for freedom. Haven't u heard?
There is now an official confluence of the two. The more freedom there is, the more "safe" we all we be is the new dogma.

Hmmm....Shhhhh!!! Don't tell the Saudis yet.

Personally, I never underestimate the power of ideology; it has a life of its own, as the new proprieters of the Soviet "Union" have discovered.

The puny concepts of national self interest went out with Metternich and Bismarck.

In the age of mass psychology, leaders need "big" ideas and vessels to hold them. NATO would fill the bill nicely. The United States of Europe is too parochial, pacifist, and oxymoronic. Plus NATO is already armed to the teeth, thanx to..guess who?

the unites states of europe sounds corny. i do not believe in it really. but to have a massive army structure without a actual purpose for it looks like showing off. i do not understand to whom but....
and america doing war for freedom is just a phrase. thank god i know you are joking. ot too bad u are joking. i wish for an imperialist america. so we all know where we stand and stop small countries from having illusions of equality

Not just crass self interest. We do it for freedom. Haven't u heard?
There is now an official confluence of the two. The more freedom there is, the more "safe" we all we be is the new dogma.

Hmmm....Shhhhh!!! Don't tell the Saudis yet.

Personally, I never underestimate the power of ideology; it has a life of its own, as the new proprieters of the Soviet "Union" have discovered.

The puny concepts of national self interest went out with Metternich and Bismarck.

In the age of mass psychology, leaders need "big" ideas and vessels to hold them. NATO would fill the bill nicely. The United States of Europe is too parochial, pacifist, and oxymoronic. Plus NATO is already armed to the teeth, thanx to..guess who?

the unites states of europe sounds corny. i do not believe in it really. but to have a massive army structure without a actual purpose for it looks like showing off. i do not understand to whom but....
and america doing war for freedom is just a phrase. thank god i know you are joking. ot too bad u are joking. i wish for an imperialist america. so we all know where we stand and stop small countries from having illusions of equality

I'm not joking. Bush trotted this rationale out during his "State of the Union Address"last month. This is always an important speech, given by the President to both houses of the Congress, as u probably know.
Bush put forward the notion that the ultimate defense against terrorism ultimately is freedom. Like it or not, it's a risky idea. Freedom for some of those countries, most notably Saudi Arabia, in the mid east could blow up in our (the U.S.) face, imo.

Just one quote, from the speech, if I may: (Pres. Bush):

"In the long-term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by eliminating the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder. If whole regions of the world remain in despair and grow in hatred, they will be the recruiting grounds for terror, and that terror will stalk America and other free nations for decades. The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom. (Applause.) Our enemies know this, and that is why the terrorist Zarqawi recently declared war on what he called the "evil principle" of democracy. And we've declared our own intention: America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. (Applause.) "

This is what Bush second term is going to be all about.
I thought u knew this; they are shifting gears faster than a gasoline tanker trucker on the Baghdad-Basrah run going uphill.
U can read the entire text of the speech here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0050202-11.html

(skip the first 2/3; it's about domestic politics)
cheers.

So you could have a valid reason to openly hate America, right?
If not you, then a lot of other people.

I don't mean this as an insult, so hopefully you won't get offended. It's merely an observation.

yes mabadesc, you are right. because now i pretty much dislike the american foreign policy but each time i say it i get the old - they fight for peace - crap.

also, to cooment on bush' s speach: first, i do ot think he wrote it. second, i noticed the applause being inserted in the speeach. noting the crowd reaction was one of the central point in communist regimes all over. if u read books of ceausescu's speaches u will see these things popping up all over. third - it sounds too much like propaganda to be true. fourth - i find the idea of a manichean struggle between usa and the evil powers to be created by the same people that give us those wonderful holywood movies. my advice. go buy another book, the old one only works for stupid people ( oh, i guess it will be enough). and fifth and final - zarqawi is suspiciously starting to overshadow bin laden. also a butcher is hardly to be considered a islamic scholar and a maker of ideas ans systems. so then, why does usa place this relatively inferior haracter at the top of the list, considering all that he speaks to be a unequivocal and ubiquotus message of the fundamentalist realm. it usd to be that USA was the great satan NOT democracy. this is a move to gain the support of all democratic states? it would be foolish of him to extend a war, instead of reducing it. also, why does usa think it stands as the pillar of democracy? because last time i checked, democracy was born in europe. the fact that usa is willing to whield an axe for it does not mean it is the one chosen by us all.

also, taking into account the history of the united states, i wonder, and i expect a intelligent answer, how would the FBI qualify the Boston Tea Party events back in the 18th century? because it was a deliberate act of distruction of property aimed at achieving political goals. in FBI's book, that is an act of terrorism. so if the birth of USA was launched by a terrorist act, how did those terrorists embrace democracy? because this seems to me as the best example of one man's terrorist being another man's freedom fighter.

why shold not this apply to Basaev, Maskhadov, Zarqawi...............

When US exports democracy it gives freedom to the guy on the street.
As part of the bargain, the country which imports US democracy has to relinquish any ambitious or self-made foreign policy and align itself with the empire.
Like in the old times.... Rome et al.
For the guy on the street the bargain is cool. He gets to watch zillion of TV channels, read newspapers and cheap gossip, curse the regime, etc. etc.
Which is not bad.
Anybody who wants to enter politics has to fall in line, otherwise has no chance.
This works wonderfully in countries that know these lessons very well -- usually in former communist countries. For 50 years they played this game of shadowy politics and unconditional allegiance. Their politicians have no headaches over falling in line and they adopt the democracy-speak very quickly.
This is useful because they know the locals and how to handle them. Rome accepts them and they accept Rome as long as she can give them support.

take care

I also recently heard something that left me stunned.
Hurezeanu commenting the President's visit to Rome, ooops! Washington, said that the Americans might agree to build some military bases in Romania, "out of their great geostrategic goodwill".
Oh man!!! Mr. H using his brown lipstick/newspeak again...
Great geostrategic goodwill!!!! What the hell is that?

It reminded me of "our great friends in the East" type of talk.

Some things will never change... Thats why I've decided to read Bronstein's (Trotsky) masterpieces. The guy really knew what he was talking about...

take care

Indrid, I won't try to debate you on the rest of your message, although I don't agree with it and I think you're being too cynical.

But regarding the above quote:

1. US presidents do not write their own speeches. They control the subject, content, and main points, bu the actual speeches are written by speech-writers. This is nothing unusual.

2. Trust me on this, there are no applauds inserted. The State of the Union speech is an event steeped in tradition and broadcast live. Congressmen and Senators generally make an effort to forget partisanship, although it's always funny to observe how congressmen from the opposing party sometimes do not applaud or stand up at all. Since they are seated according to their political orientation (left wing together on the left side, right wing - on the right side), you often see half of the room standing up and clapping enthusiastically, while the other half sits down in complete silence.
Regardless of the president, however, the State of the Union speech gets a lot of interruptions by applause. TV networks have made it a habit of counting the number of times the president (whoever he is) was interrupted by applause and by standing ovations.
Obviously there was no way you could have known this because it's one of those details where you have to live in the country to know about, but you can ask any reasonable american on the forum and they'll tell you the same thing.