Wednesday, October 13, 2010

NATO

For those of you who believe that FLG only focuses on time horizons and Plato, he'd like to remind you that he has a serious Disband NATO Now streak in him.  Likewise, many of you probably forgot that he pretends to read French.  Well, here's a reminder.

Le Monde interviewed Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Secretary-General of NATO.

les dirigeants des pays de l'OTAN se réuniront pour décider si l'Alliance doit bâtir une défense antimissile pour l'Europe. Ils prendront cette décision importante en fonction des réponses à certaines questions essentielles.
 The leaders of NATO countries will meet to decide if the Alliance must build an anti-missile defense for Europe.  They will make this important decision based upon answers to some important questions. FLG will summarize.

Is there a threat?

En un mot : oui.

Will it work?

Possibly.  And we're going to integrate with the Americans' system.

How much will it cost?

Like a billion euros spread over 14 years.

What are the benefits?

Here the answer is two-fold.  First, one system is better than several national systems.  Second, and this is where FLG really begins to lose it, is this:
 Les avantages politiques sont tout aussi importants. La mise en place de ce système montrerait clairement la solidarité et le partage des charges entre les alliés face à une menace commune, et offrirait des possibilités de coopération véritable avec la Russie. La coopération OTAN-Russie en matière de défense antimissile permettrait, une fois pour toutes, d'ouvrir véritablement la porte d'une nouvelle ère de coopération sous la protection d'un dispositif euro-atlantique commun de sécurité. Nous devons protéger nos populations et notre territoire contre la menace posée par la prolifération des missiles. L'OTAN est en mesure de le faire, à un coût abordable.
 Translation:
The political advantages are as important. The installation of this system would clearly demonstrate solidarity and share the burden between the allies against a common threat, and would offer possibilities of true co-operation with Russia. NATO-Russia co-operation on anti-missile defense would, once and for all,  open the door to a new era of co-operation under protection of a common Euro-Atlantic security system. We must protect our populations and our territory against the threat posed by the proliferation from the missiles.  NATO is able to do it, at an accessible cost.
A few things:
  1. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you Europeans were against a missile shield.  No reason for it.  Too provocative.  Must misremember that.
  2. Oh, I'm sorry.  You were simply worried about provoking Russia?  I see.  Funny.  I thought NATO was founded to protect us from the Russians, er Soviets.
  3. What's that?  Iran. Oh, I'm sorry.  I thought that your cuddly, multilateral, diplomatic approach toward Iran would render a missile shield moot.  Pity that didn't work out.  I gather it won't stop you from being a bunch of feet-draggers at the UN in the future.
I hope you all see what's going on here.  That anachronistic military apparatus and bureaucracy known as NATO, having failed to find a raison d'être in last two decades, and having failed at the one that they thought would give them some traction, post-conflict nation-building, is now scrounging around for a new one.  One which the US has spent tons of money developing and they want to sidle up to.  The quicker we can extricate ourselves from this hideous, pagan institution the better. 

NATO delenda est.

7 comments:

Withywindle said...

I am glad to see someone using "pagan" in the proper manner.

arethusa said...

I hate NATO. But if you're serious about NATO delenda est, shouldn't you end all posts on any topic "NATO delenda est"? Plato will understand.

Withywindle said...

Arethusa: You're against OTAN? For the same reasons FLG is?

arethusa said...

I'm against any organization dominated by small, weak nations whose bacon we regularly save and who attempt to tackle us in the process of saving them, so that we have to drag them into the end zone clinging to our legs.

Is my position clear, or shall I mix some more metyphors?

Withywindle said...

Hard tackle and bacon clinging to our legs; yum.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
George Pal said...

Bacon may yet save our bacon.

...

Have I just come up with a mission for NATO? PSYOPS?

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.