Gates: NATO’s very survival is at stake

[unhappycamper]

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates speaks at the Conference on Security Policy in Munich, Germany on Feb. 10, where he said NATO can't "become a two-tiered alliance of those willing to fight and those who are not."


Gates: NATO’s very survival is at stake
By Robert Burns - The Associated Press
Posted : Sunday Feb 10, 2008 9:52:06 EST

MUNICH, Germany — NATO’s survival is at stake in the debate over how the United States and Europe should share the burden of fighting Islamic extremism in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday.

“We must not — we cannot — become a two-tiered alliance of those willing to fight and those who are not,” Gates told the Munich Conference on Security Policy, where Afghanistan was a central topic.

“Such a development, with all its implications for collective security, would effectively destroy the alliance,” he added.

Washington has had innumerable disputes with its NATO allies in the 59 years since the security alliance was founded as a bulwark against the former Soviet Union. But Gates portrayed today’s debate over the importance of the mission in Afghanistan and how to accomplish as among the most difficult ever.

A central theme of Gates’ speech was his assertion that al-Qaida extremists, either in Afghanistan or elsewhere, pose a greater threat to Europe than many Europeans realize.


Rest of article at: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/02/ap_gatesnato_080210/

[HuffleClaw]

1. translation: why won't you europeans do our fighting for us?

what a complete crock. 'collective security' my foot. NATO was never intended for what they want to use it for.

[happyslug]

2. A French Philosopher said the best thing France could do in the 1700s was to withdraw from Canada.

That withdraw would break up the de facto alliance between the United Kingdom and its de facto independent, but de jure, American Colonies. (De facto= In FACT, De jure = In law). In fact British and American forces took Quebec in 1759, 16 years later saw the start of the American Revolution, and 20 year later saw the American-France Alliance that ended British control of what is now the United States.

The same can be said about NATO. The Soviet Union Dissolved in 1989, 20 years later we are looking at the dissolution of NATO. NATO was created and existed since 1949 to contain the Soviet Union. with the Soviet Union dissolution there was no reason for NATO to exist (Just like American no longer needed an alliance with Britain after the French were driven out of Canada in 1759). The conflicts between what the American Colonies wanted and want Britain wanted could NOT longer be overlooked do to the threat from France via Canada no longer existed after 1759 (i.e. from the US point of View NOT the British point of vier). The same conflicts is coming to the front in regard to Europe and the US. Europe no longer needs US to help it defend itself against a no longer existing Soviet Union. Putin's Russia is a mere shadow of the Soviet Union (and with the end of Communism in Russia do to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia has never been the threat to how Europeans live).

My point is simple, NATO is obsolete, Europe need to do what America did in 1776, break off the alliance as NO longer to its best interests. The US will oppose this, for like Britain in 1776, NATO is like the British de jure control of America, a huge asset to Britain (As NATO is to the US today), but NATO is NOT an asset to Europe (Just like staying within the British Empire in 1776 was NOT in the best interest of the US in 1776).