NATO or something like it

[MortifiedPenguins]

As we all know, 60 years ago, the United States and Soviet Russia were left, to put it short, the world after WW2. The US, in one of it's flashes of brilliance had people like George Marshall or William F. Clayton helped to devise the plan later know as the Marshall Plan.

Now this plan, which was a major influence and helped to from present day NATO made me question something.

If there can be a military, intelligence, and police organisation bent on combatting the worldwide occupation of communism, then why not have one aimed towards Mid East, and more importantly Islamic Fascism.

As we can all tell, the UN is an innefective and useless program that's plagued by it's very organistion.

But NATO, worker relative wonders.

Now, what would be stopping us from doing one in the Middle East. We have a few more moderate allies in that area, such as Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf States. This alliance would include these states, along with the United States, United Kingdom and some other European powers.

But to make this a truley powefull organisation, Isreal would have to included. And thats where the problem lies, the inclusion of Isreal would have to come with the planned peace of the Palestine conflict, which is certainly possible.

Along with that, this union would seem to be a secratarian split of Islam, Sunni against Shi'te. To make it seem to be a more universal group, a Shi'te nation would have to be added to this. '

With Iran excluded and Iraq in no shape to take part, this would fall upon either Pakistan or a strengthened Afghanistan.

Now this plan is plausabile, and even possible but some minor problems would have to be fixed out.

1. The buidlup of Afghanistan and the stabilization of that nation.

2. The biggest, some sort of stable peace between Isreal and Palestine.

Sound plausable.

[JoS]

Implausable. NATO was not about defeating communism, it was about mutual protection against the spread of communism. The western European states were worried about the possibility of the USSR and her allies coming into their countries. To prevent this they entered a mutual defense agreement, NATO. NATO did not trot around the globe to fight communism, nor did the Warsaw Pact go around and fight democracy.

NATO worked because the countries involved were all like minded countries. Democratic, market driven nations (to some degree). The alliance required to fight terrorism would require including several groups of countries whoa re nto on the same wave length to share military, intellience and police resources, which is difficult even between similar countries. Not only that but including countries like Saudi Arabia, a major terrorist state (like it or not there are a lot of terrorists and terrorists connections in SA) would require them to open up their country to the US and others intell. agencies, essentially consenting to being spied upon. Who would ever do that.

[Boltrig]

At 1/29/07 08:48 PM, JoS wrote:

Not only that but including countries like Saudi Arabia, a major terrorist state (like it or not there are a lot of terrorists and terrorists connections in SA) would require them to open up their country to the US and others intell. agencies, essentially consenting to being spied upon. Who would ever do that.

Thats a very good point. It works in reverse as well. The US and UK, edgy after being targeted by terrorists on more than one occasion, would be dubious about openly sharing information on military and intellegence matters with whatever middle eastern nations were included in the Alliance.
Fearing the infiltration of extremists or extremist sympathisers into the Muslim nations delegation, the mutual distrust would undermine any attempt at a coherent organisation.

[JakeHero]

At this point, almost any form of institution is better than the UN.

[Memorize]

At 1/29/07 10:09 PM, BanditByte wrote: At this point, almost any form of institution is better than the UN.

UN: "Stop making Nuclear Weapons!"

Them: "no"

UN: "Well *waves finger* ok. I have an idea. Lets point fingers at them while making empty threats".

[Dealy-rizazamatizazz]

Communism is a funny thing, it never works out, look at Russia, they're on the verge of total collapse, they fight each other, they're only exports are Vodka and women, it's sad. China's getting better because the Chinese have seen what we have and want a taste.

[Boltrig]

At 1/29/07 11:22 PM, Dealy-rizazamatizazz wrote: Communism is a funny thing, it never works out, look at Russia, they're on the verge of total collapse, they fight each other, they're only exports are Vodka and women, it's sad. China's getting better because the Chinese have seen what we have and want a taste.

Communism is great in principal, but its counter to human nature. Basically, the guy who works his arse off to become a top class heart surgeon, can expect the same amount of benefit as the guy who sweeps the streets. Both vital jobs, but whats to stop the heart surgeon saying "sod it then, Im going to go push a brush about for a living. Doesnt mean any less pay, but it means less stress, less long hours and whatnot"

Those that do more expect more.