Revitalizing Nato's Identity

[MikeyDB]

Jim....

Who's responsible for the Industrial Revolution, the corporatist or the peons slaving in terrible working conditions to keep the wealthy in their positions of power? Who built the "automobile-culture" of North America, the waitress at Denny's or the power-brokers on Wall Street? Who was the poorest person ever elected to office in North America and why does it take research to find out that fact?

Who while seeking greater profitability sends jobs and wealth-producing manufacturing jobs off-shore....the "greeter" at your local WalMart or the heads of corporations?

Who set's the price for a gallon of gasoline...the oil-rig laborer or the investement tycoon on Wall Street? Who decides that the people of New Orleans will simply have to suffer with inadequate dikes and the failure of FEMA while the American military is off in Aghanistan and Iraq making sure the oil fields aren't compromised? It sure isn't the mimimum wage earner at the local drive thru Jim!

 

[MikeyDB]

This is your democracy Jim??????????????????????????

 

[jimmoyer]

MikeyDB, if you get everybody at the same starting line, I doubt that all will finish at the same time.

That's the bell curve for any aggregate group. In any society.

Take away all the wealth disparity. Start us out all the same.

Come back in a year.

You'll see huge individual differences.

You ever wonder why you hear so many stories of the successful who went bankrupt and wealthy over and over again ?

And of course you will always have the "inherited classes." And why not? Don't you want to give something to your kids ? Or to your relatives? Or to your friends ? Of course you must determine who they are and what they are liable to do.

 

[MikeyDB]

Delicate side-step there Jim!

You've nicely avoided acknowledging that our social organizing principle isn't a democracy of any kind!

 

[jimmoyer]

I don't think I did a side-step MikeyDB.

I respect your indignation at the injustice. I even think you're right in many ways about it. You have a good soul.

I'm just saying the obvious about our predictability in the aggregate.

No matter what system. Overall we have more of anything in this system we have than in any other system. But what little consolation is that to the pain we see and feel ?

I believe in democracy. I can't see anything better.

But we are also fallable, and we are predictable in the aggregate.

I do believe that we can lead and converse and try to change the zeitgeist, try to change the culture of thinking. We cannot enforce this change. We can only ask.

By the way, apologies to this thread for going outside its circumcision.

But !!!

What is the tenuous connection of our recent thoughts here ?

Why, we're discussing what it is that NATO might be protecting !!!!

 

[MikeyDB]

But when "asking" or "inviting-consideration" is labelled as bitterness and invitations abound to get the hell out if you don't like-it.... what possible progress can be made if we're unwilling to apply the focus of critical analysis to our social structures and our concerns?

We should all just quietly accept that some bell-curve some-time in some distant universe will reveal that the universe is simply unfolding as it should....?

We'll get comfortable with sexual abuse of women and children because after all...if we put the sexual exploits of all Roman Catholic priests on a "bell-curve" the seriousness of the impact of these instances will be revealed as unworthy of concern???

If we intellectualize everything into little compartments that fit nicely into our comfort zones....why bother with distributing food to starving Africans? They aren't causing any problems here in our white-picket fence social order so why should we be concerned the "bell-curve" of their well-being isn't even remotely similar to our own?

We should just let all the issues of our world sliiiiiiiiide because there's a bell-curve somewhere that allows the informed a comfortable insulation from the inevitability of short-sightedness.....?

 

[jimmoyer]

I don't mean to support the psychological phenomenon of Dis-association, a very distasteful defensive maneuver most people use to get out of responsibility for their fellow man.

It is a behavior that most people don't want to be penetrated or vulnerable to others.
And therefore we separate our self from others, insulate it, become impenetrable and unresponsive to the pleas of others.

I'm just asking you MikeyDB to reconsider what you know to be obvious and that is we are predictable in the aggregate. We must respect this animalistic tendency, this psychology we have.

To do so is to divorce yourself from certain inalienable truths.

Your plea, your argument is a good one, and there will always be, thankfully, a good proportion of the population that will take up the fight.

 

[shdejong]

Thank you for your interesting insights and comments. If you would like to discuss in-depth NATO and Canadian foreign policy, always feel free to join Atlantic Community and exchange your ideas with other users throughout the world.

Just a quick comment back on the original topic of NATO:

If your country is going to goto war.... a war in which my country is not involved in, nor has any interests invested in it, then my country shouldn't have to tag along in the war just because we signed into the group.... this is what's currently happening with the countries in NATO who are currently in Afghanistan. Many have their own people who oppose being there and want a withdraw rather then contribute more of their men and women to a cause they don't believe in.... yet at the same time the governments of those people signed a contract to NATO and the UN stating they'd go if and when they are needed, conflicting the best interests of their people and their nation as a whole to suit the needs of other nations and their personal objectives.

If you want an alliance with other nations when it comes to a war, then deal with those nations on a case by case basis and what suits their own interests. If they feel the war your nation is going to is justified, then they should have the "Choice" to join in or not... not be forced into something because some government before your own signed a contract which is basically a blank cheque for other nations to use your troops and resources as they need it.

NATO actually does not automatically require assistance from all members in security matters of a single member, but has a rather complex decision making process based on consensus building. In the case of Afghanistan, the Canadian government quickly decided in the aftermath of September 11 that it was in its national interest to remove the Taliban regime and neutralize al-Quaeda operations there.

In the case of Iraq, however, the United States requested military assistance from NATO, but could not build consensus, and countries such as France, Germany and Canada did not deploy there.

Canadian troop deployment in Afghanistan was primarily a decision made by the Canadian government and legislature, and not a blank cheque filled in by another country (I assume you refer to the US). Whether or not the deployment has broad support from the Canadian people is of course another issue.

 

[jimmoyer]

NATO actually does not automatically require assistance from all members in security matters of a single member, but has a rather complex decision making process based on consensus building.

-----------------------------------Shdejong--------------------------------------

If one of its members is attacked, is there a requirement for the rest to join in defense ?

 

[MikeyDB]

Jimmoyer

Well this is the fundamental parting-of -the way-between my perceptions of humanity and apparently a great many others. It's this idea that over here we can decimate old growth forests because the immediacy of profits to increase the living standards of the wealthy is far greater "moral" reason or justification than are any silly notions about carbon sinks or air quality in San Diego or Beijing.

We can fish the oceans to extinction of some species becuase those species are prized on the palates of a significant number of people prepared to ignore the consequences of this behavior and simply consume everything without thinking any further than the next meal.

We can tolerate corruption and fraud in our businesses and governments becuase occaisionally we see "good-things" arise and this releases these hoods and con-men from all culpability in perpetuating a system of self-indulgence and mindless greed!

We can alienate and disenfranchise this group or that group.....

If you're suggesting that some psycholgical rapprochement with the essential nature of existence in this universe will desend on human consciousness like manna from heaven...I'd like to see where that idea comes from...?

All human progress is a struggle. We struggle against the limitations of our physical world and we struggle against the psychological hurdles our ignorance thows in our path. We overcome racism and poverty, crime and corruption not by avoiding the reality around us but by embracing that reality and dissasembling that reality to find the causal impetus that gives rise to the condition. We once housed the mentally infirm in dungeons and believed they were possessed by evil spirits.... We've had religions wage wars of torture and murder in the name of some divine entity....We've had pacelled and compartmentalized consciousness about the nature of our existence and we're only on the very edge of an awareness that everything is intimately bound to every other thing on this planet in the closed-system that is our natural habitat.

I don't think we'll invite consideration of anything by clinging to graphs and charts Jim, those graphs and charts...like statistics can be interpreted to mean whatever the person interpreting the data would like them to mean. Perhaps the old axiom that a man never stands so tall as when he stoops to help a child will mean something again someday...maybe the idea that mankind is at his best when he's faced with insurmountable conflict and burden...and rises to the challenges of that reality will be what changes the mental attitudes of people over time, but remaining willingly self-deluded regarding the "nature" of why and how we think and behave the way we do...serves no ones interests.

 

[jimmoyer]

You're right MikeyDB.

After all is said and done, your post is the right conclusion.

 

[darkbeaver]

Ever wonder why no dictatorship has ever defeated a democracy ?
(excepting a major exception of the Peloponesean Wars between Oligarchic Sparta and Democratic Athens)


Every wonder why history records no war between two democracies ?
I can think of no instance in history that records war between 2 democracies.

Germany defeated France and The Neatherlands in WWII. Every wonder about your shameless use of propaganda instead of fact?:smile:

 

[jimmoyer]

You're right Darkbeaver. I'm ashamed of myself.

 

[Scott Free]

"What's a "functional democracy" Jim?" ----MikeyDB


"....your above description was not present in founding the USA. The purpose was to secure property and suppress revolt - see Howard Zinn." --- Scottfree

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No state can be functional or viable if it first does not "secure property and suppress revolt. " Let's take any negative spin off of that. It's a good thing. For everyone.
If property is not secure and revolt is going on ---what do you have ?
Anarchy? No one feels safe to do the things we do everyday.

I disagree and the spin is in the other direction.

If you need to enforce your system through violence then it is oppressive. Revolt is a particular reaction to specific problems and doesn't just naturally occur if there isn't a cop on every street corner. One catalyst for revolt is when their isn't a satisfactory distribution of wealth so you end up with the very wealthy and the very poor. In that system the only people who benefit are the wealthy. That isn't a good thing for everyone.

The USA was originally intended to be that way, however, the vast natural wealth of the new continent allowed a better distribution of prosperity. Today we see that slipping away because the resources are slipping away.

That is the purpose of the North American Union to allow the USA to rape Canada so it can claw to the top again. It will work for about 50 years or so.

 

[jimmoyer]

If property rights are not secured and the taking of such property by the elite or the tyranny of the mob, then there's no foundation to build on.

 

[Scott Free]

I was talking about property rights from the historical common law perspective. This is the perspective that was used to found both Canada and the US after all. I have no idea how Oprah defines property rights.

 

[jimmoyer]

oy veh.

sigh...

Now you gone and done it. You had to bring in Oprah on this.

May I remind you that she is off limits.

Along with Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny, The Toothe Fairy, Jack Frost, Mr Ground Hog, Smokey The Bear, all the super heroes wearing tights and Robin Hood.

Just say, yes, that you agree to these terms.

 

[Scott Free]

oy veh.

sigh...

Now you gone and done it. You had to bring in Oprah on this.

May I remind you that she is off limits.

Along with Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny, The Toothe Fairy, Jack Frost, Mr Ground Hog, Smokey The Bear, all the super heroes wearing tights and Robin Hood.

Just say, yes, that you agree to these terms.

lol, OK my bad. :lol:

I just mean that the basis of property law was meant originally to protect only the elite from the poor. The idea was that the elite would never do anything untoward since they had no need (being rich and innately superior); that was the domain of the filthy lower classes.

Property law was never meant to protect peoples TVs or stereos.

As a result we have a system where someone can steal 100 million dollars of pension money and get a slap on the wrist but rob a bank of 1 thousand dollars at gun point and you'll spend the rest of your life behind bars.

I don't think this any kind of bases for a healthy society. I think also this is one of our greatest illnesses.

 

[jimmoyer]

As a result we have a system where someone can steal 100 million dollars of pension money and get a slap on the wrist but rob a bank of 1 thousand dollars at gun point and you'll spend the rest of your life behind bars.
------------------------------------------------------Scott Free-----------------------------------------

We have total agreement !!!

I've heard what you said in other ways as well :

If you want to steal, steal big.

Or:

Steal so big, it will hurt "them" to punish you.

I believe this law of universal physics is immutable.



.
.
.

So is this what all the NATO countries are protecting ?

.