27 Aug 09
I'll try to spell it out for you.
NATO-like in that it would similarly align the most powerful millitaries in the region (Latin America versus the North Atlantic) into a treaty of millitary cooperation to deter wars of aggression.
comprendrez-vous?
They could work through the UN in some instances as well, rather than seeking to replace or ignore the UN, and simply contribute a significant number of troops towards the cause of peace in their region.
27 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by eljefejesusU.S. bases are being proposed for Colombia and, in this context - on this thread - you suggest that there should be a NATO type "peace block" - citing an actual historical pact where the U.S essentially assumed decision making control over - and provided 'enforcer credibility' on behalf of - various European armies - to deter the Soviet Union. You are proposing something like this for the "threat" from Venuzuela, which you compare to the U.S.S.R. So by citing NATO you are - unless you are totally unaware of what NATO is and was - proposing U.S. troops stationed on the continent (as is on the cards for Colombia, which is why we are discussing U.S. boots on the ground). Either that is so, or you need to clarify what you've said.
NATO-like in that it would similarly align the most powerful millitaries in the region (Latin America versus the North Atlantic) into a treaty of millitary cooperation to deter wars of aggression.
If your unclear proposal doesn't involve the U.S. and its troops, then (1) why mention NATO specifically, why not just talk of a military alliance (standard English terminology rather than an existing institution with a very specific character and set-up), or why not just back peddle a little and waffle on about some kind of a "U.S.-less NATO" (which, of course, in the case of Europe, wouldn't have been "NATO" at all), and (2) why don't you clear up what you are proposing/endorsing for Colombia: do you approve of the deployment of U.S. bases there? Do you agree with similar deployments to all countries in the region that feel "threatened" by Venuzuela?
Are you really proposing a NATO-like set up with er... NO American military involvement, but... oh yes there is military involvement, er...?
Sorry to press you, but your fumbled inaccurate comments about 'NATO invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein' and the way you confused Kuwait with Afghanistan, have undermined your credibility on this topic ever since one of your earliest posts on this thread.
27 Aug 09
Originally posted by FMFLOL, FMF, to read your reinterpretations of reality is like watching an episode of The Twilight Zone. At least you are trying to grope towards reality on posts like these, rather than making up 100% of it, it's just a fun-house mirror distortion of reality.
U.S. bases are being proposed for Colombia and, in this context - on this thread - you suggest that there should be a NATO type "peace block" - citing an actual historical pact where the U.S essentially assumed decision making control over - and provided 'enforcer credibility' on behalf of - various European armies - to deter the Soviet Union. You are proposing ...[text shortened]... redibility on this topic ever since one of your earliest posts on this thread.
You finaly get the idea of an analogy right?
A Latin America pact would be similar to NATO in that the most powerful Democracies in the region would be ready to defent the peace against wars of agression.
I know you like to look for typos and minor edits to attack others' points, but this is getting ridiculous.... AGAIN!
27 Aug 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusWhy not answer the questions rather than offer these lame 'insults'?
LOL, FMF, to read your reinterpretations of reality is like watching an episode of The Twilight Zone. At least you are trying to grope towards reality on posts like these, rather than making up 100% of it, it's just a fun-house mirror distortion of reality.
You finaly get the idea of an analogy right?
A Latin America pact would be similar to NATO ...[text shortened]... for typos and minor edits to attack others' points, but this is getting ridiculous.... AGAIN!
It's you who has apparently misunderstood what NATO was, is, and what it has and hasn't done in military terms. Kicked Saddam out of Iraq? What are you on about? So it was a "typo" now, was it? Oooh.
What about these U.S. bases in Colombia?
Why not debate the issue rather than issue these wishy washy attempted brush offs?
27 Aug 09
Originally posted by FMFI sincerely suspect that you're just trying to harrass and purposefully misinterpret, find typos and any ambiguous statements that can be distorted and attacked... and not contribute to the debate... therefore, back "if you say so."
Why not answer the questions rather than offer these lame 'insults'?
It's you who has apparently misunderstood what NATO was, is, and what it has and hasn't done in military terms. Kicked Saddam out of Iraq? What are you on about? So it was a "typo" now, was it? Oooh.
What about these U.S. bases in Colombia?
Why not debate the issue rather than issue these wishy washy attempted brush offs?
27 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by eljefejesusLet's put it this way eljefejesus. If one of my undegraduate students wrote an essay and cited NATO as a possible model for Latin American collective security - but then in subsequent paragraphs started back peddling in terms of the actual U.S. involvement, in terms of the U.S.'s pledge to come to assistance of fellow NATO members, in terms of the U.S. leadership role and it's concrete military contributions and key hand in command & control structures, to the extent that the proposed model bore no real relation to NATO anymore - I'd hand the essay back and ask them to make revisions. If you think U.S. bases in Colombia are a good idea, I can respect that. If you think that the U.S. should get involved with another "NATO" for the region, I can respect that - although I wouildn't agree with you. But all this inaccurate waffle about what you claim NATO has done, and what its equivalent in Latin America would do, wouldn't make for a pass essay.
LOL, FMF, to read your reinterpretations of reality is like watching an episode of The Twilight Zone.
27 Aug 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusMore evasive nothingness.
I sincerely suspect that you're just trying to harrass and purposefully misinterpret, find typos and any ambiguous statements that can be distorted and attacked... and not contribute to the debate... therefore, back "if you say so."
What about these U.S. bases in Colombia?
Should that kind of intervention be extended to other countries?
What kind of NATO-like-but-not-really-NATO-like-I-mean-NATO-minus-U.S.-so-not-actually-like-NATO-then model are you proposing?
27 Aug 09
I am not insulted by your proposed grade because I wouldn't take a foreign policy class led by you. A student in a class should be learning rather than teaching and explaining.
Remember that you are the only one that brought up the US into the analogy, you only seem to view NATO through one paradigm that was not part of my analogy.
However, your attack stands as what it is, and I've already addressed it. Anything more should fall within "if you say so."
27 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by eljefejesusYep. I have all kinds of students. But I've never had any blame their daft assertions on "typos" .
I am not insulted by your proposed grade because I wouldn't take a foreign policy class led by you. A student in a class should be learning rather than teaching and explaining.
Remember that you are the only one that brought up the US into the analogy, you only seem to view NATO through one paradigm that was not part of my analogy.
However, your a ...[text shortened]... hat it is, and I've already addressed it. Anything more should fall within "if you say so."
Afghanistan and Kuwait are miles from each other. An NATO was an instrument of U.S. foreign policy and military strategy and nothing much else. Without the U.S. the European allies would have formed something else and it would not have been NATO, nor would it have been "a NATO", that much is clear. So much for whatever foreign policy class you attended.
What about these U.S. bases in Colombia?
Should that kind of intervention be extended to other countries?
You haven't answered a question or reponded without an attempted insult for a couple of pages.
27 Aug 09
Originally posted by FMFTo all these false quotes and willful misinterpretations: "if you say so"
Yep. I have all kinds of students. But I've never had any blame their daft assertions on "typos" .
Afghanistan and Kuwait are miles from each other. An NATO was an instrument of U.S. foreign policy and military strategy and nothing much else. Without the U.S. the European allies would have formed something else and it would not have been NATO, nor would it ha ...[text shortened]... haven't answered a question or reponded without an attempted insult for a couple of pages.
27 Aug 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusYou seem to have evaporated into a plume of self-pity and inability to admit error! Now I DO have a few students like that! 😀
To all these false quotes and willful misinterpretations: "if you say so"
What about these U.S. bases in Colombia? Should that kind of intervention be extended to other countries?
27 Aug 09
Originally posted by FMFWhat about these U.S. bases in Colombia? Should that kind of intervention be extended to other countries?
You seem to have evaporated into a plume of self-pity and inability to admit error! Now I DO have a few students like that! 😀
What about these U.S. bases in Colombia? Should that kind of intervention be extended to other countries?
If they agree with it I don't see why it shouldn't.
28 Aug 09
Originally posted by generalissimoIs whether they "agree with it" or not the only factor?
[b]What about these U.S. bases in Colombia? Should that kind of intervention be extended to other countries?
If they agree with it I don't see why it shouldn't.[/b]
Surely this debate ought to be about long term strategy too?
Do you think U.S. boots on the gound in Latin America - perhaps in several countries - is the right way forward?
Do you share elefejesus' view that Venuzuela presents a threat comparable to the U.S.S.R.?
28 Aug 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFYour typical confusion over what I said at best (if not willful misquotes or outright stupidity at worst), but "if you say so" ...
Is whether they "agree with it" or not the only factor?
Surely this debate ought to be about long term strategy too?
Do you think U.S. boots on the gound in Latin America - perhaps in several countries - is the right way forward?
Do you share elefejesus' view that Venuzuela presents a threat comparable to the U.S.S.R.?
28 Aug 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusThere is no confusion whatsoever about the comparison you made.
Your typical confusion over what I said at best (if not willful misquotes or outright stupidity at worst), but "if you say so" ...
Do you think U.S. boots on the gound in Latin America - a la Colombia, and then perhaps in several countries - is the right way forward - strategically, for the region?