You fail to address the muslim portion of Juan's analogy... it would never happen because smallish minorities don't typically own lots of land and take up ranching in middle of nowhere, typically speaking. Therefore it's not something worth fantasizing about with all our liberal might
First of all your question assumes all too uncontroversially that NATO itself after the coldwar is somehow not just meaningless. Just want to press that foundational assumption upon you without going through the history which would be a waste of our time. NATO did not intercede for us in Vietnam, so the context in which we are invoking our NATO obligations here is just ludicrous.
Second of all, when the US is in the midst of "crisis of wars", also plagued by war spending and deficits, and burdened by no less than four other full time battles and wars, and threatening at a 5th with Iran... again let's save ourselves the history lesson in regard to US-Arab relations. Suffice it to say, considering the mess of political climate at home, I think a reprieve would be granted by our NATO allies if one were asked. Therefore, for the US to enthusiastically invoke NATO as the sole reasoning behind our involvement in Libya now at time like this would be more than unwise. Remember, NATO is not a binding obligation for the United States, the United States is NATO. NATO if it is anything is a *purely optional self-obligation* for the United States to pursue its interests around the world. To everyone else in the world NATO, is simply propaganda which expired after the Coldwar. Thanks to an insufficient world crisis, or a lack of good PR in the age of "bottom-up" terrorism after 9-11, NATO today is universally understood as the next chapter of the crusades.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
You fail to address the muslim portion of Juan's analogy... it would never happen because smallish minorities don't typically own lots of land and take up ranching in middle of nowhere, typically speaking. Therefore it's not something worth fantasizing about with all our liberal might
Black Muslim men wouldn't be cattle ranchers owning US land for 200 years
What about the slow moving meteorite called climate change and ecosystem destruction. let's develop weapons against that
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison have nothing on you Mr. Cole, you must have hit the truth button too many times for comfort
First of all your question assumes all too uncontroversially that NATO itself after the coldwar is somehow not just meaningless. Just want to press that foundational assumption upon you without going through the history which would be a waste of our time. NATO did not intercede for us in Vietnam, so the context in which we are invoking our NATO obligations here is just ludicrous.
Second of all, when the US is in the midst of "crisis of wars", also plagued by war spending and deficits, and burdened by no less than four other full time battles and wars, and threatening at a 5th with Iran... again let's save ourselves the history lesson in regard to US-Arab relations. Suffice it to say, considering the mess of political climate at home, I think a reprieve would be granted by our NATO allies if one were asked. Therefore, for the US to enthusiastically invoke NATO as the sole reasoning behind our involvement in Libya now at time like this would be more than unwise. Remember, NATO is not a binding obligation for the United States, the United States is NATO. NATO if it is anything is a *purely optional self-obligation* for the United States to pursue its interests around the world. To everyone else in the world NATO, is simply propaganda which expired after the Coldwar. Thanks to an insufficient world crisis, or a lack of good PR in the age of "bottom-up" terrorism after 9-11, NATO today is universally understood as the next chapter of the crusades.