“As idiotic as it seems, I think the administration actually believes that we have no sphere of interest in say, the Latin America….”

You’re too kind Thom, their pretentions aren’t limited to believing we have no spheres of interest anywhere. I think their sort believe that our sphere of interest is *everywhere.*

Cheers,

Meanwhile Hillary is floating a joint security pact covering all the gulf states, guaranteed by the US! No one asks the pertinent question. If the continued flow of oil from the gulf is vital to the world, why doesn’t the UN or NATO + Japan, or some other consortium of stakeholders, guarantee the gulf’s security?

So we want to extend our military protection to a country that is a major liability in case of trouble, whose membership in NATO will really tick off the Russians, and whose citizens don’t want to join.

A.) The locus of the last two great world cataclysms *has* been in Eurasia, the occupants thereof being unable to contain and limit same.

B.) Despite very much trying the U.S. was utterly unable to stay out of such cataclysms.

C.) The proximate cause for the start of those cataclysms *was* territorial instability/aggrandizement.

D.) Looking down the pike the major threat to the continued present stability and peace of Eurasia would indeed seem to be territorial instability/aggrandizement, from Russia no less. (Which, concededly and in the main has acted responsibly in this respect since its recent inception, although one does have to consider Chechnya and Georgia, and that Russia has made ominous claims of interest to chunks of places in the Ukraine and etc., and also consider Russia’s expansionist past and that modern Russia is still young and one never knows its possible revanchist future.)

E.) All NATO really does is contained in its core mutual defense obligations saying an unprovoked attack on one is an attack on all, and therefore to a great extent the only reason anyone else could object is if they harbor some possible aggressive territorial intentions on one of NATO’s members.

F.) If there’s any time to try to dissuade a potential territorial aggressor from thinking of aggressing it’s before they get so strong and set on its course that doing it then means a terrible war. (Cf. 1938, Czechoslovakia.)

I think Giraldi’s idea of “red-teaming” the expansion of NATO (and indeed even the continuation of the U.S. staying in NATO at all) is a great idea, being great because it acknowledges the complexities of the situation. I’d just hate to see some knee-jerk “conservative” reaction (understandable as it may be given recent history) against what might be smart.

Sort of like … not wanting to be the proverbial cat who, having once sat on a hot stove (such as Middle East recently or even Vietnam), makes the stupid decision to never sit on any stove again no matter how nice and warm and wise that may be.

And one thing I’d like to see explored as an alternative to the expansion of NATO or at least as an informative bit of information is simply asking Russia to declare its respect for the territorial integrity of its neighbors. After all if it refused same, what exactly would that mean?

Cheers,

After sabre-rattling, we stab NATO in the back, for Russia’s confirmation of the US environment-deception.

According to the US government, the average temperature in Kansas is 54.25, and the average temperature is Oklahoma is 59.54.

Unless we get China, and India, and Russia to cripple their economies, in about 500 years the weather in Kansas will be similar to what was in Oklahoma. That gives kansans only 500 years to move to Nebraska, or face total extinction.

(Additional consipracy theory, Obama wants his own semi-private armies, and would sell anybody down the river for additional control. Maybe look for him to say, “Look, I’ll trade you NATO, and World Currency, for your tacit approval of the weather-control deal, and the freedom to move my little armies about the globe.”)