From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: dxmm{at}albury.nospam.net.au
Subject: Re: Show of hands

Wouter Valentijn wrote:
> Daniel47{at}teranews.com wrote:
>> Your Name wrote:
>>> In article
, "Wouter
>>> Valentijn"  wrote:
>>>> Daniel47{at}teranews.com wrote:
>>>>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>>>>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>>>>>> Daniel47{at}teranews.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for NORAD, that is something of the United
States *and*
>>>>>>> Canada. http://www.norad.mil/Home.aspx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yes, they left out Mexico.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, I'm puzzeled why NORAD was envoked in the first place.
>>>>>> One might as just as well mention 'NATO', or even
the 'UN' when
>>>>>> you are talking about international organisations
that have the
>>>>>> US and Canada as member states.
>>>>>> Unless we live in the Cusslerverse, which is not
the case. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> "NATO" has intrigued me, as, for a long
time, most of the
>>>>> countries in NATO are *not* North Atlantic nations, and now I
>>>>> think Russia is a member of NATO, or has
"Observer" status or
>>>>> something!
>>>>
>>>> Russiia is not a member of NATO. And I'm very much okay with that.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty
>>>>
>>>> Notice that most members are in Europe or North America, the two
>>>> continents with the North Atlantic Ocean in between them.
>>>
>>> That's what NATO stands for: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.  :-)
>>>
>>> Since Russia isn't on the North Atlantic ocean, there's no reason it
>>> would be really included in anything but a courtesy way.
>>>
>>
>> Italy is not on the North Atlantic ocean, either, but *is* a member of
>> NATO!!
>>
>> I'd almost accept Wouter Valentijn's notion that it all works if you
>> think of it as a combined Europe, except that Switzerland (I think it
>> is) is not a member.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
>
>
> An /entire/ combined Europe? Not so much.
> Consider the situation of the World (Europe specifically) in the aftermath
> of World War II.
> The USSR was a threat and it had already a strong influence/dominance in
> Eastern Europe.
> The US needed a stable partner (or partners) close to that and of course,
> they wanted to protect what they and their allies had fought for in WWII.
> Western Europe was in no shape to protect itself and needed a strong friend
> to keep it safe. And that might still be the case.
> I think the use of the term 'North Atlantic' is good enough for that treaty.
> It is what the /involving continents/ (or at least some of the countries on
> those continents) have in common when they first signed it.
> If they had used something similar to 'ANZUS'....
> Just imagine the name they would have to come up with the initial alliance!
> :-)

and, over time, things do change, Wouter, so the ANZUS treaty is now, 
sort of, AUS and ANZ, with the NZUS part being worked on again!!

Daniel


--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux