From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: liam{at}valentijn.nu
Subject: Re: Show of hands

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! 
:-)

-- 
Wouter Valentijn http://www.j3v.net

Xander Harris to Kendra Young: "Welcome. So, you're a slayer, huh? I like 
that in a woman."

Buffy the Vampire Slayer: What's My Line?: Part 2

liam=mail 


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