Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gao seng who wrote (215547)	1/7/2002 4:58:02 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

First, just as Turkey and Greece are prevented from attacking one another because they are both in NATO, Russian membership would tend to stabilize the status quo. Second, it is reasonable that we should act in alliance with friendly nations, and we should not have to build ad- hoc coalitions from scratch every time we attack a country, like Iraq or Afghanistan. NATO provides the core of any coalition we feel we need, and also ensures forward deployment and basing rights nearer to hotspot (Germany rather than Florida, for example). Third, there is still enough instability in the Middle East and Africa, and on the periphery of NATO (in the Balkans) to warrant joint security interests in that part of the world. The prospect of the Caspian pipeline only increases concern about Central Asia, and it would be preferable for Russia not to deal with instability there unilaterally. Fourth, most of our trade is with Europe, in fact, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Therefore, we have a particular interest in not having the European Union take shape to be overly competitive with the United States. NATO is the main way we ensure closeness to Europe, and sensitivity to alliance......