Is NATO still relevant since the end of the Cold War?
611717
Found an interesting piece of interview with CONDOLEEZZA RICE from 2002 when she was NSA.\n\n...\nNATO was an alliance that was founded first and foremost to unite democracies, and it continues to do that with the expansion to new democracies in seven states today. But it was also an alliance that was meant to contain the Soviet Union, to face off against the Warsaw Pact, to face off against Soviet tanks coming across the German plains.\n\nWell, that clearly is not the scenario for conflict any long, and those capabilities are going to have to be transformed. I think after September 11, there was even a degree of frustration within the alliance that there were not the kinds of capabilities that could be deployed rapidly to help with the war in Afghanistan and with the fight against terrorism; that states did contribute but they did so really as individual states. The alliance wasn't able to act as it wanted to, and that has been a spur to the alliance to think about this rapid reaction force.\n\nAnd as to whether the alliance can act quickly, it's quite remarkable that this only came onto the agenda, this rapid reaction force, in September, when Secretary Rumsfeld came to Warsaw, presented the concept, and here some two months later, the alliance has adopted the concept, so it can act quickly, and I think it will continue to.\n...
419795
europe, the marshall plan, the cold war
451678
The biggest was the division of Europe into east and west, with the Soviet Union vs NATO for almost 50 years, until the collapse of the USSR in 1991.\n\nThe Marsall Plan helped reconstruct Europe, which since has been peaceful and is now the major economic competitor with the United States.\n\nThe US also helped rebuild Japan, remaining there until 1951, and Japan is now the world's second largest economic power.
264655
Being stationed in NATO twice and being a history nut, I can answer this...\n\nFirst NATO was formed by the Allied Powers post WWII in order to keep up military ties and provide for common defense against an ever more aggressive Soviet presence in Eastern Europe.  The WARSAW PACT was created to counter the Soviet perceived threat of NATO which lasted until November 1989 when Germany reunified.\n\nNATO continued as an organization post cold-war in order to maintain stability in the region (i.e. involvement in the FRY a.k.a. Former Republic of Yugoslavia and the Balkans).  NATO has further expanded in order to have common training and standards of military forces that are member countries.  This creates stronger political and economical ties between the member nations and allows for a more stable environment for commerce through a continual "western" military presence.\n\nAlthough sometimes NATO can be more of a bureaucracy than an actual fighting force, its overall goal of peace and stability have transformed several former WARSAW PACT members into thriving economic and stable EU and NATO member states.
582299
it really hasnt been since 1958\n\nin the 50s it was thought that the communist threat was spreading to all of asia, the so-called domino affect\n\nkorea is only important NOW, because it has a nuclear weapon and an erratic leader
397998
Not necessarily a world power as it once stood. The Soviet Union or "Russia" is now a remnant of its former self. The poverty caused by the former Communist empire still remains however, as does the nuclear weapons. Russia still plays an important role in world politics in organizations such as the G8.
867672
uhhh\n\nMonroe Doctrine, UN Charter, NATO Charter and the ethos of our own country.
372890
In case you haven't noticed, the Cold War is over. In fact, it's been over for longer than I can remember. When you consider that there is now a generation of people entering adulthood who had not yet started kindergarten when the Soviet Union fell, you might realize that calling someone a communist is no longer an effective insult. The new buzz word is terrorist. Welcome to the 21st century.
774327
America, whether under Bush or not, would never join or participate in any pan-National group unless they can use, manipulate and gain from their fellow members.\n\nThe problem with his attempt to engage troops in Afghanistan or Iraq is that the Treaty (ie the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) may not legally permit such engagement for the reasons posited by Bush.\n\nAnd the NATO leadership may decide Bush's request would be more appropriately sent to the United Nations for troops to keep the peace (which is all UN troops are allowed to do, since they're not permitted to use firearms unless first fired upon).\n\nSo, any request for troops from NATO would indicate an intention to attack first, offensively and in force.\n\nAnd to answer your question, I would have to conclude yes - Bush shall use NATO as a buffer and relief strategy for US troop levels in the region - if, and only if, NATO let him away with it.\n\nBut "we" don't get to decide.  There will be no referendum on the subject, and the decision will be made in our name by people who did not stand for public election and therefore cannot be removed by way of a popular vote.
214104
They didn't invade either place. I don't have the slightest idea what you're referring to. For one thing, both are long-time members of NATO.
706469
In a military/govt. context, Greek might be critical because Greece is a NATO ally but Greek proficiency is less common among military applicants.  Inter-NATO operations certainly requires fluent speakers to communicate and cooperate with US allies.
530033
ANZUS stands for Australia and New Zealand, not western Europe.\n\nSEATO stands for Southeast Asia Treay Organization, not European either.\n\nCENTO I have never heard of.\n\nI guess that leaves NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
894329
There are countries with great military might who do not hold the same values as the western democracies.\nAs global resources dwindle, the race is on!\nWe will always use diplomacy first of course. we have a duty to defend ourselves against those who would wage war upon us.\nthe overwhelming american nuclear threat can be thanked for protecting europe from soviet dominence during the cold war.\n\ntheodore roosevelt: speak softly and carry a big stick
497569
I hope they don't for their own sake. i smell a rat: ruskies may have gifted iran with some serious weaponry in exchange for mega contracts.\n\nIf it does happen i hope all Nato countries and other allies like Australia, Japan, S Korea contribute more than just token forces to wipe out this irritant.
379706
Yes, it was.  But Yugoslavia as a state no longer exists.  It is now several different countries.
137426
Cold War: Postwar Estrangement\n1.The Western democracies and the Soviet Union discussed the progress of World War II and the nature of the postwar settlement at conferences in Tehran (1943), Yalta (February 1945), and Potsdam (July-August 1945). After the war, disputes between the Soviet Union and the Western democracies, particularly over the Soviet takeover of East European states, led Winston Churchill to warn in 1946 that an "iron curtain" was descending through the middle of Europe. For his part, Joseph Stalin deepened the estrangement between the United States and the Soviet Union when he asserted in 1946 that World War II was an unavoidable and inevitable consequence of "capitalist imperialism" and implied that such a war might reoccur. \n\nThe Cold War was a period of East-West competition, tension, and conflict short of full-scale war, characterized by mutual perceptions of hostile intention between military-political alliances or blocs. There were real wars, sometimes called "proxy wars" because they were fought by Soviet allies rather than the USSR itself -- along with competition for influence in the Third World, and a major superpower arms race. \n\nAfter Stalin's death, East-West relations went through phases of alternating relaxation and confrontation, including a cooperative phase during the 1960s and another, termed dtente, during the 1970s. A final phase during the late 1980s and early 1990s was hailed by President Mikhail Gorbachev, and especially by the president of the new post-Communist Russian republic, Boris Yeltsin, as well as by President George Bush, as beginning a partnership between the two states that could address many global problems. \n\n\n\nCold War: Soviet Perspectives\n2.After World War II, Joseph Stalin saw the world as divided into two camps: imperialist and capitalist regimes on the one hand, and the Communist and progressive world on the other. In 1947, President Harry Truman also spoke of two diametrically opposed systems: one free, and the other bent on subjugating other nations. \n\nAfter Stalin's death, Nikita Khrushchev stated in 1956 that imperialism and capitalism could coexist without war because the Communist system had become stronger. The Geneva Summit of 1955 among Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States, and the Camp David Summit of 1959 between Eisenhower and Khrushchev raised hopes of a more cooperative spirit between East and West. In 1963 the United States and the Soviet Union signed some confidence-building agreements, and in 1967 President Lyndon Johnson met with Soviet Prime Minister Aleksei Kosygin in Glassboro, New Jersey. Interspersed with such moves toward cooperation, however, were hostile acts that threatened broader conflict, such as the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962 and the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia of 1968. \n\nThe long rule of Leonid Brezhnev (1964-1982) is now referred to in Russia as the "period of stagnation." But the Soviet stance toward the United States became less overtly hostile in the early 1970s. Negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union resulted in summit meetings and the signing of strategic arms limitation agreements. Brezhnev proclaimed in 1973 that peaceful coexistence was the normal, permanent, and irreversible state of relations between imperialist and Communist countries, although he warned that conflict might continue in the Third World. In the late 1970s, growing internal repression and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan led to a renewal of Cold War hostility. \n\nSoviet views of the United States changed once again after Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in early 1985. Arms control negotiations were renewed, and President Reagan undertook a new series of summit meetings with Gorbachev that led to arms reductions and facilitated a growing sympathy even among Communist leaders for more cooperation and the rejection of a class-based, conflic
278696
Technically, none of these are correct.  In 1947, George Kennan, who was responsible for setting up the US Embassy in Russia published an article in Foreign Affairs under the penname "X" calling on the US to prevent expansion of communism through the policy of 'containment'. It was based upon the dual plan of attempting to thwart the efforts of Soviet Russia of expanding into Asia and other parts of Europe and by doing so, economic system would collapse (this only took 30 years and a HUGE amount of deficit spending on OUR part). \n  \nTherefore, containment Policy would deal with USSR from a two-pronged approach (economic and militarily) Economically, the Marshall Plan was the large part of it the aid package delivered to France, Italy, Germany, etc. to rebuild after the war....secondly, NATO was created.  So I choose E....none of the above.