NATO Holds Little Appeal for Finns

**~~Vasconcelos~~** · 01-05-2011, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by Joe McCarthy

On the other hand, Turkey is a member of NATO. They were allowed in as a counter to the USSR. I personally think they should be kicked out, and ironically, much of the argument used to keep Russia out could be used to kick Turkey out.

Can you even kick a member out without them actually enganging in a war with another NATO member? It could have been done when Cyprus was invaded, not now.
Even if they were kicked out, it could result in Turkey finding other friends and/or alliances, notable other islamic states, Russia or even China.

Better to keep them in NATO, even if just for them to be under the illusion that we actually like them.

**~~Joe McCarthy~~** · 01-06-2011, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Riippumatto
No, just Latvians.

Er, if you go back a couple of pages you'll see that I don't want Latvia in NATO either.

Idealism.. You want to defend Latvia from.... Ermm... The communists? Because they hate Latvia's freedom?

You obviously grossly underestimate the power of liberal democracy as an ideal in the US. A prerequisite for NATO membership is that prospective states pass an anal exam in terms of democratic normalcy. Historically military alliances have been brokered based on Realpolitik and national security, which is the proper methodology, but we've added the twist - much to my chagrin - that a state has to have proper electoral standards. The one good thing that can be said about this liberal idealism is that it tends to inhibit non-Western states from entering NATO, but that's due to mere happenstance.

Or from Russia, who is a geopolitical rival you've been "containing" for your own benefit?

LOL. You and the Kremlin may think we need Latvia to 'contain' Russia, but as a matter of interest, it'd be interesting to see you explain how Latvia contains Russia, and just what 'containment' means in this context? Do we need Latvia in NATO to defend California? Do we need Latvia to defend Germany? What?

Yeah. If I recall, USSR expansionism occurred when they had the green light from America, pre-Cold War

It seems you're missing a bit of the history here. That expansion occurred after a certain Austrian nitwit launched a certain invasion, aided by a certain country you happen to be in.

During the Cold War, we could not even be part of the Marshall Plan thanks to Soviet pressure

You've misrepresented this. Finland was invited to the talks to dispense aid for the Marshall Plan. The Finnish government was split, and ultimately opted not to attend out of fear of offending the USSR.

much less join an anti-USSR military alliance.

We went over this before, remember? The only agreement that prohibited Finland from joining an anti-Soviet alliance was the YYA Treaty, which Finland signed agreeing to effectively be the USSR's satellite throughout the Cold War. The term 'Finlandization' wasn't coined for nothing you know.

**~~Joe McCarthy~~** · 01-06-2011, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by Vasconcelos
Can you even kick a member out without them actually enganging in a war with another NATO member? It could have been done when Cyprus was invaded, not now.

Turkey would have to agree to leave as every member of NATO has a national veto of major NATO decisions. In practice though if the other members expressed their desire for Turkey to leave, they'd leave.

Even if they were kicked out, it could result in Turkey finding other friends and/or alliances, notable other islamic states, Russia or even China.

Better to keep them in NATO, even if just for them to be under the illusion that we actually like them.

Your argument has merit, but I think it is overshadowed by the danger of keeping them in.

1. Turkey being in NATO greatly adds to the argument of them being in the EU.

2. Kicking Turkey out of NATO would do much to improve US-Russia relations.

3. Turkey is increasingly becoming a hostile entity within Western gates. This is due to its increasing turn toward Islamism. It threatened to block Denmark's ex-PM from becoming NATO head over the Danish cartoon incident, and recently it just did this:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...ill-not-name-i

(CNSNews.com) – Ahead of a key summit this week, NATO’s secretary-general has confirmed that the alliance will not identify Iran as a threat requiring the deployment of a NATO-wide missile defense umbrella in Europe.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s comment indicates that Turkey, a NATO member, will get its way on the matter. Turkey’s Islamist-leaning government has deepening political and economic ties with Tehran, and it has insisted that Iran not be singled out in NATO documents.