Reply #4: Hmmm [View All]

[ljm2002]

You say, "NATO is going the way of the dodo bird. In this I agree but one has to define the west as NATO." But isn't that the thesis? I mean, that's the premise: that "the West" was a politically defined entity, NATO, that emerged after WWII in reaction to the existence of the USSR and in order to help contain it. And that it is now in decline. And I didn't see him shedding too many tears over it.

I have no doubt that Mr. Dyer knows in depth the history of the U.S. involvement in WWII including our belated entry into the conflict.

The UN is an imperfect organization, as are all human organizations. The fact that "its most powerful member" often subverts its goals is certainly cause for serious concern. I don't think you and Mr. Dyer are in any disagreement there in any way, shape or form.

It was a short piece. NATO aka "the West" has often been presented as a bulwark of "Democracy" vs. the "Tyranny". It is only in the last 20 years or so that the language of debate was changed to that of Capitalism vs. Communism. So perhaps Mr. Dyer is old school. I wish more were.

Finally. I do disagree with Mr. Dyer on one point, and that is his statement that the world is a safer place than during the depths of the Cold War. The statement startled me. It does not feel safer to me, not right now. It feels to me right now like a political powder keg, and there are sparks all over the place. Just because we don't have two superpowers with their fingers on the nuclear button, doesn't mean the nuclear threat is gone. We also now have nuclear black markets, committed and growing terrorist organizations, and a world full of anger at the country that I call home. None of this makes me feel particularly safe. But then maybe I was too young during the Cuban missile crisis to really have a good idea of how close we all came...