Barack Obama

Last edited Sun Sep 1, 2013, 12:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Great question!

Except for Greenland, they are all official members of NATO. But it is part of Denmark despite some partial self governance.

Note the list below, that Denmark is in NATO, and I included a snippet on Greenland's relations with the USA below that.

NATO recieves 70% of the world's defense money. Here is the map of NATO countries in the region:



The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO; /ˈneɪtoʊ/ NAY-toh; French: Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique Nord (OTAN)), also called the (North) Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty which was signed on 4 April 1949. The organization constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party. NATO's headquarters are in Brussels, Belgium, one of the 28 member states across North America and Europe, the newest of which, Albania and Croatia, joined in April 2009. An additional 22 countries participate in NATO's "Partnership for Peace", with 15 other countries involved in institutionalized dialogue programs. The combined military spending of all NATO members constitutes over 70% of the world's defence spending.[4]

For its first few years, NATO was not much more than a political association. However, the Korean War galvanized the member states, and an integrated military structure was built up under the direction of two U.S. supreme commanders. The course of the Cold War led to a rivalry with nations of the Warsaw Pact, which formed in 1955. Doubts over the strength of the relationship between the European states and the United States ebbed and flowed, along with doubts over the credibility of the NATO defence against a prospective Soviet invasion—doubts that led to the development of the independent French nuclear deterrent and the withdrawal of the French from NATO's military structure in 1966.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the organization became drawn into the breakup of Yugoslavia, and conducted its first military interventions in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995 and later Yugoslavia in 1999. Politically, the organization sought better relations with former Cold War rivals, which culminated with several former Warsaw Pact states joining the alliance in 1999 and 2004. The 11 September attacks of 2001 signaled the only occasion in NATO's history that Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty has been invoked as an attack on all NATO members.[5] After the attack, troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF, and the organization continues to operate in a range of roles, including sending trainers to Iraq, assisting in counter-piracy operations[6] and most recently in 2011 enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. The less potent Article 4, which merely invokes consultation among NATO members has been invoked three times, and only by Turkey: once in 2003 over the Iraq War, and twice in 2012 over the Syrian civil war after the downing of an unarmed Turkish F-4 reconnaissance jet and after a mortar was fired at Turkey from Syria.[7]

NATO spans the globe:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/North_Atlantic_Treaty_Organization_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg

NATO members:

Albania
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark*
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal*
Romania*
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey*
United Kingdom
United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

Regarding Greenland, as promised above:

Greenland: Geography, History, Politics, and More

The Inuit are believed to have crossed from North America to northwest Greenland, the world's largest island, between 4000 B.C. and A.D. 1000. Greenland was colonized in 985–986 by Eric the Red. The Norse settlements declined in the 14th century, however, mainly as a result of a cooling in Greenland's climate, and in the 15th century they became extinct.

(Jared Diamond's version of that extinction, ended with the poor eating the rich literally, and other avoidable collapses in his book:

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (also titled) Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_%28book%29 )

In 1721, Greenland was recolonized by the Royal Greenland Trading Company of Denmark.

Greenland was under U.S. protection during World War II, but it maintained Danish sovereignty. A definitive agreement for the joint defense of Greenland within the framework of NATO was signed in 1951. A large U.S. air base at Thule in the far north was completed in 1953. Under 1953 amendments to the Danish constitution, Greenland became part of Denmark, with two representatives in the Danish Folketing. On May 1, 1979, Greenland gained home rule, with its own local parliament (Landsting)...

A ceremony in June 2009 marked the beginning of self-governance over areas like criminal justice and oil exploration...

Read more:

http://www.infoplease.com/country/greenland.html#ixzz2datZBaTQ

NATO grew out of WW2. Fear of another such war, which reduced the world's population by 2.5%, is part of the reason it exists. This is when one is being a realist, a good thing, no matter how distasteful it is at first glance. Stability is another definition of peace.

I've come to the unpleasant realization that intelligence gathering, detailed in Guardian stories citing Assad's wrongdoings, has good reasons to exist and some are working hard to keep the peace behind the scenes. It came out that the reason the embassy in Libya was hit and the reason the CIA was there, which is red meat for liberals to hate the whole thing, was they were trying to stop a shipment of weaponry to Syrian rebels to escalate the war. We've been taught the evil things the CIA has done, and the idea that they were trying to save lives hits the 'this doesn't fit my belief' wall of denial that the USA is doing anything good.

Some say the Cold War is not over, although Russia today isn't the same as the USSR. This is a puzzle to me, and part of my unwillingness to accept it is my 'I don't wanna' believe it was ever necessary. Most people have willful ignorance on some subjects, not all are willing to admit it. The 'I don't know, and I don't wanna know' defense comes in handy at times. Okay, will quit with my opinion there.

Russia and Syria are not in NATO and stand accused. Turkey has been reporting that Assad has been using imported chemical weapons to keep control of Syria.

He has used them, they say, because he is losing the land war with the rebels. I've seen and posted UK news stories that indicate he has lost the ground war and the territory under his control is getting smalller.

It is also claimed weaponry is being shipped from Russia to Iran or Iraq into Syria, in violation of Iraqi promises to NATO partners to inspect all airplanes that transport of these through Iraq. What I previously thought were heavy handed American tactics to inspect shipments, may have saved lives.

Turkey says that some of the missiles are landing on its soil, endangering those living near their border with Syria. These smaller attacks killing their people are not yet at the level of invoking NATO's Article 5 provision, but to personalize the matter, how would we react if Canada started lobbing in missiles even by mistake at us?

So Turkey has their POV that is supposedly as valid as anyone else's. They are also experiencing a flood of Syrian refugees, just as Syria did from Iraq. Is this seen as a coup by Syria from those refugees, as it's said some of the rebels in Syria are Iraqis, too and unhappy with the way they were treated?

Looking into the history and organization of NATO, each of the major powers are assigned roles according to their various strengths. They are a regulated group with long ties to each other. And information sharing is a large part of that, shown by the Guardian articles, as much as we can believe anything.

Although the UN is placed above NATO, it does not own it, nor does NATO force any of its members to engage if they see issues or are unable to fulfill their role in involvement. That the UK parliament voted down joining this action is not necessarily the bellwether some may assume. It was in within its rights, just as the USA was in its rights to resist staying out of this civil war as long as possible. For this, Obama and Kerry have been called traitors and enablers of terrorists by RWers. Turkey sees what is happening best.

Obama telling Congress to do their Constitutional duty is a great move. If the case for military force is debated fully, it will clear up a lot of political talk. The ones who claim to want peace, need to vote against this. I think most of them know it is necessary and are scoring political points off America's war weary people. But some of their voters want this war to happen.

Now they can put their views forth and get to work. I want them to own their words, stop playing around and acting like Obama is a dictator.

He's not. He's leaving it to the people to decide. This should prove educational about what America is really about.

I can provide links to the numbers ,etc. if you are interested, from the UK's Guardian.