Originally posted by FMF
What is it I have to "give up" on?
The 1991 invasion of Iraq wasn't a NATO operation. It seems you are hazy about how military alliances and their command structures - and their combined military operations in the field - actually work. Operation Desert Storm, Operation Granby, Operation Friction and all the rest simply were not NATO operations regardless of ...[text shortened]... ce block" as you call them - and why would Venuzuela be deterred by a Latin American NATO?
Why are you going on and on about a made up argument that you're trying to use to put words in others' mouths? Your modus operandi again.
You are the only one bring up Afghanistan time and again, and that is because you have some mental problems, but I have come to terms with that.
Still I will answer the troll to see if it can learn.
NATO countries had an alliance against the Soviet Union.
They quickly agreed to send troops to hot spots to defend each other, and they did so effectively in the (ahem, UN) operation of 1991 to remove (ahem, Iraq's) dictator Sadam from (ahem) Kuwait.
Sorry, is this something that doesn't throw you any curve ball, or do you want to go back in time again to dig up bull to waste time?
Anyway, NATO forces can quickly contribute to stability in a post-cold war world because they can quickly mobilize forces rather than deal with a UN - style security counsel veto from China or Russia.
Similarly, Latin America could have a NATO-like Union that does not wait for the UN to send troops to stop Chavez from invading Columbia. Russia, Chavez's often allied arms dealer, could veto UN action.
The ABC powers and Mexico could easily move forces in to prevent a war of aggression from Chavez.
capisce?