tried to leave things alone and not try to tinker withthem so as to keep it going in the same direction. On the surface, an idea like this seems genuineand true. One must look, though, at the eventual causes of enlargement. You might say, forexample, that if we try to enlarge NATO what will it become? This idea goes all the way back toSocrates, Plato and Aristotle. These three great thinkers all agreed that the more in a community,entity for our understanding, the less power it has and the more chaos it will create. If so manycountries become members of NATO it will be pretty hard to agree on anything. You would alsohave a divided gap. Most of the time you would see the big members want one thing and thesmaller member nations want another thing. Also, one must look at the past to learn how thisidea probably wouldnt work. After World War II France and the US joined a pact called theKellogg-Brand Pact of 1928. This was a pact meant to outlaw war by making it illegal. This pactwas joined by a numerous amount of other countries and turned into a big joke. There was noway to see that this pact would ever be carried out. How can one honestly say that if they join analliance there will never be a war. If NATO keeps its original mission and enlargement occurs ona very large scale, like most want it to, it to will turn into one big joke.The next recommendations I have is one that Im sure would cause much debate all overthe world but it is a possibility. If NATO were to keep the mission it originally started out withwhy not only let Big powerful countries join to make sure that war is prevented as much aspossible. A lot of times the only thing that letting smaller countries into the alliance will do isslow the process and sometimes cause the objective to go off course. If you think about it, thesuperpowers of the world are the ones that rule this world. If there could be an alliance of just thesuperpowers they could act as a su...
