Actually, no, right person.
Actually, I just started re-reading your NATO article again and don't take this personally, but I would call into question every single sentence I read. In my opinion, their description of themselves is wishful thinking at best and total outright fraud and deception at worst. Fraud because I'm being forced to pay for it as are many other people who wouldn't support it it there knew what was going on in their name.
You know, for someone who claims to use logic to understand your world, don't you find NATO's description of themselves a tad bit biased and therefore your choice of them as a source a bit irrational ? What is it you think they're going to say about themselves that would make me ignore the millions of people they've killed
http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdf
and the countless number of lives they've destroyed by peace loving technologies like depleted uranium (or here's another example using white phosphorus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah,_The_Hidden_Massacre)
Not only did countless children and innocent people get shot at, but the left overs from the use of these weapons have targeted future generations by causing genetic damage
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20699700
but curiously, NATO says these weapons cause no problems. How convenient.
http://www.nato.int/du/home.htm
This is a pattern for them
anyway, back to your article Take the first sentence for example, "NATO is an active and leading contributor to peace and security on the international stage. It promotes democratic values and is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. " Now does your logic tell you what they did in Libya lines up with the statement? Mine doesn't. They've been widely accused of war crimes in Libya as well as many other theaters of war.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/15/global-justice-nato-libya
but that's really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to crimes against humanity.
Just a few paragraphs down "Key functions include: supporting planning, programming and budgeting; assuring transparency, accountability and oversight"
There's another joke for you. As if a military organization is transparent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/sunday-review/natos-secrecy-stance.html?_r=0
ever heard of operation gladio? that's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact
find your own source if you don't like mine, many books have been written about it. The information is out there, NATO is truly a veil corporate western government sponsored full spectrum dominance war machine. My source for that, 25 years of reading.
So to sum it all up. I don't buy a word NATO says. So ya, if you're going to leave me a propaganda piece like this it would be a good idea to point out why you think I need to read this. Don't worry, even if you give me your opinion I'll still decide for myself. So go ahead, don't be afraid, what is it in that article you feel will enlighten me?
By the way, I didn't refer to you as a logic ninja because you were logical, but the opposite of that. I was being facetious. Attacking the person making the argument is a logical fallacy and you were guilty of that at least 5 times. So it's easy to call me this or that, but for the labels you put on me you might want to mirror them back at yourself and think about it because my guess is you are not nearly as rational as you think you are; otherwise surely you'd be able to cool off those emotions. Mr Logic.