Pretty much, yeah.
I am far from Racist or Xenophobic my post was about France and Germany’s destruction of the principles that have held NATO together. Without a stable NATO smaller less stabel alliences will spring up around the world and how in the hell would that be good for anyone? It didn’t sit on its ass, America helped the Allies in ways other that direct military support.
Give him time Kal, he’s just warning up.
Squirebob, about six posts in, jjimm asked you a question. How about answering ?
As i have said my post was about Turkey’s appeal for help not starting a war! It was an appeal for help wich was vetoed by France and Germany. Thus making me a tad annoyed.
If Turkey is actually threatened, there could be French, German Belgian, Russian, British, Italian troops there in a matter of hours. When push comes to shove, Nato will be unified. The difference is wether there is need to build up in Turkey yet.
Neurotik, Digenes, et al, you people just don’t get it. They are torpedoing NATO. If they are going to be members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, they have to follow the treaty.
From NATO’s charter (bolding of relevant parts mine):
According to article 6, if the Iraqi forces lob a few SCUDS at Kurdish refugees fleeing across the Turkish border, or even just shoot a SAM at a Turkish Jet covering those refugees, it is an attack against Turkey itself. According to article 5, an attack against Turkey is an attack against Germany, France, and Belgium. You think German forces would do nothing if someone lobed a SCUD across their border?
Asking for a few patriot missile batteries is only prudent on the part of Turkey, regardless of whether or not they support American action in Iraq. Even if Turkey doesn’t offer assistance to the US, they are still a member of NATO, and they are still going to have to deal with thousands of Kurdish refugees. Do you understand this? Even if Turkey condemned the use of force, they would still need those defensive units. Their politics or support of the US invasion are not relevant.
France, Germany, and Belgium are violating the intent of the NATO charter (though not the letter as nothing as no shots have been fired as of yet) by trying to block the deployment of defensive forces in Turkey. They are torpedoing the charter for political reasons and to hell with mutual defense. If a member can pick and choose when to support NATO based on its individual interests, what’s the point of NATO at all?
To summarize: According to the NATO charter, France, Germany, and Belgium have a duty to support the defense of Turkish territory regardless of the Turkish position on Iraq.
Diogenes, really. It’s 2003. I’m not a big fan of dubya either, and think he’s too hawkish, but isn’t the “unelected” schtick getting a bit old?
Thank you.
I have so much more I’d like to say about the family members we lost in France during both World Wars…but I wont. I know the kind of reaction it would get and I’ll spare myself the heartache.
To be fair, I should point out that France, Germany, and Belgium are only trying to delay the deployment of NATO forces in Turkey rather than trying to outright refuse them. However, they are still infringing on the intent of the NATO charter (again, the intent - though not quite the letter) in order to make a political point.
I’m only piping up to say that Diogenes and his incorrect statements about an ‘unelected’ President are certainly not on behalf of this American.
You don’t speak on behalf of Americans or of the United States, Diogenes. Remember when you’re hammering away at your keyboard that the only person you speak for is yourself.
And thank you, Squirebob. I don’t mind at all being disliked or having other citizens and governments of other countries disagree with me, but when I’m told things like what one Belgian person said to me (‘In America, if they find out you’re gay while you’re in the military, you get executed.’), I am sickened.
America is supposedly so intolerant, but America is hated based on lies like those?
I speak on behalf of the majority who voted for Gore!
As I said before, Diogenes. That schtick is getting old.
Nonetheless, you made certain statements that I questioned. Please answer.
The problem here is that the US via Turkey are – again – pushing this war logic they so want everyone to embrace. In effect, the US argue; If you accept the deployment then you are implicitly accepting the logic of war – that it is a likely consequence and that you must prepare.
To France, Germany, Belgium and Russia, the UN have in place a legal framework that does not necessitate war, in fact it is designed to avoid a war. Thus preparing for a war is not merely premature but logically irrational.
The US position is that war is inevitable. They’re entitled to their view but – in the context of the UN – they ain’t in charge. Nor, in the view of those countries mentioned, is the US position (re deployment) rational or sensible.
Fwiw, it reminds me of the woman who wants another baby:
“Why don’t we paint the small bedroom blue, just in case…”
“But what’s the point, we haven’t decided to have another baby yet”
“Well, you know. Just in case”
etc, etc ….
The intent doesn’t matter, only the letter, and if you believe otherwise, you are a fool. If they are not infringing on the letter, then they are acting within their rights and Turkey has no right to cry of backstabbing.
True - as most of the serious political observers have noted:
This is just politics. It’s a group of countries worried about being steamrollered into a war they’re not convinced about, trying to make a point.
But hell, why bother trying to answer the valid concerns of our long term allies when we can just engage in bluster and jingoism.
A lot of Irish people were in the British Army in WWII including my Grandfather.
Does the British Gov./people owe Ireland because of this sacrifice? They certainly haven’t acted like they do in the past.
Witch with all due respect why don’t you talk about them in Coldfires thread “We shall remember”
As I’ve said before Apples and Oranges.
Diogenes, by postponing the decision they are weaseling out of the unspoken NATO obligations to a members contingency planning. If you don’t think that contingency planning, though it is not expressely provided for in the charter, is an important part of NATO then I don’t know what the fuck to say to you.
I wonder if France would still postpone the deployment decision if they shared a border with Iraq and had to start planning what to do with Kurdish refugees should war break out.
As the granddaughter of a WWII vet who served in France and the Rhineland, I agree with this and think it was well said. We shouldn’t expect reflexive support. Neither should we have our concerns dismissed and ridiculed. I hope we reach a happy medium.
Whoops, my previous post should be directed toward Neurotik, rather than Diogenes.