See subject. Turkey comes to mind.
Turkey’s refusal to allow Kurdish fighters to pass through their territory in order to attack ISIL seems like reasonable grounds for being expelled.
Why? First off, there’s no way to expel members from NATO. Second, the war against ISIL isn’t a NATO war. Third, Kurdish guerrillas aren’t NATO members. So why expel Turkey?
No. Members may withdraw with a years notice, but they can’t be expelled.
A mutual defence pact that lets members just kick out a member whose defense becomes inconvenient wouldn’t be worth much.
The Turkish actions with regard to ISIS and the Kurds have nothing to do with NATO.
NATO is a mutual defence pact. ISIL isn’t attacking a NATO member, is it ?
No, and even if it was, the pact only requires action if the attack is in Europe, NA or the N. Atlantic and needs to be specifically invoked by the country being attacked.
Back in June, Turkey asked NATO to pinky swear that if Turkey was attacked, NATO would defend it:
So I suppose Turkey counts as Europe, in NATO’s eyes?
Hey, if both the Eurovision Song Contest and the UEFA European Championship says you’re European, you’re European.
Hey, we’d been calling them “The Sick Man of Europe” for damn near a century. We can’t take that back *now *! 
Geographically, a small part of Turkey (East Thrace) is unambigously in Europe and the rest is in Asia, including all the troublesome neighbours - or at least, all the neighbours more troublesome than the Greeks. 
I guess the Turks wanted to pin NATO down a bit in the expectation that if/when it really kicks off on the their Syrian border there would be much reading of the fine print and attempting to wriggle out of honouring treaty comittments.
Also, it’s amazing how many people seem to think that NATO is some sort of alliance of conquest where all the members have signed up on the basis of “attack anyone you please and we’ll join in, no questions asked”. It shouldn’t take more than 15 seconds thought to realise why it isn’t so.
If ISIS attacks Turkey and Turkey invokes article 5, than NATO would certainly help defend it. But neither of those has happened.
Yea. Its technically Europe, NA, the North Atlantic, Turkey and French Algers. But in anycase, not Iraq.
Misunderstood your post #6, then - took it to mean that even if Turkey was ever attacked, NATO wouldn’t need to defend it, because “the pact only requires action if the attack is in Europe, NA or the N. Atlantic.”
It’s defined that way so that for example a Viet Cong attack on the US base at Da Nang or an Argentinean invasion of the Falkland Islands doesn’t invoke article 5, but an attack on US soil in North America using three airliners by a group based in Afghanistan does. It’s never been a question if all of Turkey is included in the geographical limits of NATO; it is. NATO sent forces to Turkey in 1991 as a signal of solidarity should Iraq get any ideas about attacking airbases in Turkey, which were being used by US aircraft to bomb Iraq in Desert Storm. Eastern Turkey directly bordered the Soviet Union during the Cold War and there is no question that a Soviet invasion of Eastern turkey would trigger article 5 (and WWIII).
The idea that Turkey is somehow being a bad member of NATO by refusing to allow it’s territory to be used by a third party in a conflict which doesn’t involve NATO in any way whatsoever is absurd. It doesn’t really take much imagination to understand why Turkey might not be too keen on letting Kurdish guerillas use their territory, considering Turkey had been fighting a 29 year long war against Kurdish guerillas, which the fighting with ISIS broke the cease-fire, starting it up into its 30th year. The PKK has been declared a terrorist organization by NATO, by the way.