Iraq, Zarqawi and the 'al-Qaeda link'

[uh Clem]

Providing defensive assistence when asked by a member state, as Turkey has done, is clearly with in the NATO treaty.

If Turkey doesn't join in the attack against Iraq, it won't have to worry about defending itself. NATO is essentially defensive; it was never meant to require assistance when members launch attacks against thrid parties. In the US this notion seems heretical and incomprehensible right now, although it's generally accepted elsewhere.

NATO members are no more obliged to help Turkey than they were obliged to help the United States in Vietnam.

[Dinner]

Not yet but if a missile lands in Turkish Kurdistan then a member would be attacked. The treaty doesn't specify preconditions, i.e. only if you are atackedout of the blue by a rogue state, it simply says "if a member state is attacked". That's the letter of the law.

[Dinner]

That doesn't mean Turkey will invoke article 11 after all Britain didn't invoke the NATO treaty when Argintina invaded the Falklands though it had every right to do so.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by uh Clem


If Turkey doesn't join in the attack against Iraq, it won't have to worry about defending itself. NATO is essentially defensive; it was never meant to require assistance when members launch attacks against thrid parties. In the US this notion seems heretical and incomprehensible right now, although it's generally accepted elsewhere.

NATO members are no more obliged to help Turkey than they were obliged to help the United States in Vietnam.

Turkey may be under threat whether even if the US attacks only from Kuwait. France and Germany have NOT denied that, nor have they denied that NATO has a role in defending Turkey. They only say that its not yet the time to discuss it.

As for general acceptance, 16 out of 19 NATO states agree on the need to help Turkey. Only three agree with your position. The Netherlands has offered to help Turkey bilaterally and has expressed concern at the Franco-German position, as has the UK. nd BTW I beleive NATO was involked by Turkey during the 1991 Gulf war - exact some considerations, except for the position of France and Germany.

[uh Clem]

Uh-huh. As I said: "In the US this notion seems heretical and incomprehensible right now..."

Meanwhile from Reuters:

Jazeera: Bin Laden Urges Muslims to Defend Iraq

The statement did not express support for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein -- it said Muslims should support the Iraqi people rather than the country's government.

"The fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies, nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq," the statement said.

Wow, those guys are tight!

[uh Clem]

Associated Press:

Bin Laden again? Arab station airs new audio tape

In an interview with al-Jazeera aired after the tape, U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the recording shows that Iraq and al-Qaida "are bound by a common hatred.''

"He threatens everybody in the Arab world except Saddam Hussein,'' Boucher said.

[snip]

The speaker on the tape said nothing about direct ties between al-Qaida and the Iraqi government - saying his followers only share a common interest with Iraq, even though he denounced Saddam's secular, socialist al-Baath party as "infidels.''

[Chemical Ollie]

I know were he is. He's hiding in Texas! That's the last place they would look for him...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by uh Clem
Uh-huh. As I said: "In the US this notion seems heretical and incomprehensible right now..."

Meanwhile from Reuters:

Jazeera: Bin Laden Urges Muslims to Defend Iraq



Wow, those guys are tight!

so evidently Binny is NOT trying to hand Bush a smoking gun against Iraq.

Hawk spin: thats consistent with Saddam - Bin laden alliance
Dove spin: Its also consistent with OBL wanting to increase US unpopularity in the Muslim world, irrespetive of any links with Saddam.

[Dinner]

Nobody said they were getting married but they do seem to be working together to some degree. I.E. You can hang out here if you don't directly attack the regime and we'll let you run attacks like the assissination of Foley from Baghdad.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by uh Clem
Uh-huh. As I said: "In the US this notion seems heretical and incomprehensible right now..."
!

Then why havent France and Germany made this case???

[Dinner]

Originally posted by uh Clem
Uh-huh. As I said: "In the US this notion seems heretical and incomprehensible right now..."

The difference between our two positions is mine is based upon what the treaty actually says and the other is based upon what somebody thinks the treaty really ought to have said but didn't.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by uh Clem
NATO is essentially defensive;

NATO hasn't been a defensive alliance since the Clinton administration. It's a little late to try turning back the clock now on that point.

[uh Clem]

Yeah, I forgot, it's Clinton's fault.

But yes, it definitely is too late. NATO's toast, and good riddance. It should have disbanded after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by uh Clem
Yeah, I forgot, it's Clinton's fault.

How could you describe the Balkan adventures as anything other than aggressive military acts?

[uh Clem]

Looking for a new mission in Yugoslavia was a result of not shutting down by 1992. If it hadn't been in the Balkans, it would have been somewhere else.

Something called "NATO" will no doubt continue to exist (unless this war turns into the biggest screw-up of all time). But it will not be the same organization it has been, and why should it? Richard Perle said a few days ago that France is no longer an ally and needs to be "contained." [!]