Does the U.S. need to make a new global organization with like minded nations?

[Ari Rahikkala]

We should learn a lesson from past history and not create another global organization to be a thorn in our side.

But remember, the future history might have different lessons to teach .

[DuncanK]

My Bad. I didn't hear the latest news. Appearantly Turkey put in a request to be defended by all NATO members in case they are attacked by Iraq. Germany, France and Belgium have promised to deny their request. That is certainly a crisis in NATO and a dirty spot on the reputation of those nations.

[KrazyHorse]

I haven't heard it put that way, Duncan. What's your source?

All the major media outlets are saying that what the countries have done is veto planning to defend Turkey in case of war with Iraq.

That still leaves the fact that there's no realistic threat of Iraq attacking Turkey unless Turkey attacks Iraq first (or allows US troops to do so from its soil). Asking for aid in case of an attack in a war that you start is a hell of a stretch for a defensive alliance.

[KrazyHorse]

That being said, I would still probably have sent purely defensive weapons to Turkey as a goodwill gesture.

[Wezil]

I agree completely Frogger. Defense from unprovoked attack is one thing, whereas defense against retaliation (for an effort NATO has not endorsed) is quite another.

Btw, no one has said the US can't send AWACs, Patriots, and whatever else the US wants to send to Turkey. Go ahead and defend your partners US. You don't need NATO for that!

[Lancer]

Frogger, if I understand correctly, in the event of war with Iraq, Iraq might launch Scuds into Turkey, possibly w/ bio or chemical weapons. Turkey requested AWACs and Patriot missiles to defend against this threat.

France, Germany and Belgium refused.

They would never have refused Spain or Norway...it's almost racist, though I hate to use that word.

[KrazyHorse]

Lancer, that's still saying "we want defence for a war that we're thinking about starting".

Turkey isn't threatened; it's Turkey that's doing the threatening.

Article 4 doesn't apply. If and when an Iraqi SCUD hits Turkey, article 5 would of course apply. But it doesn't require prescience on the part of the alliance.

Sending any help to Turkey right now is simply not mandated by the NATO charter. And once again, I would probably have done it just for the sake of goodwill, but it's not a violation of the treaty to not do it.

EDIT: spelling/grammar mistakes corrected

[KrazyHorse]

Lancer, I don't know about your comment wrt refusing help to other NATO nations.

The fact is that many of the Euro countries just plain don't want there to be a war. You have to admit that sending Turkey defensive aid which is only going to be necessary in the case that they declare war (whether formally or not) against a third country isn't really the role of a defensive alliance, and sends the message of backhanded support for war.

Anyhow, I thought that France was supposed to be rabidly pro-Islam and anti-Semitic. Make up your minds.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Does the U.S. need to make a new global organization with like minded nations?

Originally posted by Vesayen
The U.N. and NATO are now both worthless, filled with petty squabling beurocrats......is it time for the U.S. to pull out of both, and found a new organization with those who are still friendly with it?

What an absolute and utterly silly notion.

Anyway, unless "like minded nations" = lackeys and puppets, there is no organisation with more than one country that does not require some sort of compromise.

So go away you silly US Imperialist.

[Wezil]

I still don't understand what is stopping the US from sending whatever military support they want to Turkey.....

So NATO is uninterested? We keep hearing how 'useless' the Europeans anyway, so why does the US care if France and Germany don't want to send help? Where is the freaking problem here?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
NATO is a defensive treaty, if Turkey starts an agressive war against Iraq with the US then why are France and Germany required to assist?

I wondered aloud a lot about that. Particularly when it comes to NATO vs Yugoslavia.

[KrazyHorse]

Quick Question: what international organisation will the US declare "irrelevant" tomorrow because they do not fully support an immediate war with Iraq?

My money's on the Catholic Church or UNICEF

[Ned]

Ah, come on! France is trying to coerce Turkey into not supporting the US by leaving it vulnerable to Saddam's WoMD.

This is craven.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I wondered aloud a lot about that. Particularly when it comes to NATO vs Yugoslavia.

Article 5 seems to apply, but not article 4.

In other words, they have to send help once the missiles actually start dropping on the NATO country, but the obligation is not as high as if the NATO country was being threatened with an unprovoked war (in which case the help has to be sent before the war starts).

[Wezil]

UNICEF is already no good - a UN outfit

Catholic Church? - nah, their hats are too nice.