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

[KrazyHorse]

What don't you understand on this? Turkey is not under direct threat of attack until it chooses to make itself Iraq's enemy by letting itself be used as an invasion route. When and if Turkey is actually attacked by Iraq, the there's no question as to causes; NATO must come to its aid. Until then, NATO doesn't have the obligation to do so under article 4 (which Turkey attempted to invoke) by moving defenses in, because they aren't under an imminent threat from outside.

Kramer, imagine that there were a small country to Canada's north that was not a NATO member. Now imagine that the mighty Canadian military has decided to annex this insignificant little splot of a nation. Diplomatic pressure is stepped up, and invasion threats are aired by us.

Pointing at the tensions, we then attempt to invoke article 4 so that we can use other country's troops as our rearguard, freeing our army up for offensive action.

Under your interpretation this is a legitimate use of the NATO mandate.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Originally posted by Frogger
Did you bother to read the rest of my post or not?

Yes, I did. I considered it irrelevent to the issue.

although at least more of a case can be made for them, since the integrity of nearby NATO members was threatened by the actions of outside parties,

How is that a military problem as oppossed to a border control problem? Or why intervene in what is for all intents and purposes an internal conflict instead of sealing your border with a problem area?

You again ignored the second part of the original post.

Read it again. I said it was an illegitimate extension of NATO's mandate, which is simply to protect the sovereignty and integrity of NATO member countries.

[DinoDoc]

Then why are you even argueing with me over this?

[KrazyHorse]

I'm not. You're the one who's insisting on arguing.

[KrazyHorse]

BTW, if the US is just playing the brinksmanship game on this then they're doing an excellent job, though I question the benefit they are receiving for the diplomatic cost they are paying.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2746349.stm

[KrazyHorse]

Especially because if they are, then there's been so much talk of war by US politicians that any peaceful resolution which leaves Saddam in power will leave the US looking like it backed down (even if that was their intention in the first place)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Frogger
I'm not. You're the one who's insisting on arguing.

Oh well. You wouldn't happen to know the answer to the other question I asked, would you?

[Kramerman]

Until then, NATO doesn't have the obligation to do so under article 4 (which Turkey attempted to invoke) by moving defenses in, because they aren't under an imminent threat from outside.

*sigh*, im sry, but this doesnt make any sense. Why would NATO wait for Turkey to be attacked (and possibly many, many Turkish killed as a result) when they could just always have a presence there, potentially detering a counterattack before one is ever made.

Pointing at the tensions, we then attempt to invoke article 4 so that we can use other country's troops as our rearguard, freeing our army up for offensive action.

ok, first of all, Canada in this case is actually invading. Turkey, will not be. It is just a country that Forces will use as a stagin point. I see this as a major flaw in the anlogy. Also, your view on the war with Iraq is diametrically apposed to mine, which, to my point of view, brings another flaw to your analogy. You assume that A US led invasion of Iraq is expansionist, and unjustified. I see it as a neccesity. This is why I am so upset by NATO's (france, belgium and germany, in particular, i believe) refusal to aid Turkey in defence from a possible counter attack. You think the US has no right to invade in the first place, so NATO shouldnt have to protect what shouldnt be protected, or somethn to that effect.

[KrazyHorse]

Which one was that? I've been busy rebutting this horribly gauche crowd of yankees and have sort of lost track of things...

[Ned]

Frogger, Turkey would be in the line of fire even if it did not permit a US attack from its borders. It has allowed the US to use its airbases for the no fly zone for twelve years.

[KrazyHorse]

It is just a country that Forces will use as a stagin point. I see this as a major flaw in the anlogy

I don't. Same thing to use your own forces or let other forces use your territory. Either you're colluding with them or you have lost de facto sovereignty over the ground in question. Either way, the territory being used for the attack is in the possession of a nation at war with the enemy.


Secondly, you're attempting to say that helping Turkey is necessary because the war with Iraq is justified whereas the war with Northlandia isn't. Doesn't matter. They're both offensive wars (this doesn't mean wrong or expansionist, merely what it says: that the point of the war is to go on the offense into enemy territory rather than defend your own territory against invasion).

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger
What don't you understand on this? Turkey is not under direct threat of attack until it chooses to make itself Iraq's enemy by letting itself be used as an invasion route.

This is where I believe that you are wrong frogger. Letting your allies use your territory is not an act of war. The very thought is ridiculous. That is what allies do. Other allies have US troops there too. If someone were to attack them should not NATO defend that country.

[Jon Miller]

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

Originally posted by Ozz


I wouldn't call the US, Israel and UK (until the next
election) exactly an organization. More like a Nation,
a colony, and a vassal.

which is which?

JonMiller

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
Frogger, Turkey would be in the line of fire even if it did not permit a US attack from its borders. It has allowed the US to use its airbases for the no fly zone for twelve years.

And were the US to attack Iraq and Turkey wanted to remain neutral, it would be well advised to withdraw permission for these sorties.

Turkey has all the choices here; it can attack or not. Is there anybody here who thinks that Iraq is currently poised to attack Turkey if Turkey chooses not to participate in a war against Iraq?

If so, then you should have made the case before NATO.

[KrazyHorse]

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

Originally posted by Jon Miller


which is which?

JonMiller

I'd call Israel a colony and the UK a vassal.