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

[DinoDoc]

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

[W]hy is France even allowed to take part in the military decisions of the alliance given the fact that they aren't part of the military structure?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DuncanK


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.

?

You make no sense. Allowing somebody to use your territory to launch attacks into a third country is most definitely an act of war. Saying it's not is ridiculous.

You should probably read the text of NATO's mandate, duncan. It's available at www.nato.int (IIRC)

If NATO were to include a right-of-passage for all situations and at all times then it would become, ipso facto, an open-ended offensive military alliance.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

[W]hy is France even allowed to take part in the military decisions of the alliance given the fact that they aren't part of the military structure?

The answer is: because they broke things off in 1960(ish) and the rest of NATO was more eager for the appearance of unanimity than the US apparently is now.

Also, IIRC France is still bound by NATO mandates for defense of allies etc.; it's just that their troops are not as fully integrated into the command structure as everybody else's are.

I may be wrong on the last point, though.

Personally, I don't really care about the internal structure of NATO, because it's becoming obvious that it's going to die soon.

[DuncanK]

Frogger,

Why don't you point to me where you want me to look.

The way that I always saw it. Using your allies territory is perfectly legal and its the way the game is played. The allied nation does not declare war by allowing this. For sure Turkey is not declaring war on Iraq.

France is not honoring the alliance by not promising to defend Turkey.

[Alexander's Horse]

I think this is a great idea - call it the Warsaw Pact.

[Ramo]

Yes, we've been left out of all these Axes (Germany has already been in three, if you include the original). No one tops the US. We ought to start a new Axis.

[KrazyHorse]

Duncan, you really don't know what you're talking about here. Allowing the use of your territory for attacks against a third country have always been regarded as an act of war. Always. Otherwise, you would be placed in the ridiculous position of having untouchable enemy troops who were free to launch attacks against you, something US forces made a big show about, if you recall, during Viet Nam. And in that instance, the countries in question weren't even allowing the use of their territory; they were just pretty much powerless to stop it.

And if not, what was the justification for the recent war against Afghanistan?

p.s.: even movements of troops not involveing attacks on third countries aren't automatically allowed by NATO. The US and Canada just recently signed a bilateral agreement which would allow the possibility of moving troops onto each other's soil, given a case-by-case agreement to the movement. If the US were to move troops on Canadian soil without our permission then NATO or no NATO it would be an act of war. We have the right to say no to movement of foreign troops on our territory if we feel it threatens us, if we feel it's unnecessary, or if we're even feeling in a pissy mood and just plain want to say no.

[DuncanK]

I'm looking at the articles of NATO right now and I'm not seeing what you are talking about. Plus I heard something on the radio today that contradicts what you are saying. Couple that with the fact that I understood things differently than you in the first place and you may see why I doubt the validity of what you are saying.

I didn't say that an ally could use another allies territory whenever it wanted. I just said that nations have the right to allow their allies to occupy their territory without declaring war on that nations enemies.

[GePap]

Admin. officials are all over the TV saying that the fact that NATO as an allience said no meant nothing because all the assets asked for oculd be gotten to Turkey thorugh bilateral agreements between states that happen to also be in NATO. Which means that the US did not have to ng the issue p to NATOn inorder to get the defenses Turkey might need. Which lead me to believe that what the US wanted was political backing from NATO including having France and Germany basically say war is inevitable (which would run counter to thier UN moves) since these assets must be sent to Turkey. It was manufactured political theater and it leads no where positive.

Dino:

I think Frogger is correct about France having all the status of a full member and is bound by the treatyeven if tis military is not fully coordinated. interestingly, I saw Perle in Lou Dobbs say that the allience might have to rethink Frances position due to this 'act', specially since, "since they are not part of the fully integrated command, they share none of the risk" and that "other members would no longer tolerate this double standard" (to paraphrase as best as I can). Of course, this comes from the same man who stated not too long ago that France was no longer the same type of US ally as before, whatever that meant.

[KrazyHorse]

Duncan:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/war/aggression.shtml

the action of a State in allowing its territory to be used by another State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State

[DuncanK]

ok, your right. I stand corrected.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DuncanK
I didn't say that an ally could use another allies territory whenever it wanted. I just said that nations have the right to allow their allies to occupy their territory without declaring war on that nations enemies.

Sure. Right up until their territory is used as a staging point for attacks. Then they're as much a belligerent as the one whose troops were used is.

[KrazyHorse]

God, it's late.

Nighty night.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by DuncanK
I think it's safe to say that WWII is the last time that we will save their ass.

You sat out squeezing every frickin' dime out of the UK
until they were totally broke. Then you started lend-
lease so they could defend the world from Hilter.

The only ass you saved was yer own when the Japanese attacked you. In fact in was the Japanese
who saved Europe by getting the States off it's
nickle-counting cowardly ass.

[DuncanK]

God, that's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard.