NATO members show how much they value the Alliance

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Some would say the US did that out of self-interest.

Many are ungrateful that American-Soviet rivalry played out in their fields and villages.

We fought the Nazis out of self-interest too, but the French seem to be grateful for Normandy anyway. Why should the next fifty years be any different?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Then they should not have invoked Article 5 of the NATO treaty if they didn't want to be seen as useless parasites by not following through.

Yes and no. I suspect an attack on those rsponsible for 9/11 was popular amongst most NATO countries. It is the indefinite occupation that many are objecting to. Does Article 5 spell out how long we stay?

If you say we stay until "a viable government takes over" or some such then you get the second difficulty - Whose ultimate goals/objectives and definitions apply? Is it what the US wants and thinks is possible or do we go with what other members of NATO want?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


We fought the Nazis out of self-interest too, but the French seem to be grateful for Normandy anyway. Why should the next fifty years be any different?

Actually, I've had rip roaring arguments with Euros over the damage done in the Normandy area.

Apparently, we Anglos were not careful enough and blew up a few too many towns and small cities that the Nazis had fortified themselves in.

As for self-interest, why would you expect people to be grateful when they feel US policy and action risked their homes in a fight for American self-interest?

One of the reasons the Alliance is straining may be that Euros no longer feel a need for American protection. Maybe they are entertaining dreams of a resurgence of European power and influence. They just have to figure out that pesky Russian question and then...

I think they missed the boat. They should have rushed to embrace Russia and brought them towards or into the Union when they had the chance. Now there would be one mother scary power, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, but the other way. However, they're too busy debating whether Turkey and Russia are actually European. Massive failure of imagination after a remarkable beginning if you ask me.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil


Yes and no. I suspect an attack on those rsponsible for 9/11 was popular amongst most NATO countries. It is the indefinite occupation that many are objecting to. Does Article 5 spell out how long we stay?

If you say we stay until "a viable government takes over" or some such then you get the second difficulty - Whose ultimate goals/objectives and definitions apply? Is it what the US wants and thinks is possible or do we go with what other members of NATO want?

No, conventions on civilised behaviour among nations say we stay until we fix what we broke. That means there is a government in place and a situation where peace exists and can be expected to continue.

It may not be possible over the long run, but at the very least you try.

[Wezil]

We didn't break Afghanistan. It was well and truly broken long before we arrived.

If you insist we really did break it then why don't we put it back together as it was?

[notyoueither]

Oh please.

I'm sure you'd be saying Bush is a hero if he put up the local warlords with enough guns and gas to wipe out everyone they don't like. Right?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


Oh, yes a very convincing argument.

Thanks.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Wezil
Yes and no. I suspect an attack on those rsponsible for 9/11 was popular amongst most NATO countries. It is the indefinite occupation that many are objecting to. Does Article 5 spell out how long we stay?

Your idea of taking out whatever country was found to have been complicit and immediately leaving afterward was never on the table. So yes, I think it would have been reasonable among the useless parasites to have foreseen the posibility of an occupation.

[MarkG]

it's funny to see Americans whine about treaties. i wonder if i should digg up nato articles and un security council decisions for the turkish invasion in cyprus. should i?

[DinoDoc]

Speaking of useless parasites.

Hello Mark.

[Colonâ„¢]

The best thing the US can hope for re Afghanistan is that Obama becomes president. Few West-Europeans wish to support anything associated with Bush. He can launch a save-the-baby-seal campaign for all I know and it'd still be hugely distrusted.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MarkG
it's funny to see Americans whine about treaties. i wonder if i should digg up nato articles and un security council decisions for the turkish invasion in cyprus. should i?

Did the Greeks actually invoke the North Atlantic Treaty in response?

[MarkG]

oh god, kuci, you ARE going to make me digg
not now though

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Yeah right. Surely you were laughing to yourself when you wrote this since it sounds like you are describing the Shah or Guatemala redux. How do those play among socialist circles?

I didn't laugh to myself at all. I was for the occupation at its beginning, for the sake of "fixing what we broke". However, occupation has shown itself as a failure. Just like the USSR's.
In Afghanistan just as in Iraq, change can only come from within. Be it Russian, Pakistani or NATO, foreign direct intervention has destroyed the country for past 30 years.
It'd be better to entrust the Afghanis with actual power, and do their thing as long as whatever dominant faction doesn't threaten regional or world stability (and yes, in a feudal society such as this, "their thing" can be pretty ugly).
That's the only way to have a semblance of legitimacy and evolution over there.

But of course, I fully trust NATO to fumble its way in such a strategy, as it requires to be very subtle about which faction to support, how and when for it to work in the long run.

[TCO]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Your idea of taking out whatever country was found to have been complicit and immediately leaving afterward was never on the table. So yes, I think it would have been reasonable among the useless parasites to have foreseen the posibility of an occupation.

Bull**** it was never on the table. That's exactly what Rumsfeld wanted to do.