NATO members show how much they value the Alliance

[TCO]

The extent of time stayed was NOT well planned. Instead we sorta lurched along and the policy evolved. REad the direct reports of the discussions of the principles by Woodward. You little civ worm.

[Patroklos]

He gave an entire list of international projects that the US refuses to take part in. You think the reasons for non-participation are just (fair enough) but you can't then turn around and ***** and moan b/c the rest of the world isn't gungho for what is seen as your stupid project.

The difference between all of that and Afghanistan is that all these Europeans are parties to a signed treaty, and futhermore voted to initiate article five.

There is no comparison between anything onefootinthegrave posted and the NATO obligations of certain members.

You know this.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by TCO
Bull**** it was never on the table.

Liar.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by 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?

Way to dodge the question NYE. It is your style.

[Wezil]

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.

Source please.

I think you are applying the US interpretation I mentioned earlier.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Patroklos


The difference between all of that and Afghanistan is that all these Europeans are parties to a signed treaty, and futhermore voted to initiate article five.

There is no comparison between anything onefootinthegrave posted and the NATO obligations of certain members.

You know this.

Does Article 5 spell out the extent of the involvement required from NATO members? They are "helping" according to the treaty, just not helping in the way the US (and others) want.

[Dauphin]

The US should declare war on those who weaseled out of treaty obligations.

[Wezil]

I think Canada should attack the US. We are in desperate need of some new infrastructure spending.

Apparently in the modern world nations that are attacked are obligated to "fix" the nations that attack them.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Wezil
Apparently in the modern world nations that are attacked are obligated to "fix" the nations that attack them.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053084/

[Wezil]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053084/

I'd forgotten all about that movie.

It all makes sense now.

[Dauphin]

It's a very good movie. (I haven't clicked the link, I assume it's The Mouse That Roared).

[Patroklos]

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...

Truth.

But this teenage angst still changes nothing about their obligations through NATO, or the facts on the ground in Afghanistan.

This is one of the things I was talking about when I said there are reasons other than GWB. Unwarranted but understandable resentment from Europe as they come into their own.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Wezil
Does Article 5 spell out the extent of the involvement required from NATO members? They are "helping" according to the treaty, just not helping in the way the US (and others) want.

It does not. That does not hurt the argument of those in the alliance making meaningful contributions.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Truth.

But this teenage angst still changes nothing about their obligations through NATO, or the facts on the ground in Afghanistan.

This is one of the things I was talking about when I said there are reasons other than GWB. Unwarranted but understandable resentment from Europe as they come into their own.

And the dry legal language of a 50 year old document is not going to change that states will make decisions on what they want to do when.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by notyoueither

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.

Very very true. Right after the collaps of the Soviet Union, we should have given massive aid to Russia and kept on giving it in the form of well structured fungs. We should have also secretly fundend Yeltsin second turn (instead of the oligarchs) and then made a special dipensation bringing them into the union in 2005.



That would have been an unstoppable monster, the richest most powerfull and largest group of states in the worlds.


But what cheers me up is that even if we tried to do this the US would try to sabotage us at every turn and would have probably succeded (much like they do now ).