Going to war as a part of NATO?

[sggatecl]

I read somewhere that because what happened in Paris could be/is considered an act of war that all of the members of NATO would be drawn into the conflict if France so chooses (bombings indicate they're ready to throw down).

My question(s): Is it accurate in that all of the members of NATO are required to engage with their fellow NATO members if 'war is declared'?

If yes, is it voted on? Also, are troops required? I'm curious as to how much participation is required.

 

[Michchamp]

It's an odd strategy, this "anti-terrorism" thing.

Step 1... completely fuck up the Middle East, supporting tyrannical, theocracies like Saudi Arabia, regular tyrannies like Egypt and Syria, and Iran under the Shah until 1978, and a "democracy" under a system of apartheid (Israel). Topple the only true democracy region has ever known (Mossadegh's Iran in 1954) in a CIA & MI-6 backed coup. Only sort-of acknowledge the coup publicly, but never make the logical connection between people in that nation hating you, and your actions there that lead to the hate.

Step 2... act mystified when bad things happen and the people there blame you for propping up the tyrannical regimes that are oppressing them.

Step 3... whenever any of these people attack you back, label them "terrorists," and go and bomb their lands indiscriminately, resulting in innocent casualties, and even more people there that hate you, and want to attack you.

Repeat steps 2 & 3 until...?

Looks like the French have already started the bombing.

 

[Michchamp]

I read somewhere that because what happened in Paris could be/is considered an act of war that all of the members of NATO would be drawn into the conflict if France so chooses (bombings indicate they're ready to throw down).

My question(s): Is it accurate in that all of the members of NATO are required to engage with their fellow NATO members if 'war is declared'?

If yes, is it voted on? Also, are troops required? I'm curious as to how much participation is required.

I think so. If I remember correctly, the bombing and initial occupation of Afghanistan was considered a NATO action, (and maybe still is) although, it seemed we didn't really expect our allies to contribute much in the way of actual military support.

Truth be told, we probably didn't really want them to either, since it would complicate administering the country, and mean more of the money from building bases and bombs flowing to Halliburton, KBR Root, Lockheed, General Dynamics, etc. from 2001 - present in Afghanistan would have to be directed to contractors from those NATO allies, and no one wants that...

 

[Gulo Blue]

I think so. If I remember correctly, the bombing and initial occupation of Afghanistan was considered a NATO action, (and maybe still is) although, it seemed we didn't really expect our allies to contribute much in the way of actual military support.

Before reading past the 1st post, this was my 1st thought...looks like NATO got involved in Afghanistan in 2003. So not immediately, but eventually.

 

[Sbee]

I read somewhere that because what happened in Paris could be/is considered an act of war that all of the members of NATO would be drawn into the conflict if France so chooses (bombings indicate they're ready to throw down).

My question(s): Is it accurate in that all of the members of NATO are required to engage with their fellow NATO members if 'war is declared'?

If yes, is it voted on? Also, are troops required? I'm curious as to how much participation is required.

I believe any country has the option to invoke an article when an attack on one is an attack on all. I don't know how that applies to terrorist attacks vs one nation attacking another.

 

[zyxt9]

The whole "War on Terror" is so misleading because technically speaking war is only possible between two defined and internationally recognized nations.

By that definition, France is not able to declare war against Islamic State without first recognizing Islamic State as a nation and the international community agreeing to their sovereignty as an independent nation state.

The term "War on Terror" should never have been created, but it caught on as an acceptable description of what was taking place. The US declared war on Afghanistan for harboring terrorists, and then later Iraq (stop, before this turns into an anti-Iraq War thing, yes, I know that there were many other reasons for Iraq War II); however, it was not possible to declare war against AQ and I don't believe it is possible to declare war against IS at this time.

Keeping in mind it is not necessary to declare war in order to have a substantial and sustained use of force. The appropriate thing to do would be to form an alliance with the nation battling the revolutionary forces, similar to what happened in Vietnam when the US supported the South Vietnamese government in the Vietnam Conflict.

So much of France's declaration depends on if the term "War" has been modified to now include "Conflicts Against Non-nations", or CAN. Now there is a wide variety of CANs, but typically they are full of shit, so you always have to be careful when going over to kick the CAN, otherwise you create an awful mess.

Similarly, there have been times when the US has attacked sovereign nations without formally declaring war (such as the bombings against Labia back in the '80s). These should be referred to as Temporary Retaliations Against Selected Hostiles, or TRASH.

Now as IS becomes stronger, they kind of become a cross breed of these two, or TRASH CAN. Typically the best way to deal with TRASH CANs is to gather up as much as possible and combine them into a Defined Undertaking, Multi-Pummeling, Strategic/Tactical Enemy Response For International Reconciling Efforts, or DUMPSTER FIRE.

And that is what we have currently taking place in that region, a DUMPSTER FIRE.

 

[Michchamp]

It's spelled Libya, goddamnit.

 

[zyxt9]

It's spelled Libya, goddamnit.

my bad

i'll go fix it now...

there...fixed.

 

[Michchamp]

Obama deserves some credit for being the adult in the room (finally) on this. I guess being a lame duck and all, he doesn't have to worry about pandering to Chickenhawks who will call him weak whenever he doesn't immediately nuke the whole world in response to some issue (link):

?That would be a mistake, not because our military could not march into Mosul or Raqqa or Ramadi and temporarily clear out ISIL, but because we would see a repetition of what we?ve seen before,? Mr. Obama said. Victory over terrorist groups, he said, requires local populations to reject the ideology of extremism ?unless we?re prepared to have a permanent occupation of these countries.?

Moreover, he added that sending significant numbers of ground forces into Syria would set an untenable precedent. ?Let?s assume that we were to send 50,000 troops into Syria,? he said. ?What happens when there?s a terrorist attack generated from Yemen? Do we then send more troops into there? Or Libya perhaps? Or if there?s a terrorist network that?s operating anywhere else in North Africa or in Southeast Asia??
​

The Republitard response to this isn't even worth printing or reading. We've heard it consistently since 2001, and it's been a disaster... unless you're a defense contractor. Or an Al Qaeda or ISIS recruiter. They've done alright from the whole war on terror thing.

 

[Michchamp]

I guess this can be the latest thread for discussing the French attacks and everything related to bombing the Middle East (the standard response to every problem we have, from wildfires in California, to hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[zyxt9]

Obama deserves some credit for being the adult in the room (finally) on this. I guess being a lame duck and all, he doesn't have to worry about pandering to Chickenhawks who will call him weak whenever he doesn't immediately nuke the whole world in response to some issue (link):

?That would be a mistake, not because our military could not march into Mosul or Raqqa or Ramadi and temporarily clear out ISIL, but because we would see a repetition of what we?ve seen before,? Mr. Obama said. Victory over terrorist groups, he said, requires local populations to reject the ideology of extremism ?unless we?re prepared to have a permanent occupation of these countries.?

Moreover, he added that sending significant numbers of ground forces into Syria would set an untenable precedent. ?Let?s assume that we were to send 50,000 troops into Syria,? he said. ?What happens when there?s a terrorist attack generated from Yemen? Do we then send more troops into there? Or Libya perhaps? Or if there?s a terrorist network that?s operating anywhere else in North Africa or in Southeast Asia??
​

The Republitard response to this isn't even worth printing or reading. We've heard it consistently since 2001, and it's been a disaster... unless you're a defense contractor. Or an Al Qaeda or ISIS recruiter. They've done alright from the whole war on terror thing.

Believe it or not Champ, I for one am supportive of Obama's position on this. Let France do their thing for a little while (helps raise the national morale and gives people the sense their government is trying to do something about what happened). No need for the US to be more involved than they already have been. It is a nationalistic necessity that Syria and Iraq be the primaries in taking out IS. Support them, sure...we don't want to set them up for failure, but it really needs to be the drive of the people defending their homeland who make it happen. Outsiders/infidels will only make things worse...but we do need to set those nations up for success and not just walk away and open the door for IS to take over those nations. If that happened, I don't see IS stopping suddenly, do you? Seems like they would immediately target going into additional nations and try building an empire of Muslim Extremists.

 

[byco42]

Obama deserves some credit for being the adult in the room (finally) on this. I guess being a lame duck and all, he doesn't have to worry about pandering to Chickenhawks who will call him weak whenever he doesn't immediately nuke the whole world in response to some issue (link):

?That would be a mistake, not because our military could not march into Mosul or Raqqa or Ramadi and temporarily clear out ISIL, but because we would see a repetition of what we?ve seen before,? Mr. Obama said. Victory over terrorist groups, he said, requires local populations to reject the ideology of extremism ?unless we?re prepared to have a permanent occupation of these countries.?

Moreover, he added that sending significant numbers of ground forces into Syria would set an untenable precedent. ?Let?s assume that we were to send 50,000 troops into Syria,? he said. ?What happens when there?s a terrorist attack generated from Yemen? Do we then send more troops into there? Or Libya perhaps? Or if there?s a terrorist network that?s operating anywhere else in North Africa or in Southeast Asia??
​

The Republitard response to this isn't even worth printing or reading. We've heard it consistently since 2001, and it's been a disaster... unless you're a defense contractor. Or an Al Qaeda or ISIS recruiter. They've done alright from the whole war on terror thing.

Hillary will demonstrate that this approach is not relegated to Republicans. If elected.

 

[Sbee]

Hillary will demonstrate that this approach is not relegated to Republicans. If elected.

agree, she's as hawkish as anyone. Bernie and Rand are the only candidates who don't share in this sentiment

 

[Michchamp]

Hillary will demonstrate that this approach is not relegated to Republicans. If elected.

You mean Billary and the Republitards?

 

[Rebbiv]

I think so. If I remember correctly, the bombing and initial occupation of Afghanistan was considered a NATO action, (and maybe still is) although, it seemed we didn't really expect our allies to contribute much in the way of actual military support.

Truth be told, we probably didn't really want them to either, since it would complicate administering the country, and mean more of the money from building bases and bombs flowing to Halliburton, KBR Root, Lockheed, General Dynamics, etc. from 2001 - present in Afghanistan would have to be directed to contractors from those NATO allies, and no one wants that...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

Afghanistan has always been a NATO conflict and was there under UN Security Council Mandates.

 

[biggunsbob]

I think Nato is a good thing. Maybe just get member states to pay what they are suppose top pay

United Resolution 1368 of the United Nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1368

Voted on September 12th, 2001.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Nation Resolution 1377

Voted on November 12th, 2001

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1377

================================================================
In the aftermath of the attack even countries traditionally considered hostile to the United States, such as Cuba, Iran, Libya, and North Korea widely condemned the attacks.

 

[biggunsbob]

Nato's article 5 after 2001 attacks. Nato is a good thing.

http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2001/p01-124e.htm

Statement by the North Atlantic CouncilOn September 12th, the North Atlantic Council met again in response to the appalling attacks perpetrated yesterday against the United States.
The Council agreed that if it is determined that this attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack against one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.

The commitment to collective self-defence embodied in the Washington Treaty was first entered into in circumstances very different from those that exist now, but it remains no less valid and no less essential today, in a world subject to the scourge of international terrorism. When the Heads of State and Government of NATO met in Washington in 1999, they paid tribute to the success of the Alliance in ensuring the freedom of its members during the Cold War and in making possible a Europe that was whole and free. But they also recognised the existence of a wide variety of risks to security, some of them quite unlike those that had called NATO into existence. More specifically, they condemned terrorism as a serious threat to peace and stability and reaffirmed their determination to combat it in accordance with their commitments to one another, their international commitments and national legislation.

Article 5 of the Washington Treaty stipulates that in the event of attacks falling within its purview, each Ally will assist the Party that has been attacked by taking such action as it deems necessary. Accordingly, the United States' NATO Allies stand ready to provide the assistance that may be required as a consequence of these acts of barbarism.

 

[biggunsbob]

Funding for Nato Countries are suppose to spend 2% of their GDP and here is a fast fact sheet on who's spends what. I heard on the radio last night that USA was close to 3% which is the most. Germany hardly pays any any all at 1.5% I heard on the radio they have only 50-75 fighters and a lot are not in service. I wonder why they are so low.. Is it like because Japan, and Germany lost the war , and standing armies are probably limited? Just a question.




Old 2014 thread. Just a fast overlay.
http://www.theglobalist.com/10-facts-sizing-up-natos-defense-spending/


Here is another newer on on expenditures.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-lions-share-for-nato/?utm_term=.4cce3ea1bc09