TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- NATO breakup?

NATO breakup?

After the fall of the Soviet empire, NATO's place as a military pact and alliance became less obvious. Many considered that its end would be near. NATO was created to oppose the waraw act and to protect western countries from the Soviet menace. If one member NATO country is attacked, the rest of the members automatically declare war on the attacker.

In these days of turmoil surrounding war on Iraq, the alliance is shaken more than ever because its member cannot agree with each other. I am saying this because as Turkey is entering the war against Iraq, the US is asking NATO to fullfill its mandate by declaring war on Iraq at the sides of the US/Britain. Paris, Berlin and Burxelles just said that they will vetoe this, driving the American furious.

If effectively, France, Germany and Belgium vetoe such an action wouldn't the NATO alliance be over because its member do not support/protect each other (its original mandate)? What do you all think?

Re: NATO breakup?

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek If one member NATO country is attacked, the rest of the members automatically declare war on the attacker. If effectively, France, Germany and Belgium vetoe such an action wouldn't the NATO alliance be over because its member do not support/protect each other (its original mandate)? What do you all think?

No, because of the first statement. Iraq did not attack us, so there is no mandate for all NATO members to go to war. Sure it would be nice to have their support, but it is not required. If Iraq gave a weapon to a terrorist and that weapon was used in a NATO country (like many of the member governments fear could happen) then the mandate would hold true. But aside from that, NATO is too important economically to fall apart.

Isn't it ironic that Russia is now a member (although not completely) of NATO as well

well the US is asking NATO to participate in the war because Turkey will be in it... and 3 countries will veto it. That's the whole point of my thread. Also NATO is strictly a military pact, not an free trade pact. Russia is an observer at NATO, not a member.

No, the question is: will the NATO respond with military actions if Iraq, who would be in war with the USA, launch an attack on Turkey. D, BE and F do not say they will not respond, they say its not good to clarify this at this point of time. But they didnt say they wouldnt do anything!

Of course they would and should do something if that happens, or else the nATO is indeed a relict of the past.

But the US administration just dig frurther and further, they have no diplomacy whatsoever. This war against terror in general was supposed to bring the civilisized world together, but the contrary happens at the moment. thats not just the fault of the USA, because, Germany and France made diplomatic failures as well, but they are big time responsible for that.

Now its the time for the US to decide if they want go to isolation with the thinking of "we are the best and everybody else doesnt matter", or if they want to act in an united western world.

this just in, France and Belgium just opposed a formal veto about reinforcing the defence of Turkey.

man its 6am , i need some sleep

I think NATO really is a relict of the past, because its original purpose has no meaning anymore. And with all the joining of the new members from former eastern block it seems like it wants to take over the purpose of the UN.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek well the US is asking NATO to participate in the war because Turkey will be in it... and 3 countries will veto it. That's the whole point of my thread.

and like I said before, unless Saddam actually attacks a member country, either via terrorism or does it himself (very unlikely outside of war), there is no requirement for NATO to send military aid. When push comes to shove, ALL NATO countries will be there.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek Also NATO is strictly a military pact, not an free trade pact.

There are a lot of economic benefits for countries to be in NATO, especially for the poorer nations . It is not trade, it is in the form of military aid (equipment) and financial support.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek Russia is an observer at NATO, not a member.

That is why I said they are "not completely a memebr". They let them in, but don't let them vote. I was just saying who would have ever thought it would come that far? You people need to lighten up...

quote:

Originally posted by 00GSR and like I said before, unless Saddam actually attacks a member country, either via terrorism or does it himself (very unlikely outside of war), there is no requirement for NATO to send military aid. When push comes to shove, ALL NATO countries will be there.

I'll repeat myself once more, the US asked expressly to the NATO members to prep up immidiatly to defend Turkey. Nobody attacked Turkey, but the US still wants NATO to join in, *just in case*.

Belgium, France and Germany vetoe that motion this morning causing quite a stir between its member.

america has used NATO as its diplomatic excuse bitch for too long.

i wish tony blair would stop going along with george wanker bush.

^^

blair is being a total puppet.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.