Out of interest have you served in a combat zone?
Congressional approval?
Wasn't it the USA that was actually attacked? Why wouldn't we do the majority of the work?
Because the treaty doesn't say that. At one time we had almost 500,000 troops in Europe prepared to fight off the Russians and the Warsaw Pact. We placed no conditions on the other treaty members. They got attacked, we fought with them and honestly, until Reagan came along, probably would have gotten whipped right there with them.
this is a mess ... I understand that we have only one "friend" in Syria, the Free Syrian Army, and we haven't given him much support, so he's probably not even a major player ... I just saw an interview with Richard Engels, one of the few journalists I respect, and he listed the different outcomes, and none of them are very good ... he thinks Syria will end up fragmented, with different groups (including Al-Queada) controlling different parts of the country ... it's what you get with Empire building ... we've had people warning us about that since the Spanish-American War ... I keep hearing that Thursday is the day for the surprise hit ...
Obviously doesn't compare to the numbers the US put in or even the UK but for a nation like Germany given its history it was a big step and caused a lot of controversy internally.
Internal political pressure is their politicians problem. A treaty works both ways or needs to be trashed. Providing just enough help to be able to say you helped, isn't meeting the spirit or intent of the treaty.
Well.....truthfully you can still call Kerry a Chicken hawk.....moreover the Neo Lib is the one that was writing Legislation for nation building in Egypt and Afghanistan. Then getting Johnny Quest McCain to sign along with him.
The current president thinks he is above such things. (ie, the LAW)
I have no doubt those that protested the congressional approved (both left and right) invasion of Iraq will try to make comparisons, but of course, Iraq was approved by both sides, and both sides spouted off about them having WMDs.
Big difference between actually going through the motions and have congress approve what they are supposed to approve, vs just attacking another nation. But I doubt many Obama supporters will see the difference or be mad about it.
and yet the Russians left and your bases remain, but of course the US isn't getting anything out of it right?
No. Most of our bases have long been turned back over to the host nations, except for a few. As always, if any host nation has an objection to our presence, we can pack up and leave from there too. But for some reason, countries seem to want us to stick around.
I agree, it is a mess because the secularists were mostly annihilated in the early going...
If we know the surprise is Thursday, it won't be much of a surprise, and if chemical weapons were used, they most likely won't be at the previous location...
I was of course facetious about the "surprise" ... I'm still hoping that we wait for the U.N.'s investigation ...
tell that to the families of the 1100 dead collation soldiers and police forces.
Because the treaty doesn't say that. At one time we had almost 500,000 troops in Europe prepared to fight off the Russians and the Warsaw Pact. We placed no conditions on the other treaty members. They got attacked, we fought with them and honestly, until Reagan came along, probably would have gotten whipped right there with them.
Why do you think the President has not called Congress back into session? Hell even Cameron has done so...
good question ... there is a lot of info we don't have, but it sure as hell looks like this could be handled better than it has been ... but this part of the world is a bear to figure out ... the farther we stay away from it, the happier I will be ...
The only issue with that portion of the world is our dependence on the Suez Canal and our lack of will to become energy independent so as not to depend on it...
Other than that, I'd say let them work out their own issues...
but is our only option DRILL BABY DRILL?
So now you say those who serve like Gore and Kerry are Chickenhawks. Got it.
And how many different wings of the republican party are attacking whatever Obama does.
I won't bother you anymore since you're part of America weakening the POTUS just for the sake of it.
The members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty does not require members to respond with military action against an aggressor. Although obliged to respond, they maintain the freedom to choose the method by which they do so.
NATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You need to stop getting all emotional about this...
Here is my question to all of this has Syria attacked the USA in anyway, shape, or form? Otherwise why the hell are send our men and woman into harms way. This is crap!
Emotional? Not hardly. The wishy washy wording is because of the laws of the US and the role Congress is supposed to play in deciding who we go to war with. It was written that way to met our legal requirements. All parties were satisfied with the wording, congress, the president, other nations and the treaty signed.
If any nation didn't want to honor the treaty, in spirit and intent, they should not have signed it. It's now clear many countries only wanted the benefits of the treaty not the burdens.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?