NATO OK's defence of Turkey

Marc Clifton

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17576-2003Feb16.html[^] Loved this part: France is not included on the Defense Planning Committee because it withdrew from the integrated military structure of the alliance in 1966. The forum was used to get round French objections during the 1991 Gulf War when NATO sent its Allied Command Europe Mobile Force to southeastern Turkey. (And yes, I'm using the British spelling of "defense", for those that might want to raz me on my spelling :-D ) Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus
Every line of code is a liability - Taka Muraoka
Microsoft deliberately adds arbitrary layers of complexity to make it difficult to deliver Windows features on non-Windows platforms--Microsoft's "Halloween files"

ColinDavies

Excellent news.!! Regardz Colin J Davies

Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin

I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote:

yaname

Still, it is rather odd. NATO was formed to show a united front that would act as a deterrent to unprovoked attacks by enemy powers. The current planning for the defense of Turkey is required because the attack might come from an enemy that has first been attacked by another NATO member.:confused:

ColinDavies

yaname wrote: The current planning for the defense of Turkey is required because the attack might come from an enemy that has first been attacked by another NATO member. That's a matter of perception. Iraq has not complied with the US's interpretation of the UN's resolutions. So shouldn't the other countries be coming to the defence of the US. Regardz Colin J Davies

Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin

I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote:

KaRl

The funny thing is Turkey doesn't seem to be in a hurry to wage war: " Turkey may stall its decision on allowing U.S. troops to open a northern front against Iraq, the foreign minister said Sunday, a move that could hamper U.S. war plans.[...] The foreign minister's mention of a possible delayed decision on U.S. troops comes amid massive worldwide protests against U.S. plans to lead an attack on Iraq. The Turkish public overwhelmingly opposes a war, and Turkish leaders repeatedly have said they only would back an attack if chances for peace were exhausted."

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Brian Delahunty

Colin Davies wrote: So shouldn't the other countries be coming to the defence of the US. I agree qith you there. To be honest I disagree with the war.. well.. not particularily with this war but war in general bugs me. yeah sure.. I get to see cool state-of-the-art technologies and fighter jets flying around and all and the modern media make it look like a technological wonder that will keep ya watching but it's very hard to justify any war... Iraq needs to cop on.. if the US attacked, I personally believe that the UN and the other countries shoudl get behind them. Otherwise, what's the point. Regards, Brian Dela :-)
Run naked in the snow until you're sweating like a stuck pig and can't seem to catch your breath. When the flu becomes pneumonia, they can cure that with a shot. - Roger Wright

yaname

Colin Davies wrote: Iraq has not complied with the US's interpretation of the UN's resolutions. So shouldn't the other countries be coming to the defence of the US. But many other members do not agree with the U.S. interpretation. By fulfilling their treaty obligations, aren't they being dragged into a war they don't want and feel is unnecessary? It's not a response to an external and unforeseen event.

brianwelsch

Isn't the whole point to step in a help an ally who gets attacked? Why would they have to vote on it?? It should just be understood, that when ally XYZ gets attacked the rest of the boys jump in help defend. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

ColinDavies

yaname wrote: But many other members do not agree with the U.S. interpretation. I think most of the other members don't agree with the US's interpretation apart from maybe the UK. Before it got to this stage though these same of the other treaty members should have been pushing harder for Iraq to comply. "Article 5 of the NATO Treaty states that, if one of the members is attacked, each member will take "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force" to restore security" Quote from NATO FAQ The fact that the French or German Public is against placement of support in Turkey I don't find to be sufficient reason to not support an Ally. It would be far better that these countries removed themselves completely from the Alliance. Regardz Colin J Davies

Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin

I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote:

KaRl

Colin Davies wrote: Article 5 of the NATO Treaty states that, if one of the members is attacked, each member will take "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force" to restore security" Was Turkey attacked by Iraq? I miss this one in the news ;) Article 5 was activated only once, after 9/11. NATO is a defensive alliance, and the US are using it to prepare an invasion (for good or bad reasons, I don't judge here, but I understand some may be eagered).

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

peterchen

Ummm... turkey hasn't been attacked* - and the point was to position US troops there to get them moving to Iraq (or so I thought..) * and if you refer to 1991 - kuwait ain't NATO. Or am I wrong again today?

So many people long for eternity that don't know what to do on a rainy sunday afternoon.
[sighist] | [Agile Programming] [doxygen]
If you look for evil in me you will find it whether it's there or not.

ColinDavies

KaЯl wrote: NATO is a defensive alliance An old axiom is, " the best defence is offence". What you have is two differning perceptions, the Bush Admin perception versus the European type perception. 9/11 is percived by the Bush Admin as the attack on the US as well as the non compliance of IRAQ with the UN resolutions. At this rate I don't believe NATO has much of a future, especially since the USSR no longer exists. However longterm I guess the NATO countries will want protection from Russia or Sino influences. Regardz Colin J Davies

Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin

I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote:

brianwelsch

I just meant why is there a decision to defend a country which is part of an organization whose primary purpose is to help protect it members. positioning US troops there for the purpose of invading Iraq, is hardly a NATO issue, it should be resolved between those two nations. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

Rob Graham

peterchen wrote: and the point was to position US troops there to get them moving to Iraq (or so I thought..) No, the request was for defensive planning and supplies: patriot missile batteries, accompanying radar,etc. No offensive troops or equipment were to be involved. IMO France, which doe not participate at all in the military alliance, should not have had any right to veto in the first place. It is the ONLY NATO member that does not participate..., and one of the few with Veto rights: a priveleged position it does not deserve. The request was placed by Turkey, not the US, and Frances, Germany and Belgiun's opposition will end up doing serious damage to the alliance. There is very strong support now in the US for putting US NATO installations (Particularly in those three countries)to the front of the list of bases to be closed or consolidated. Up until now, they have been exempt from consideration. The positioning of US supplied troops (as long as not at the expense of NATO forces) is not an issue that NATO has any say on. That requires only mutual assent of the US and the "host" country. Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell

peterchen

okok, it's not easy to mix up the "defense request" andd the placement of U.S. G.I.'s here.. I think the NATO started to take serious damage when after 9/11 they agreed an ally had been attacked, but the U.S. ignored them and ratehr picked it's own allies, that were not (in the power to) questioning the U.S. pace. An alliance is not a place where you can pick armies and supply as needed, and move them around as you like. "With us or without us" is not the way to go united. Saying "it's a business between turkey and the U.S." is the biggest slap in the face of the alliance. Yes, Germany and others are risking the alliance - but why not? What's in for us, except "yes, mylord!"?

So many people long for eternity that don't know what to do on a rainy sunday afternoon.
[sighist] | [Agile Programming] [doxygen]
If you look for evil in me you will find it whether it's there or not.

Rob Graham

peterchen wrote: An alliance is not a place where you can pick armies and supply as needed, and move them around as you like. "With us or without us" is not the way to go united. I agree, and the US did not ask for US or other troops to be moved to Turkey, nor did Turkey ask for that. peterchen wrote: Saying "it's a business between turkey and the U.S." is the biggest slap in the face of the alliance. Yes, Germany and others are risking the alliance - but why not? What's in for us, except "yes, mylord!"? For the US to post troops not in use by the alliance (reserves called up here for the most part) in Turkey for possible use against Iraq is not an issue for NATO, since it has no impact to other than the US (the Alliance's military preparedness is not weakened...). It is an issue for Turkey, which must be asked for permission. Had NATO refused Turkey's request, only NATO would have suffered, as the US would have supplied the requested equipmaent itself. France's motives here are hardly pure and noble, it has been arguing for sometime for replacing NATO with an EU only military alliance, and could have cared less if NATO broke up completely ovber this (since it would then likely get it's way on the EU alliance). France also has something like $20B in oil development contracts with Iraq, all of which could be invalidated if the Bathist Govt. there is replaced. As much as European's accuse Bush of being motivated by oil, they are equally likely to be motivated by self interest in their positions... Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell

peterchen

Maybe that's the fundamental difference here: Turkey and the U.S. are both NATO countries - yet they bypass the NATO for one or other reason - you see this more "ok" than me. If the U.S. starts to solve military issues "on it's own rules" (which it definitely has the political and economical power right now), it weakens the alliance. Sure, the U.S. is free to do so, up to the point where it nullifies the alliance. it fits an irritating pattern of the U.S. not willing to play by the rules of global cooperation (ICC, U.N. being two other examples). France' gov is only the spearhead of an opinion that, maybe, a "NATO without US" would get along better. Personally I think they would, but seeing the U.S. "in" would be better for other reasons. I know that the current Baghdad regime has it's major contracts with french, russian and chinese petrol companies. However, until the sanctions are lifted, they're not worth much except for the OFF program (and the US don't see a problem buying Iraqui oil over europe..) And just because France is evil doesn't mean the U.S. should be, too.

So many people long for eternity that don't know what to do on a rainy sunday afternoon.
[sighist] | [Agile Programming] [doxygen]
If you look for evil in me you will find it whether it's there or not.