09 Jan '12 16:35Originally posted by FMFPerhaps you don't. NATO is a Cold War relic established to protect Western Europe from the always very slim threat of Soviet invasion. It serves no useful purpose now and should be abolished. There is no way its original mission or purpose can be squared with military interventions in the Middle East or Northern Africa.
Perhaps you did not or do not understand what N.A.T.O. is.
10 Jan '12 00:36Originally posted by no1marauderAgreed. But the military action in Libya was under the banner of N.A.T.O. and that is - at least one reason - why the U.S. was involved... the fact that N.A.T.O. serves no useful purpose now, and there being no way its original mission or purpose could be squared with what it did in Libya, notwithstanding.
Perhaps you don't. NATO is a Cold War relic established to protect Western Europe from the always very slim threat of Soviet invasion. It serves no useful purpose now and should be abolished. There is no way its original mission or purpose can be squared with military interventions in the Middle East or Northern Africa.
10 Jan '12 00:431 editOriginally posted by normbenignYou should look up N.A.T.O.'s rationale on wikipedia or elsewhere for yourself, normbenign. I have no interest in trying to explain it, and certainly not to argue its corner. To frame the Libyan crisis as an issue for N.A.T.O. was risible. But it goes some way to explaining the U.S. involvement, about which whodey seems to be feigning surprise.
N-orth A tlantic T reaty O rganization.
What treaty was NATO conforming to in going to war with Libya?
10 Jan '12 00:55Originally posted by FMFI disagree. Government leaders, including President Obama, decided to intervene in Libya. They then used NATO as the operating arm of that intervention.
Agreed. But the military action in Libya was under the banner of N.A.T.O. and that is - at least one reason - why the U.S. was involved... the fact that N.A.T.O. serves no useful purpose now, and there being no way its original mission or purpose could be squared with what it did in Libya, notwithstanding.
10 Jan '12 01:09Originally posted by FMFWhy would I want to know more about NATO than that the US ought to be out of it.
You should look up N.A.T.O.'s rationale on wikipedia or elsewhere for yourself, normbenign. I have no interest in trying to explain it, and certainly not to argue its corner. To frame the Libyan crisis as an issue for N.A.T.O. was risible. But it goes some way to explaining the U.S. involvement, about which whodey seems to be feigning surprise.
10 Jan '12 01:11Originally posted by no1marauderIt is scary, but like a stopped clock twice a day, I am with you on this 100%.
Perhaps you don't. NATO is a Cold War relic established to protect Western Europe from the always very slim threat of Soviet invasion. It serves no useful purpose now and should be abolished. There is no way its original mission or purpose can be squared with military interventions in the Middle East or Northern Africa.
10 Jan '12 02:25Originally posted by FMFNot all NATO countries even joined in the operation (Germany being the largest). Non-NATO countries were in the operation. NATO was a fig leaf.
Yes, maybe so. Although using N.A.T.O. meant that it was other N.A.T.O. members that were flying virtually all the sorties.
10 Jan '12 02:34Originally posted by no1marauderWell, be that as it may, I can hardly see how the U.S. and N.A.T.O. intervention was surprising to whodey, especially when he was predicting it during the run up to it starting, while at the same time urging the U.S. to intervene in Sudan.
Not all NATO countries even joined in the operation (Germany being the largest). Non-NATO countries were in the operation. NATO was a fig leaf.
13 Jan '12 02:28Originally posted by FMFIt was surprising to woodman only because it was an effective deployment that happened on Obama's watch. Same can be said for all the other gop trolls whose favorite meme is that Obama has achieved nothing in office.
Well, be that as it may, I can hardly see how the U.S. and N.A.T.O. intervention was surprising to whodey, especially when he was predicting it during the run up to it starting, while at the same time urging the U.S. to intervene in Sudan.
13 Jan '12 15:021 editOriginally posted by no1marauderI don't think every single NATO country must directly participate for something to constitute a NATO action. The operation wasn't so large scale that it required troops from every country. Even so, Germany certainly didn't completely opt out.
Not all NATO countries even joined in the operation (Germany being the largest). Non-NATO countries were in the operation. NATO was a fig leaf.
13 Jan '12 15:05Originally posted by FMFPredicting the obvious is hardly prophetic.
Well, be that as it may, I can hardly see how the U.S. and N.A.T.O. intervention was surprising to whodey, especially when he was predicting it during the run up to it starting, while at the same time urging the U.S. to intervene in Sudan.
13 Jan '12 15:21Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperGermany certainly did "opt out":
I don't think every single NATO country must directly participate for something to constitute a NATO action. The operation wasn't so large scale that it required troops from every country. Even so, Germany certainly didn't completely opt out.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,752709,00.html
The government of German Chancellor ...[text shortened]... n AWACS surveillance flights over Afghanistan in support of ongoing operations there.
We declare war on IRAN
Back to Top