| |
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20030129/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nato_iraq
Apparently, if I'm reading the story right, NATO planners don't want to
discuss what to do if Iraq attacks Turkey.
That strikes me as imprudent. Whether you think a war with Iraq is justified
or not or whether NATO should participate or not (1), it seems to me that
Turkey is a NATO member and ought to be entitled to help if it's attacked.
Isn't that the point of the whole alliance, to defend each other?
It's one thing for France and Germany to say they won't help prosecute a war
(and I'm hopeful that will be enough to dampen down some of the saber
rattling going on lately) but it's quite another for NATO to welsh on
obligations for defense against attack. That's way different than prosecute,
isn't it?
1 - it isn't... they shouldn't...
++Lar
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Value of NATO?
|
| (...) I think this has more to do with politics than military necessity. It seems more a signal that NATO is wary of US intentions than anything - note that the foot-draggers are saying that the planning may be necessary eventually. The US is trying (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Value of NATO?
|
| (...) My reading is that France and Germany (1) are delaying the plan to assist Turkey in the hope the Tukish government becomes frightened of entering war - thus forcing a review of US plans. Besides, given that Turkey does not want to upset the EU (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Value of NATO?
|
| (...) If that attack is in self-defence as result of illegal attacks launched from US bases inside Turkey, then I don't see why they should? If the attack is an unprovoked attack by Iraq, then a NATO level response is justified. I expect the chances (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
