Subject:
|
Re: Value of NATO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:27:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
526 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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
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 to make it seem as if war is justifiable and inevitable,
and many NATO countries are trying to combat that perception.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Value of NATO?
|
| (URL) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 29-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
|
|
|
|
