Subject:
|
What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:39:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
365 times
|
| |
|
|
After Turkey's invocation of NATO's article 4, one other article cries
loudly that there can be no NATO support of US intervention in Iraq:
http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm
===0===
Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to
settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful
means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are
not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the
United Nations.
===0===
So I ask: which one comes first? Article ONE or FOUR? :-)
And what about that mention to the UN - what do you read in it?
More: technically, the current *threatening* verbiage from Washington can be
in violation of this article... or is it consistent "with the purposes of
the United Nations"?
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Are you crazy? Anything which does not support the war is "irrelevant" [see France, Nato, the UN, public opinion, etc]. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the "Hawks" are interested in rational thought! Scott A (21 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
91 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
