To: TimF who wrote (154860 ) 11/14/2002 12:03:46 PM From: tejek Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1580282 Tim, so are you suggesting we should have ignored our committment to NATO and let them fight with out us? 1 - If we did not fight we would not have been ignoring our commitment to Nato, any more then Germany would be ignoreing its commitment by not helping us out against Iraq. The NATO treaty is a purely defensive treaty. The member may cooperate on the offense but they are under no obligation to do so. The treaty is more than what you describe.......Article 5 states that if one of the member nations is attacked, then all are deemed under attack and all must retaliate. In addition, if "the territorial integrity" of one or more is deemed threatened, than member nations will consult and take whatever steps are deemed necessary. While that provision is not as strongly worded as Article 5, in practice, the member nations unite to rebuff any threat that may undermine the region. nato.int Wrongly or rightly, the instability of Yugoslavia and poor treatment of the Muslim Kosovans by the Serbs was perceived as a threat to the stability of Europe. Had we refused to join in, the US would have seriously undermined the credibility of NATO.2 - I was not suggesting anything about whether we should have participated in the operation or not. I was rather responding to the idea that was presented by Alighieri, that its ok to push around other countries as long as we have no national interest in the conflict. That seems eaxctly backwards to me. That's not what he said. What he said is that our actions were more honorable because we had nothing to gain materially by entering the Balkan conflict. ted Enter symbols or keywords for search: QuotesStock TalkChartsNewsPeople Symbol Lookup Subject Titles Only Full Text Go to Top