SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Joe NYC who wrote (155278)11/26/2002 3:22:47 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1579680
 
How is this incompatible with what I said: "Nothing happens in NATO without US approval. And nothing happens without the US initiative."

The statement says nothing about the US making our allies do what we want them to do. If the US was able to do that, the US would not be carrying such an overwhelming burden of paying for common defense, while the Europeans (and especially Canadians) are taking a free ride. The US wants NATO members do something, and is not all that successful, which is the same as when we wanted them to increase the defense spending.


Stating that "nothing happens in NATO without US approval" strongly suggest that the US controls NATO. That also seemed to be the thrust of your argument in your post on this issue. However, in this latest example of US/NATO relations, the US thru Rumsfield was unable to get NATO support, and that prompted Bush to make the trip with mixed results. It hardly sounds like we run the joint, or even initiate action. At best, it seems the US has some influence with NATO but hardly dictates its policy.

One thing you may want to notice is that the US did not ask NATO to be part of another offensive action (which is incompatible with NATO treaty). He just used the gathering to urge individual countries to help, outside of NATO.

The news report that I heard said Bush did ask NATO for military support and was turned down.

ted