Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (73641)	2/13/2003 5:15:54 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

2. NATO is (again, explicitly, solely) limited to military activity in Europe. It was never envisioned, there are no obligations, for extra-European war, not even defensive ones. Huh? I suppose that NATO members' treaty obligations to Turkey are limited only to that part of Turkey which falls within Europe. Only part of Istanbul is therefore covered. Your views might surprise the Turks. C2@give'emaheartattack.com

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (73641)	2/13/2003 6:02:31 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

NATO's mandate is explicitly, solely, defensive. Turkey asked, (not us) that the planning process be started to deliver defensive weapons to them because they feared an attack by Iraq. This was totally within the bounds of what must be approved under the NATO agreement. Germany and France refused to allow it to happen. All this chatter about "well, it was to defend them after an attack was started on Iraq" is nonsense. The NATO agreement is clear, and there really is no argument on this point.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (73641)	2/13/2003 6:27:27 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<< 1. NATO's mandate is explicitly, solely, defensive. It was set up to stop 10,000 Soviet tanks from reaching Paris That's what W. Europe signed up for. It was never intended, and nobody ever agreed to a mandate that included,any offensive military action of any kind, even in Europe.>>> Things have changed. If Russian tanks are rolling across the French border there would be no Paris left. Destroyed by missiles, sky dark with Russian airplanes So the UN is going to sit and discuss what should be done about the tanks ? And they will have to get US approval to do what? Use their own Air Force ? Makes me wonder if France would go off on its own, as the US may have to do here, to the displeasure of Russia or other UN members that vetoed any action. It resembles a Global police force with no guns, and nothing to do until a crime is already committed, then go out and search for the criminals that stole and ate the horse. Sig

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (73641)	2/13/2003 6:34:58 PM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

NATO's mandate is explicitly, solely, defensive...NATO is (again, explicitly, solely) limited to military activity in Europe. A most important observation, Jacob. No one else I've read, syndicated or not, has recognized this. Kudos.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (73641)	2/13/2003 10:22:43 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>NATO is (again, explicitly, solely) limited to military activity in Europe.<< Not so. >>Article 5 The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America [amended to include Greece and Turkey, see below] shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security . Article 6 (1) For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.<< nato.int This was amended when Greece and Turkey joined NATO: >>Article 2 If the Republic of Turkey becomes a Party to the North Atlantic Treaty, Article 6 of the Treaty shall, as from the date of the deposit by the Government of the Republic of Turkey of its instruments of accession with the Government of the United States of America, be modified to read as follows: For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in whicH occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.<< nato.int Thus, an attack on Turkey, the US, or Canada, is by treaty an attack on all members of NATO.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (73641)	2/14/2003 2:23:33 AM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 281500

1. NATO's mandate is explicitly, solely, defensive. It was set up to stop 10,000 Soviet tanks from reaching Paris. That's what W. Europe signed up for. It was never intended, and nobody ever agreed to a mandate that included, any offensive military action of any kind, even in Europe. One word: Kosovo. There was great fanfare in the late 90s about NATO "redefining itself" as a force for world "security and stability". Even outside the borders of Europe. 2. NATO is (again, explicitly, solely) limited to military activity in Europe. It was never envisioned, there are no obligations, for extra-European war, not even defensive ones. Turkey is a NATO member. It is, by definition, within the sphere of NATO action. Derek