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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (321432)	1/18/2007 4:50:11 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1575207

The members of NATO might have felt that, but even if it was unanimous that doesn't mean participating was a NATO requirement. NATO requirements would be “ The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. 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. ” True. Nonetheless, its that relationship in NATO that pulled us into the Baltic. While the problems in the Baltic did not fit the provision you identified up above, our NATO relationship made it difficult to say "no" to the Europeans' request for assistance. Its called diplomacy.