It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should the USA go to war to defend NATO countries?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   
To the OP. NATO is about the guarantee of collective defence. If a belligerent attacks a member the members of NATO are treaty-bound to provide support.

NATO is the military arm of the developed world in Europe and North America. NATO is the reason why peace has prevailed and, for example, the expansionist Soviet Union stopped their westward expansion. Noting Russia has attacked two sovereign states in recent times - Georgia and Ukraine - both the whom were not members of NATO.




posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I dont think the US has ever gone to war to defend a nato partner. I think its the other way round. Since when does a global power defend one their vassal states? Only when it suits the major power.

I've lost count of the number of times australia has sent troops off to fight wars for their masters.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Azureblue
I dont think the US has ever gone to war to defend a nato partner. I think its the other way round.


Yes, that's correct. The US has never acted to support a member of NATO in their defence, as part of the NATO arangements? In fact Article 5 - collective defence - has been activated once, and that was in defence of the USA following the 11 Sept outrage.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Understood, buy I am not sure what legitimate strategic defensive goals the US have in Poland.


Is defending the geopolitical integrity of a major trading partner not a legitimate strategic goal? In any event, honoring a treaty certainly is. Look what has been happening since the United States and Russia failed to live up to the Budapest Memorandum. US allies is Asia are becoming more militaristic out of fear that they may have to "go it alone."



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
If ANY treaties matter then ABSOLUTELY,Ukraine and Moldova too.
WE AGREED to do so.
I 'm a straight shooter a deal is a deal.
I'd do it because I am WIRED to fight ,so I do it for the country.



Good on you! We NEED you 'wired to fight'. Now all we need is the people who make the decision on who and when we fight to get their sh*t together....



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

OH DEAR GOD please...



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: thesungod
a reply to: UKTruth

Israel isn't part of the NATO defense pact as a partner. None of the partners are.

That said we, the US, have a individual defense aid pact with Israel. So yes.

We would then have to decide which to support.


Yes, I know.
My follow up question was that would you ATTACK Israel to defend Turkey? Turkey are a member.
So a scenario is: Israel attack Turkey... what do you do?

Same thing we always do. Point our finger and say bad Israel then apologize for saying that then give them more money and weapons that they can use to attack our allies.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtruckerFirst let me say that Afghanistan is not a NATO country and as such has no call on any NATO country for its defence. As for the Israeli attacking Turkey scenario, the answer is quite simple(though some of you are alluding to positions NATO is not allowed to do) ie. NATOs commitment is to DEFEND attacked countries not join with the attacked to fight in the country of the aggressor. So yes if Turkey was attacked by Israel NATO would be obligated to help defend it but not to attack Israel.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed


Sigh, your hypothetical isn't germane to the thread. Next, what I was referring to is the NATO nations that DID commit to assist In Afghanistan. Of those that DID commit....their choice....only two nations honored their 'commitment'.

Canada and the U.K..


Therefore, one cannot trust the NATO members, the EU is fully capable of defending itself and it costs the U.S. far too much to subsidize this blatantly obsolete association.


END IT...



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Interesting question because most of the recent wars have been with American interests and troops involved without anyone attacking any NATO country.

Although the current focus is trying to start a war with Russia, I doubt the peoples in any of the NATO countries would be OK with this because we know, without any doubt how it would end. Every NATO country would be destroyed.

However although I would like to say absolutely no to involving such a super power, if you have signed treaties then they stand and are legal and expected documents you can't dodge surely?

One point is that many of these countries hold American missiles in case someone attacked the USA so the USA is actually using these countries for its own protection perhaps that alone means that the USA has agreed to defend these country in any case. It wouldn't want its own missiles turned back to face itself if it didn't honour an agreement and the country cut up rough would it?



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
No. NATO should have been disbanded in 1991.

I think the US, UK and France should form a new alliance and tell the ultranationalists of Eastern Europe to take a hike. Antagonise Russia all you want, but you're on your own.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
OK, I understand that, but it can get a little murky. For example Israel is not a member, though it is a partner. What if Israel attacked Turkey?


1. Israel is not a partner of NATO. A partner has a different level of engagement. Israel is a part of the Mediterranean Dialogue though, along with a bunch of other nations. There are 22 nations who are part of the Partnership for Peace programme and Israel is not one of them.


NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue was initiated in 1994 by the North Atlantic Council. It currently involves seven non-NATO countries of the Mediterranean region: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia.


2. Why would Israel attack Turkey? Israel would not be able to prosecute a war against Turkey and win, regardless of NATO intervention. You may as well speculate what would happen if Israel attacked Australia, or Italy. If it is not going to happen then it's not a decent exmple.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7


Interesting question because most of the recent wars have been with American interests and troops involved without anyone attacking any NATO country.


Correct, NATO allies have gotten involved in conflicts without Article Five being invoked. What's your point?


Although the current focus is trying to start a war with Russia, I doubt the peoples in any of the NATO countries would be OK with this because we know, without any doubt how it would end. Every NATO country would be destroyed.


No-one is trying to start a war with Russia. Russia cannot start a war with any NATO member because it would be destroyed; that is why Putin has been picking on whimpy non-NATO countries like Ukraine.


However although I would like to say absolutely no to involving such a super power, if you have signed treaties then they stand and are legal and expected documents you can't dodge surely?


Treaties can be broken; just look at the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.


One point is that many of these countries hold American missiles in case someone attacked the USA so the USA is actually using these countries for its own protection perhaps that alone means that the USA has agreed to defend these country in any case. It wouldn't want its own missiles turned back to face itself if it didn't honour an agreement and the country cut up rough would it?


The missiles are there to defend the countries they are based in. Of course, they probably don't tell you that where you live.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes. If necessary, only after all other paths to peace are blocked, our NATO commitment is worth going to war over. If we make promises, as a country, we need to live up to them. Of course, I won't be one of those shipped out to fight a NATO war. So it's very easy for me to say what to do. Maybe if my son or daughter were in line to go I'd feel otherwise. Perspective changes everything.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtruckerNot germane? are you real or what?
Listen carefully, Afghanistan is NOT a NATO country so ANY NATO country had NO OBLIGATION or COMMITMENT to take any action in Afghanistan. It was not and is still not a NATO issue. You then cite because no other NATO nation, bar the UK, USA and Canada, took part in that conflict you say that the other NATO nations cannot be trusted.
The answer to the post still stands, NATO members can call on other NATO countries for DEFENSE of their own countries if attacked, not if the said NATO country is the aggressor in another country or even if the said NATO country goes to the defense of one of its allies who is not a NATO member.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: nwtruckerNot germane? are you real or what?
Listen carefully, Afghanistan is NOT a NATO country so ANY NATO country had NO OBLIGATION or COMMITMENT to take any action in Afghanistan. It was not and is still not a NATO issue. You then cite because no other NATO nation, bar the UK, USA and Canada, took part in that conflict you say that the other NATO nations cannot be trusted.
The answer to the post still stands, NATO members can call on other NATO countries for DEFENSE of their own countries if attacked, not if the said NATO country is the aggressor in another country or even if the said NATO country goes to the defense of one of its allies who is not a NATO member.



It's you that doesn't get my point. Various 'NATO' nations beyond the U.K. and Canada DID commit to assist via specific numbers. Irrespective of Afghanistan not being a NATO member. They failed to honor those commitment.That was my point.

The 'not germane' was to your Israel scenario. One can invent scenarios all day long. The point is the EU is fully capable of defending itself, doesn't require the U.S. financial backing and could still receive American military backing, depending on circumstances, without maintaining a cold-war era NATO.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtruckerJust because countries that are NATO members that fought in Afghanistan made not the slightest bit of difference. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NATO SO ALL THE COUNTRIES THAT ARE IN NATO THAT DIDN'T FIGHT HAD NO OBLIGATION OR COMMITMENT TO FIGHT THERE.
By your reasoning then when the USA was fighting in Vietnam all NATO members were not honoring their commitment to NATO by helping them. It don't work that way.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: nwtruckerJust because countries that are NATO members that fought in Afghanistan made not the slightest bit of difference. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NATO SO ALL THE COUNTRIES THAT ARE IN NATO THAT DIDN'T FIGHT HAD NO OBLIGATION OR COMMITMENT TO FIGHT THERE.
By your reasoning then when the USA was fighting in Vietnam all NATO members were not honoring their commitment to NATO by helping them. It don't work that way.



I cannot believe you are that obtuse. No one said they were obliged to support the U.S.. Once they OFERED to support the U.S. and didn't live up to those commitments is my point. Not to be trusted. I have no issue with not supporting the U.S. in Afghanistan. Just with those that offered and reneged.

You do get my point and, I believe, are merely spinning it to avoid it.......
edit on 2-8-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join