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.

 

France, Germany, Belgium Block NATO War Plans

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 10:09 AM
link   
BRUSSELS, Belgium Rifts deepened within the NATO alliance Monday after France, Germany and Belgium blocked efforts to plan for Turkey's defense in case Iraq attacked NATO's only Muslim member.
foxnews.com...




posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 10:37 AM
link   
This is highly unlikely but could we be on a collision course with Germany/France/Russia? Could it be possible that a bi-lateral war on Iraq could open up a European front with the U.S./U.K. in open conflict with the Axis of Weasels?



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Observer,No it is virtually impossible.

NATO was formed as a defensive organisation.The USA and ,to a lesser extent,the UK seem to be perverting the NATO charter to bring other nations into a conflict with Iraq.Turkey is in no danger of being attacked by Iraq unless it allies itself with the USA/UK and allows Air and Ground forces to operate from it's territory.This would be an act of agression and NATO members have no obligation to aid other members if they act to precipitate a conflict.Infact, if Germany,France,and Belgium were to agree to NATO deployments in Turkey and if,later,they were attacked then they would be obligated to aid Turkey.
The USA/UK appear to be keen to attack Iraq.If they get help from Turkey,as seems likely,then they do not need to act through NATO they can deploy Patriot missiles on a bi-lateral basis.
Going through NATO is nothing but political trouble making on behalf of Rumsfeld.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 01:09 PM
link   
"Turkey is in no danger of being attacked by Iraq unless it allies itself with the USA/UK and allows Air and Ground forces to operate from it's territory"

poor old turkey already does, some forces enforcing the northern no fly zone are based there

www.guardian.co.uk...

on balance it seems wrong for the French etc to oppose the placing of Patriot missiles as it would only be a defensive emplacement and one you could argue they should have had many years ago



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Belgium and Germany might likely lose American forces in their countries after Iraq is stabilized. Italy and England would most likely get those forces.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I agree with JB1, NATO is a defensive organisation, not an offensive one.

But it's not the NATO who's attacking Irak, it's the USA and the GB. And if Turkey need to be protected from a possible Irakian retaliation, NATO will have to defend his Turkish ally. So, France, Germany and Belgium do not acting well. They had to vote " yes ".

And HALO, Belgium and Germany will not lose any US troops. First of all, NATO Headquarter ( SHAPE ) is in Belgium ( Mons ) and I don't think that NATO will move his GHQ in another country for this simple reason.

For Germany, I don't know. But I think that the Germans would be happy to see the US troops leaving. So, don't give them this pleasure.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 02:12 PM
link   
"But I think that the Germans would be happy to see the US troops leaving. So, don't give them this pleasure."

since the uk is rapidly becoming the 51st state I think I`d rather they stay in Germany than them coming "back home" to the UK.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Since NATO is a defensive organization they should be helping Turkey. What good is NATO if they don't.
The bottom line is,France is digging themselves into a big hole.They are going to end up an isolated country.
Germany will come around,more than likely.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 03:10 PM
link   
The point I was trying to make is this.If Turkey Allies itself with the USA/UK in an agressive(first strike)war against Iraq then NATO members have no obligation to protect Turkey if Iraq retaliates.If NATO units have been put in place(AWAC's,Patriot missiles)and they are attacked then NATO members do have an obligation to protect units that NATO have voted to put in place.

These units do not have to be NATO units.Turkey can except Patriot missiles on a bi-lateral basis from the USA.Infact they are going to come from the USA anyway.By getting NATO to authorise the deployment the USA hopes to drag Germany,France,and Belgium into a war with Iraq through the backdoor.If Iraq decided to attack Turkey(or any NATO member)without provocation then I'm sure all NATO members would rally but the purpose of NATO is not to support any misguided adventure that any NATO member wishes to go on.NATO did not rally to support the UK in the Falklands nor the USA in Grenada nor should it of.

The US Administration's official rhetoric on this is becoming sickening.They are driving Germany and France into a new alliance with Russia.Europe is divided between those that are listening to the public and those that are not.In the long term France,Germany,and Russia will not change but Administrations that have ignored the will of the people will be thrown out.There is no New Europe and Old Europe there are only Leaders and soon to be Ex-Leaders.
We are living in unstable times.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 03:14 PM
link   
JB1 - You mean Iraq's oil and illegal weapon stockpiles are driving France, Germany and Russia into bed together...not the US. The US didn't force those countries into illegal deals with Iraq, they did.

They're just trying to stop outsiders from digging up the dirt on them inside Iraq with an invasion force since they know the UN inspectors under their influence can be easily fooled, unlike American troops going building to building finding stuff made in Germany, Russia, France, North Korea and China.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 08:08 PM
link   
The US should desolve NATO and form a new alliance with like minded countries. In this day and age where there isn't a common enemy (ie.USSR), NATO has become as impudent as the UN.
The only reason for NATO's existence at the moment is to counterbalance Russian power in the East. All NATO is good for is it's logistical facilities, as the US is far superior in every other area.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I see no reason for NATO since its enemy, the Soviet Bloc, is gone. There is no reason for us to defend Germany anymore, especially after their recent behavior towards us.

Then again, I see a need for an alliance with the willing EU nations...the NEW Europe as Mr Rumsfeld said as he was poking his finger in the eyes of France and Germany.

In either scenario...I say pull our troops out of Germany and take NATO's HQ out of Belgium. They don't pull their weight in NATO to be telling the US what to do.



posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Halo

In either scenario...I say pull our troops out of Germany and take NATO's HQ out of Belgium. They don't pull their weight in NATO to be telling the US what to do.


Halo, it's NOT all the Belgians who are anti-NATO/USA. It's JUST a few ( just some thousand ).



posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 01:30 PM
link   
France i think is getting nervous that the WORLD will find some thing in Iraq that will embaress them .....I mean they did give Iraq there first reactor....

Just my 2 cents
Boomslang



posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 02:18 PM
link   
ahem speaking as an english man (boy) its not teh uk its mr blair and the u.s not the uk just thought id mention it well its the way currnet polls are displaying anyway



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join