G7 minus 1

That may be but not invoking Article 5 is not a barrier to NATO action, as previously discussed in my reference to the NATO led invasion of Libya.

It was probably a mistake to make that a NATO operation but the French have their ways at war and they usually mess it up anyway.
 
Lastly, the only time article 5 was activated was September 11, 2001. If the western world fails to respond to an attack like 9/11 then we are surely doomed to suffer those types of attacks more frequently.
That may be but not invoking Article 5 is not a barrier to NATO action, as previously discussed in my reference to the NATO led invasion of Libya.
Invoking Article 5 means very little because of the language I've highlighted. "Such action as it deems necessary" can literally be expressing support by condemning the attack in a statement.

"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 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."
https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm
 
a1NVYhdJFj7Ii2fvLPce73KVpxL9xiuR2FPU0ituLhs.jpg
 
Invoking Article 5 means very little because of the language I've highlighted. "Such action as it deems necessary" can literally be expressing support by condemning the attack in a statement.

"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 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."
https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm


I would like to amend some of that language to say: "However, in the likely event that one such aforementioned member, commonly called Turkey, gets in trouble or is attacked as part of its general jihadist and authoritarian actions, don't call us, we'll call you."
 
Europe is perfectly capable of defending itself. It's not our responsibility. There was a time, right after WW II, when we didn't think the rise of a euro army such a swell idea. Times change. We have nothing to fear from a euro defense force, raised and paid for by europeans. Certainly we would cooperate closely with them.
 
They are playing the WHATABOUT game there as well, how many Israelis have been killed by Hamas for Haley to pretend it's equivalent?

The Israel Palestinian (really Hamas) thing isn’t about equivalency. The last riots were invited by Hamas. The UN is acting very Trumpian with this vote.
 
The Israel Palestinian (really Hamas) thing isn’t about equivalency. The last riots were invited by Hamas. The UN is acting very Trumpian with this vote.

Israel isn't killing Hamas terrorists at the border - terrorists won't show up unarmed to be shot to death, Israel is welcome to take out terrorists even without any attacks - this vote had nothing to do with Hamas and trying to change the narrative when hundreds are dead for no good reason. UN should try to maintain this standard of consistency.
 
Back
Top