Rumsfeld is a diplomatic genius - Page 4

Ned · February 10, 2003, 12:49

France, Germany and now Belgium are way out of line. Regardless of how Iraq turns out, they should have no future in NATO.

Harovan · February 10, 2003, 12:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
France, Germany and now Belgium are way out of line. Regardless of how Iraq turns out, they should have no future in NATO.

A lot of people here are demanding this since long. Leaving the NATO would be a very popular step. Although it would contradict the purpose of the NATO, to keep the US on top, Germany in and Russia out.

HershOstropoler · February 10, 2003, 12:59

Yeah, let's dissolve NATO and get over it.

MichaeltheGreat · February 10, 2003, 13:00

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Rummy has a way of being out in front of issues.

Yeah, like cozying up to Saddam during the early days of the Reagan administration.

DanS · February 10, 2003, 13:01

It would, unless Turkey is aiding in an attack - which makes it an offensive war on Turkey's part.

Is there a distinction in the NATO charter, or is this just the way Hershell sees the situation?

Then Washington should adjust its timetable.

I don't suppose the veto process was meant to fine tune the timing of military action.

HershOstropoler · February 10, 2003, 13:06

"Is there a distinction in the NATO charter"

The destinction that it is a defensive alliance. If you can't see the connection, you've really been living in Washington for too long.

DanS · February 10, 2003, 13:16

Everybody, including the three vetoing countries, accepts that Turkey should be defended under the umbrella of the alliance. And Turkey is going to assist in any attack on Iraq.

The fact remains that these countries used the veto to leverage a timing issue unrelated to NATO (but rather, to the UN). This seems inexplicable to me.

Wernazuma III · February 10, 2003, 13:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
France, Germany and now Belgium are way out of line. Regardless of how Iraq turns out, they should have no future in NATO.

I think it's incredible that the US tries to force NATO members into this. It would be a lot easier to say: "We agree to disagree" and keep the NATO out of this. The only thing such a pressure on NATO members does is endangering old alliances. Don't forget that the NATO is a defense-alliance and assistance is obligatory only in the case that one of the members is attacked. No NATO member has been attacked by Iraq, thus no member who opposes the war should be threatened with "this is the end of the NATO". The US government somehow tries to say that this preemptive strike is an action of defense, but it simply is not. - Bad enough that the disagreement on the issues weighs heavily on the relations, it's scary that the US government really threatens to end an era of an alliance because they want to push through an offensive war and force the allies into compliance.

HershOstropoler · February 10, 2003, 13:43

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Everybody, including the three vetoing countries, accepts that Turkey should be defended under the umbrella of the alliance. And Turkey is going to assist in any attack on Iraq.

And war is peace, love is hate.....

Wernazuma III · February 10, 2003, 13:44

dp. How did this happen?

Oerdin · February 10, 2003, 13:53

So Belgium blocked the transfer to Turkey of Patriot anti-missile missiles and chemical and bio weapons defense suits on the grounds that would inflame the situation. I fail to see how giving Turkey defensive items will inflame the situation.

If it was Tanks that were being transfered I would understand but MOP suits are going to inflame the situation? I'm sensing the Belgium government is pandering to a domestic audience on this issue.

DanS · February 10, 2003, 14:00

And war is peace, love is hate...

Yes, I can sympathize with you. It's tough to follow at times.

oedo · February 10, 2003, 15:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
France, Germany and now Belgium are way out of line. Regardless of how Iraq turns out, they should have no future in NATO.

first of all a situation like this has been forseen by constituting the NATO-Charta. this should be the reason why London and Ankara are keeping quite cool after the statement of those "nasty three weasels".
on the other hand it is obvious why Washington is almost(?) becoming nuts about it. they didn´t get the legal prerequsites for their war so far. and now Paris, Brussels and Berlin don´t even give them the factical prerequisites also!

just for the record: NATO wasn´t raised for making unilateral attacks possible by escorting the agressor.
as long as Washington doesn´t hit the trigger Turkey is safe. too bad Washington wants war from the beginning of the era Bush, no matter the costs. maybe the Veto can prevent the war, since nothing else seems to work.
as soon Turkey isn´t safe anymore ALL NATO members will do anything to help them out. there´s absolutely no doubt about it. the Veto is directed to Washington's warmongers and not to Ankara.

another thing is in my mind: since Bush raised power in USA, has there ever been a littly tiny compromise accepted or offered by him to anyone and about anything? they´re just demanding and demanding and wanting and forcing and demanding.....

I can tell you, this sucks

Maniac · February 10, 2003, 15:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin I'm sensing the Belgium government is pandering to a domestic audience on this issue.

And an American-Iraqi war doesn't have a domestic audience component?

Maniac · February 10, 2003, 15:33

And to elaborate a little, our foreign minister Louis Michel has been known to play the moral consciousness of the world before... For example when extreme-right entered the Austrian government.
Also the green party, pacifists of course, is currently in the Belgian government.

Ned · February 10, 2003, 15:47

This the first time in history of NATO that a member has asked for help in the face of a potential attack and NATO has said no. What do you think Turkey is feeling about their European "allies" right now? Within the space of two months, they are denied entry into the European Union and further denied the assistance of NATO because of the French veto. If I were Turkey, I would withdraw from NATO so long as France continues to be a member. But because there is a 19-3 majority in favor of defending Turkey, it is clear who has to go. It certainly is not Turkey.

It appears to me that the French are either acting irrationally or there is a fix in. I don't think the French are irrational.

oedo · February 10, 2003, 16:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
This the first time in history of NATO that a member has asked for help in the face of a potential attack and NATO has said no.

yeah, because the potential attack is set by a NATO member. this crisis is a first timer in many issues. Turkey actually isn´t threatened by anyone outside the country (unless, perhaps, Greece

). the biggest thread are a bunsh Kurdish terrorists who mainly live inside Turkey. Iraq itself is no threat, since theres a large no-fly-zone behind the border.
a new gulfwar could chance alot. but still the most dangerous threat will live inside Turkey, not outside.

Quote:

What do you think Turkey is feeling about their European "allies" right now? Within the space of two months, they are denied entry into the European Union and further denied the assistance of NATO because of the French veto.

hmm,
yes, I agree. the EU-thing was a mistake. any more than just leaving Turkey alone with their homework would have been any better. but I don´t share a secret, when I say Europe actually isn´t leaded by professionals.

a global phenomenon methinks.
but again, I only hear US-hardliners mockering. I´m still looking for a Turkish statement today. if you find one, share it with me. I´m curious what they think about it.

btw things don´t look that bad though. Germany f.e. is dodging the veto by providing Dutch military with patriot-missiles.

France and Beligium certainly use their connections too. this is rather a diplomatic thing than a military one. it´s been blown up pretty much lately.

Quote:

If I were Turkey, I would withdraw from NATO so long as France continues to be a member.

Quote:

It appears to me that the French are either acting irrationally or there is a fix in. I don't think the French are irrational.

there´s a fix in and most French people are very ok. no need to dislike them.

DinoDoc · February 10, 2003, 16:33

Quote:

since Bush raised power in USA, has there ever been a littly tiny compromise accepted or offered by him to anyone and about anything?

Why do you think that he even went to the UN?

Ozz · February 10, 2003, 16:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'm sensing the Belgium government is pandering to a domestic audience on this issue.

Isn't that what a representive democratic government is
supposed to do?

oedo · February 10, 2003, 16:39

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why do you think that he even went to the UN?

he needed a few more months to built up enough military in order to make blitz possible.
that while he went to UN and told: accept it or we´ll do it without you. where exactly do you find a compromise here?

KrazyHorse · February 10, 2003, 16:40

Apparently that's what the Americans think compromise is.

HershOstropoler · February 11, 2003, 04:48

Wernazuma III · February 11, 2003, 05:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Maniac
And to elaborate a little, our foreign minister Louis Michel has been known to play the moral consciousness of the world before... For example when extreme-right entered the Austrian government.
Also the green party, pacifists of course, is currently in the Belgian government.

But he kept his mouth closed when the far more dangerous Italian government was formed! The FPÖ turned out to be a bit domesticable and the pilars of our democracy, press liberty and the separation of legislation, jurisdiction and executive branch wasn't threatened! And now look to Italy!

The most "center" party in the government with Berlusconi is at least as far to the right as the FPÖ... I hate the FPÖ myself, but it was damn obvious that Austria was judged with other standards than Italy.

HershOstropoler · February 11, 2003, 05:54

Michel is a moron. Maybe they should lock him up in a cage with Rumsie and put it in the zoo.

LaRusso · February 11, 2003, 06:15

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Yeah, let's dissolve NATO and get over it.

argh. so you bombed us for nothing? i thought that we have sacrificed ourselves for the sake of preserving NATO.

HershOstropoler · February 11, 2003, 06:19

"We" (Austrians) didn't bomb you. I guess because we can't.

But yes, the more came out about Kosovo, the more I think it was mostly about giving NATO a role.

Alexander's Horse · February 11, 2003, 07:05

There's some nifty jokes about what the nato initials now stand for but I forget what they are.

Something like "Nothing At all to do Treaty Organisation" and such, someone else seen this joke?

LaRusso · February 11, 2003, 07:08

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"We" (Austrians) didn't bomb you. I guess because we can't.

I know, I know. However, Dutch did make an effort and sent both of their planes

HershOstropoler · February 11, 2003, 07:11

I thought there was just one flying dutchman. So two? Then why do the yanks complain?

LaRusso · February 11, 2003, 07:14

one even allegedly shot one of our planes down. he was extremely proud.