gaffan
|
posted on September 16, 2001 01:49:07 PM new
I would like to revise and extend my previous comment. Make that "the government of France" rather than "the French". That was an inappropriately broad statement and didn't convey the meaning I intended.
-gaffan-
[email protected]
|
AWrocks
|
posted on September 16, 2001 02:20:04 PM new
Thanks, krs, for the pointer. Doh!
The final paragraph says:
--------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, America's European allies, led by France, were backing away from offers of full military support after Nato's show of solidarity. "We know that we can only rely on Britain, not France and Germany" said a US official.
--------------------------------------------
Don't you think it a bit lame for the article to not provide the evidence of how they came to that conclusion?
or to reference the official who said it?
It is not surprising to have reservations about "full military support" without knowing what that is committing the country to. It does not mean that they will not provide fully military support to particular kinds of action. It just means that there is a proviso on the kind of action they will support.
Seems sensible to me.
|
krs
|
posted on September 16, 2001 02:42:04 PM new
As I said, the U.S. may have taken 'full military support' as contained in the NATO resolution to mean something more than Germany or France meant to convey by their paricipation, or those countries have qualified their commitment and thereby backed away from the intent of the document. Not having read it I'm inclined to accept the U.S. interpretation of the meaning, but who am I to say?
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on September 16, 2001 02:44:54 PM new
Maybe you're right AWrocks. Being cautious is logical, but it does give the impression of not agreeing with the stance the U.S. is taking.
edited to add:
I keep posting at the same time you do krs. I'm not stalking you 
[ edited by kraftdinner on Sep 16, 2001 02:47 PM ]
|
AWrocks
|
posted on September 16, 2001 03:35:05 PM new
How can one fully agree with commitment to action, when you don't know what it is?
Article 5 states:
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.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security (1).
-----------------------------------------
To me, this means that the action to be taken will be collectively determined by NATO allies, not by the U.S. alone. I cannot see how any country would agree to hand over control of its military to another sovereign power, no matter what the crisis, unless perhaps a collective declaration of war has occurred against an identified enemy. This is not the case here.
I have not seen reports that France or Germany are reneging on this agreement to take collective military action. As detailed in my previous post, I can only see them clarifying what they see as shaping an appropriate response.
How can one wholeheartedly say you will support another country, no matter what, when you don't know what action they are going to take. Blair is likely to face some division about this too, as Parliament too begins to question just what is planned.
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on September 16, 2001 03:45:46 PM new
Shosh, I apologize deeply if I implied anything negative about French people. I was of course speaking of this and earlier French governments and not French people. I have compaints about my own government as well. Please forgive me.
L'shana tovah u'metuka!
|
twinsoft
|
posted on September 16, 2001 11:16:02 PM new
Shoshi, I will miss you. I always enjoyed your posts and your even keel. Take things easy and go in peace.
|
Shadowcat
|
posted on September 16, 2001 11:39:55 PM new
I cannot see how any country would agree to hand over control of its military to another sovereign power, no matter what the crisis, unless perhaps a collective declaration of war has occurred against an identified enemy.
AWrocks: Perhaps you're unaware that every time our troops put on the blue berets of the United Nations, they are, in effect, no longer operating under the US flag. Those troops are then under the command of another country's military leader, and that leadership changes regularly.
This is done willingly by our government(and others) and those troops who don't agree can be brought up on charges of disobeying orders. Case in point: Michael New.
|
AWrocks
|
posted on September 17, 2001 12:44:19 AM new
Shadowcat,
The UN situation is again a different kettle of fish. There are structural arrangements that have already been agreed, and commitment to don the blue beret accepts those arrangements.
What we are discussing here is the perception that because sovereign nations are stating the parameters of their willingness to take military action, to help shape the collective response, they are now being accused of "reneging".
[ edited by AWrocks on Sep 17, 2001 01:32 AM ]
|
krs
|
posted on September 17, 2001 12:49:17 AM new
AWrocks,
"How can one wholeheartedly say you will support another country, no matter what, when you don't know what action they are going to take."
It's the stipulation of the treaty they all entered into that they do just that. And as parties to the treaty both countries are part to the resolution which was made.
Now they equivocate.
|
Shadowcat
|
posted on September 17, 2001 12:53:35 AM new
AWrocks: Point taken.
I dunno if it's so much reneging as it is the countries are taking into consideration their own political realities, just like we are.
|
krs
|
posted on September 17, 2001 12:56:52 AM new
Yes. I'm sleepy, and the doctors want me early so we can play.
|
Shadowcat
|
posted on September 17, 2001 01:02:20 AM new
KRS: Hope all goes well with the docs.
|
AWrocks
|
posted on September 17, 2001 01:42:02 AM new
No, krs, I don't think that is what they agreed to. They agreed (from my reading of it) to take collective military action on behalf of any of the NATO alliance that was attacked. They did not say that they would take ANY action determined by a single member, but would pursue action that was agreed by all.
And I have not seen anyone saying they are now walking away, and are not going to pursue any military action whatsoever.
|
gravid
|
posted on September 17, 2001 04:08:28 AM new
A reecent revelation is that the Bin Lauden group tried to gas the whole German ledgislature recently with Sarin and got caught and failed. They would have killed 625 and every one else in the building.
Could be they are just straight out afraid to oppose them. Maybe they should convert and put their women under the veil. Would that be enough to get him to call his dogs off?
|
AWrocks
|
posted on September 17, 2001 04:51:05 AM new
It appears from what has been said here that it is "America's way, or no way".
Again, with feeling, I do not see anything that has been said that indicates the France or Germany are unwilling to undertake any military action.
It is disgraceful to malign these countries and these people when it is clear that they have both said they stand with America, and have in the past suffered at the hands of terrorists.
Why don't you work with what they can offer, instead of castigating them for what they cannot?
|
krs
|
posted on September 17, 2001 05:07:07 AM new
AWrocks (why did you chose such a silly name),
Have you missed, again, a post of mine above which reads "As I said, the U.S. may have taken 'full military support' as contained in the NATO resolution to mean something more than Germany or France meant to convey by their participation, or those countries have qualified their commitment and thereby backed away from the intent of the document. Not having read it I'm inclined to accept the U.S. interpretation of the meaning, but who am I to say?"?
|
fred
|
posted on September 17, 2001 09:12:23 AM new
www.MikeNew.com
Fred
|
AWrocks
|
posted on September 17, 2001 11:10:27 AM new
krs,
My name is entirely sarcastic with reference to the business side of AW.
My last comments were not address primarily to you, but to gravid. I can understand the lack of shared perception about what Article 5 means, but I do not understand the continued animosity towards allies. Article 5 (to my reading) does not give the U.S. the right to lead or direct what military action will be taken. It commits each NATO ally to taking collective military action, agreed by the collective.
|
gravid
|
posted on September 17, 2001 12:28:03 PM new
Glad you explained that it was directed to me because I didn't figure that out. No antimosity here to the French or the Germans actually. I was just stating factually that they seem afraid. I don't expect any different. A certain amount of fear is justified here. I expect very little of governments actually. They tend to act in their own percieved interest and disregard principles more than what at least a few honorable individuals do.
In my book if governments are allies it should be like friends among individuals - you don't stand around argueing about legal definitions and exactly what your obligation is when your friend is in trouble - you act to help.
France has had their chestnuts hauled out of the fire so many times by the US that you would think if they had any morals or appreciation they would not quibble when they had a chance to repay it.
I am afraid that the US is like a guy who thinks he has friends because everybody comes over for BBQ and beer on the weekend, but then when he needs a hand they are all busy. But as I said I don't expect any better of governments. Individuals - of any nationality i expect much more.
As soon as they started talking about getting help I figured that that meant they would never do what was needed to really defeat these people - it will be like when they could have rolled into Bagdad in about 3 days and turned around and went home instead. Still think that.
Since a number of other nations are saying - No it is not really a war - and that limits what they will do it would be interesting if Congress went ahead as they considered and declared a formal war. Then what would these other countries say?
[ edited by gravid on Sep 17, 2001 12:41 PM ]
|
hepburn
|
posted on September 17, 2001 12:34:31 PM new
I am afraid that the US is like a guy who thinks he has friends because everybody comes over for BBQ and beer on the weekend, but then when he needs a hand they are all busy.
Very good analogy, gravid. And right on, sad to say. But we still help those who are busy when they need help, which shows what america is all about, right?
|
stockticker
|
posted on September 17, 2001 12:37:01 PM new
You mean like 1939?
Irene
|
stockticker
|
posted on September 17, 2001 12:40:21 PM new
Do you know why American soldiers were called "Dough Boys" in World War I ?
The joke was they were "kneaded" in 1914 and didn't "rise" until 1917.
Irene
|
toke
|
posted on September 17, 2001 12:40:26 PM new
It could be, what with the buckets of money and manpower we will need to expend on our own country's needs and protection, we just will no longer be able to afford to continue helping the entire world. Even our resources are finite, after all.
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on September 17, 2001 12:40:44 PM new
Like when America let Hitler steamroll through Europe for two years, Irene?
|
stockticker
|
posted on September 17, 2001 12:43:54 PM new
Yup, James.
Irene
|
gravid
|
posted on September 17, 2001 12:51:21 PM new
I would say that in the war with Hitler there was little American interest early on to bring them in. I question if they would have ever came in if it were not for the special relationship with England. There was a rats nest of interlocking European treaties in both world wars and it would have been well and good if the European powers had been able to solve their problems with out help from the other hemisphere.
Now with the experience of two word wars the assumption, and reason for NATO, is that any European war will have global reach. I doubt if anyone thought the US would every be struck first unless it was a war with the Soviets. But that is usually the case. Nations always prepare to fight the last war over again and are surprised when it does not happen that way again.
[ edited by gravid on Sep 17, 2001 12:55 PM ]
|
stockticker
|
posted on September 17, 2001 12:51:36 PM new
Question for the Americans:
If Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor and if American territory never seemed to be threatened by the Germans, would the U.S. ever have entered World War II?
Irene
|
toke
|
posted on September 17, 2001 12:57:59 PM new
Who knows? But the fact is...we did.
|
gravid
|
posted on September 17, 2001 01:02:50 PM new
I can picture several histories that would have the US in a long cold war with a nuclear armed Germany that would have had as difficult a time with their occupied territory as the Soviets did. If they had stopped short of England.
Perhaps the Soviets as long term allies to balance the Germans and a Japanese Empire from the Philipines to Mongolia and down to Indonesia.
I can not picture a sceanerio with the US staying out if either England or Australia were threatened though.
[ edited by gravid on Sep 17, 2001 01:05 PM ]
|
