Is NATO a joke?

Scroll to see replies

Wasn't NATO supposed to be a treaty in which 'an attack on one was an attack on all'? What member of NATO was attacked by Libya?

That's just article 5, one part, of the treaty, there are other articles that come in to play in other situations.

Reply 21

User570431

Google NATO images and this comes up...

Reply 22

lukejoshjedi

Weird how thinking that a bunch of countries individually forming a coalition together to handle the situation in Libya effectively did better than a bunch of countries that have formed a coalition together (NATO)

Sad though, they're giving air support but so what? Not like they'e dropping missiles, guns, tanks for the rebels, they're still outmanned and outgunned and will not win against Gaddafi as they are - fact. Seems like a bitter stalemate unless something else is done

Reply 23

Aj12

Original post by arabcnesbit

Wasn't NATO supposed to be a treaty in which "an attack on one was an attack on all"? What member of NATO was attacked by Libya?

I understand your point, I just wish we wouldn't be so two faced about our foreign policy. If we said, we have interests in Libya and we're going to secure them then fine, but they can't pretend they're doing it solely on humanitarian grounds and ignore all the other human rights abuses around the world.

Concerning the UN, there shouldn't be dominant parties involved in these operations. If they want to pretend that they're the world police then it should be a global effort not just US, France and UK. How does that represent the United Nations of the World? Do you really want me to list the atrocities committed while the UN stood back and watched?

Thing is. We don't have strategic interests in Libya. I only speak for the UK and US here but nether country gets large amounts of oil from Libya. We have private interests yes BP and no doubt other US companies had oil licences. But by intervening in what was never going to be a cut and dry intervention has just cost these companies money.

True true. The UN seems to have a bad reputation for standing by and doing nothing. They need a full military force really made up off troops from all nations for operations like this.

Reply 24

Aj12

Original post by lukejoshjedi

CIA is going to start traning them through use of private contractors(ex special forces)

Egypt is arming them Qatar is selling oil on their behalf (if they keep the oil towns they will have some hope)

And the International community seems to be leaning more and more towards arming them thoroughly.

Reply 25

arabcnesbit

Original post by Drewski

That's just article 5, one part, of the treaty, there are other articles that come in to play in other situations.

I forget about article 23 c)iii)

All members are allowed to secure foreign oil reserves as long as the divvy them up fairly between their buddies depending on who dropped the most bombs on said foreign nation.

Reply 26

arabcnesbit

Original post by Aj12

Oh but we were going to. The US doesn't, hence why they're trying to get as far away from the whole thing as possible. It will cost us more if the oil contracts went to the Russians or the Chinese.