France, Belgium and Germany betrayed NATO?

[simonm]

France, Belgium and Germany have vetoed NATO's preparations to defend Turkey in case of a war with Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2747443.stm

America has responded in anger and sees it as a betrayal. France say they are just trying to give the UN inspectors more time.

Could this mark the end of NATO?

[honeybee]

The three countries opposing the move argue that sending Nato military equipment to Turkey would imply that diplomatic efforts to disarm Iraq and avert war had already failed.

.

[DeadEyes]

Diplomatic efforts have failed, they were doomed to fail from the
start.
The whole thing was just a charade a military attack was and is the only outcome.
"If they find weapons we'll attack, if they don't find weapons they're hiding them so we'll attack"

[plenderj]

I completely agree with honeybee's comment.
In my opinion, Iraq won't start a war with anyone.
They just want to be left alone.

So the only reason a nearby country would need reinforced defenses would be if someone (ie. the US) launched an offensive.


So by allowing the country's defenses to be upgraded, anyone who doesn't veto the decision, is agreeing that an attack is imminent, and in my opinion, they're nearly giving the go-ahead to the US.

[simonm]

Some would argue that it makes sense to prepare the Turkish defense ahead of time. It doesn't necessarilly mean that the diplomatic efforts have failed.

In my opinion, it is political point scoring by the three countries involved and they are just trying to throw a spanner in the works in the only way that they can.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by simonm
and they are just trying to throw a spanner in the works in the only way that they can.

Who wouldn't do the same.

[DeadEyes]

It does make sense to build up Turkeys defences(I'm sure the Turkish think so)
And yes I'd say there is the element playing political games.
But if Turkish defences are bolstered it should not be by American or British troops or weapons, because it will be seen a launchpad for any attack.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by DeadEyes
It does make sense to build up Turkeys defences

But that's just like admitting there's an attack imminent

[DeadEyes]

Originally posted bu plenderj
But that's just like admitting there's an attack imminent

The biggest deployment of British troops since World War 2.
Do you honestly think there is not going to be an attack?

[simonm]

plenderj

But that's just like admitting there's an attack imminent

What, bolstering Turkish defenses means an attack is innevitable? Doesn't it make sense to be prepared for the worst?

At the end of the day, France, Belgium and Germany are, if not violating the terms of the NATO treaty, going against it in spirit.

Whether or not the weapons inspectors are given more time and NATO preparing to defend it's members are two completely seperate issues and should not be confused for the purposes of political point scoring.

[Nightwalker83]

France, Belgium and Germany betrayed NATO?

We don't want them all to be like sheep someone has to stand up for what they believe.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by simonm
plenderjWhat, bolstering Turkish defenses means an attack is innevitable? Doesn't it make sense to be prepared for the worst?

But the thing is, its "us" that are deciding when to attack.
We're not trying to second-guess a mad dictator*.
Its the US&UK that will be attacking - not them being attacked first.


* well we're trying to second guess bush, but I was originally referring to sadam.




Anyway, at the end of the day, they're doing the only thing in their power to avert, or at least delay, war.
That's an admirable thing.

[Wally Pipp]

Whilst I don't fully agree with the arguments brought forth I'm glad that, for whatever reason provided, not ALL countries bend over and let themselves be manhandled by the london-washington axis.

Since when should we shut up and put up to please all the others ?
Of course in the end we will cave in (probably after the report of Drs. Blix and Elbaradei), we will fall in line but the abuse is plain disgusting. As if we're traitors for thinking differently. Does this mean we won't support Turkey as a NATO member ? Not at all. Does this mean we're not commited to the cause ? Of course not.
Does this mean we're anti-NATO ? Of course not.

Meanwhile the France-German-Russia alternative plan is shot out of the water without being thoroughly considered or even brought before the UN.

Perhaps it would do the rest a bit of good to actually listen to us before branding us traitors. At least we're honest in saying we want to avert war until no longer possible.

This is what the world is coming to : we can disagree as long as we agree.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by simonm
plenderj

What, bolstering Turkish defenses means an attack is innevitable? Doesn't it make sense to be prepared for the worst?

At the end of the day, France, Belgium and Germany are, if not violating the terms of the NATO treaty, going against it in spirit.

Whether or not the weapons inspectors are given more time and NATO preparing to defend it's members are two completely seperate issues and should not be confused for the purposes of political point scoring.

If I got it right, these three nations don't say that Turkey be left to fend for itself in the event of a war. But there's been no formal declaration of war as yet, and in this particular case, because there's no concrete evidence for starting a war, every effort must be made to stop a war. If Turkey's defences are bolstered through the NATO channels, it means NATO has resigned to the possibility of war as the only possibility, indirectly meaning NATO is bracing itself for war. Exactly what the three nations don't agree to.

.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Whilst I don't fully agree with the arguments brought forth I'm glad that, for whatever reason provided, not ALL countries bend over and let themselves be manhandled by the london-washington axis.

Since when should we shut up and put up to please all the others ?
Of course in the end we will cave in (probably after the report of Drs. Blix and Elbaradei), we will fall in line but the abuse is plain disgusting. As if we're traitors for thinking differently. Does this mean we won't support Turkey as a NATO member ? Not at all. Does this mean we're not commited to the cause ? Of course not.
Does this mean we're anti-NATO ? Of course not.

Meanwhile the France-German-Russia alternative plan is shot out of the water without being thoroughly considered or even brought before the UN.

Perhaps it would do the rest a bit of good to actually listen to us before branding us traitors. At least we're honest in saying we want to avert war until no longer possible.

This is what the world is coming to : we can disagree as long as we agree.

It won't be long before we're all called un-american.

[DeadEyes]

Originally posted by plenderj
But that's just like admitting there's an attack imminent

Originally posted by plenderj
Its the US&UK that will be attacking

so your also admitting there's an attack imminent or at least inevitable?

[simonm]

plenderj

But the thing is, its "us" that are deciding when to attack.
We're not trying to second-guess a mad dictator*.
Its the US&UK that will be attacking - not them being attacked first.

The preparations in Turkey will be defensive in nature. They are being setup in case of an Iraqi counter attack into Turkey and are not part of the planned invasion of Iraq. Therefore there is no basis for fellow NATO members to veto this plan.

Wally Pip

Whilst I don't fully agree with the arguments brought forth I'm glad that, for whatever reason provided, not ALL countries bend over and let themselves be manhandled by the london-washington axis.

Since when should we shut up and put up to please all the others ?

As far as I am concerned, there are two seperate issues being too easilly muddled. I think that all NATO countries are perfectly entitled to voice their objections to invading Iraq and even vote agaisnt it.

However, the issue that has lead to these countries being branded as traitors to the NATO alliance is the issue of defending Turkey. It is the way this issue is being exploited by Germany/France/Belgium to make their political point is what I find detestable. Not the fact that they are voicing their objections to a war with Iraq.

Meanwhile the France-German-Russia alternative plan is shot out of the water without being thoroughly considered or even brought before the UN.

Perhaps it would do the rest a bit of good to actually listen to us before branding us traitors. At least we're honest in saying we want to avert war until no longer possible.

As it happens, I actually think the French/German/Russian plan to increase the number of weapons inspectors and introduce U2 spy planes is a good proposal and needs to be given a chance. I just don't think that they should suspend their mutual defense obligations to NATO to make their point. Indeed, it only detracts from their point.

[simonm]

Honeybee

If I got it right, these three nations don't say that Turkey be left to fend for itself in the event of a war. But there's been no formal declaration of war as yet, and in this particular case, because there's no concrete evidence for starting a war, every effort must be made to stop a war. If Turkey's defences are bolstered through the NATO channels, it means NATO has resigned to the possibility of war as the only possibility, indirectly meaning NATO is bracing itself for war. Exactly what the three nations don't agree to.

Why wait until war is declared? What if Iraq launch an immediate and desperate attack into Turkey as soon as war is declared? It will be too late then.

[mendhak]

"I don't understand that decision. It affects the alliance in a negative way," said US President George W Bush.

He doesn't understand. He forms an opinion. This is "LOL"

[Wally Pipp]

Something needs to be very clear here : We DO NOT say that we're denying our obligations to NATO, the issue here is timing. That's the only issue. When friday comes and the report is read to the UN we'll fall in line with NATO.

Political agenda or not, we never said we disagreed with NATO's policy. Not at one point have we indicated we're not going to fulfill our obligations.

Besides all, German and Dutch patriots are already underway, American and British units are already in place. In the event of a strike they're more than ready to respond.
This all is internal rethoric of NATO. It's apparently a reprehensible idea that some member state is voicing its concerns over general policy.

So we should just bend over and let them have their way ? Like Mrs. Straw, Hoon and Blair who are rapidly becoming the private toy boys of Washington ?

[mendhak]

Oh, and I wouldn't call it betrayal. This is just the same thing as 'democracy,' only on a larger scale.

[simonm]

Wally Pip

Something needs to be very clear here : We DO NOT say that we're denying our obligations to NATO, the issue here is timing. That's the only issue. When friday comes and the report is read to the UN we'll fall in line with NATO.

Well, that remains to be seen...

So we should just bend over and let them have their way ? Like Mrs. Straw, Hoon and Blair who are rapidly becoming the private toy boys of Washington ?

As I said, on this issue, with the high likelyhood of war, bolstering the defenses of hte only NATO country bordering Iraq in advance of any possible conflict makes sense.

Whatever the lofty intentions of Belgium/Germany/France are, all they have done is detract from their very good efforts to make the inspection programme work. Paradoxically, I think they have lessened the likelyhood of America giving the inspectors more time.

[Wally Pipp]

Originally posted by simonm
Wally Pip

Well, that remains to be seen...

As I said, on this issue, with the high likelyhood of war, bolstering the defenses of hte only NATO country bordering Iraq in advance of any possible conflict makes sense.

Whatever the lofty intentions of Belgium/Germany/France are, all they have done is detract from their very good efforts to make the inspection programme work. Paradoxically, I think they have lessened the likelyhood of America giving the inspectors more time.

That's why I don't agree fully with the arguments provided by the three. I also think that we may be doing harm to the inspections.
On the other hand : documents are handed over and spy planes are being allowed. So I'd say there's some progress don't you think ? If we were not objecting what would be the point of asking these concessions from Iraq ?

On the other hand my major gripe is that all of a sudden we're dumped into the contra camp. Our intentions may be lofty but the real issue here is what it was all along : some countries dared to counterargue the hardline from London and Washington and they don't like it.

What they really want (cfr. the new Europe according to Rumsfeld) is that we Europeans agree with them without the merest whiff of criticism and/or comments.

We all know that when push comes to shove we'll fall in line and we'll fulfill our obligations. It's just because we've jumped off the war bandwagon that we're being lambasted. You know it and I know it.

[simonm]

Wally

We all know that when push comes to shove we'll fall in line and we'll fulfill our obligations. It's just because we've jumped off the war bandwagon that we're being lambasted. You know it and I know it.

Perhaps, but this incident has given them so much amunition to really lay into you three countries.

[simonm]

Has anyone heard this devestating attack on the French by republican congressman Pete King: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listen/listen.shtml

The only thing the French can advise on is how to surrender

[Wally Pipp]

The real issue here is that there are a few countries who have chosen the peaceful path with inspectors. They are largely ignored, ridiculed, insulted and placed on a sidetrack in favour of the war caravan riding to Baghdad.

These countries dared to defy the will of the Great Partners instead of caving in to them in the hope that the economical rewards, diplomatical advantages and political horsetrading comes in favour of them.

Therefore we're considered persona non grata. Maybe not the smartest move (which is why don't fully agree) but at least we have the balls to tell the world that (whatever our reasons may be).

What we really ought to do is take on a unified European point of view but that's not interesting enough to talk about eh ?
Once again this is the result of Europe's inability to reach a common decision and other's arrogance in insisting to force the decision for the Europeans upon them.

That's the real issue here. That's where all the rift stems forth. Not the man in Baghdad, he's a convenient target but rather the political tug-of-war over the Atlantic.

[simonm]

The real issue here is that there are a few countries who have chosen the peaceful path with inspectors. They are largely ignored, ridiculed, insulted and placed on a sidetrack in favour of the war caravan riding to Baghdad.

They weren't being ridiculed until now. Now it has been unleashed in earnest (from some key American figures).

These countries dared to defy the will of the Great Partners instead of caving in to them in the hope that the economical rewards, diplomatical advantages and political horsetrading comes in favour of them.

Perhaps, or perhaps they actually agree that Iraq is a serious threat that that needs to be dealt with by whatever means are necessary.

If you can't credit America's supportive allies with the possibility that they may genuinely believe they are in the right rather than just capitulating to the will of America for economic gain, why should anyone credit Belgium/France/Germany with any motivations outside of their own vested interests?

What we really ought to do is take on a unified European point of view but that's not interesting enough to talk about eh ?
Once again this is the result of Europe's inability to reach a common decision and other's arrogance in insisting to force the decision for the Europeans upon them.

Well, the majority of the European Union countries support America's line. But what are the chances of the EU ever unanimously agreeing on anything?

[Wally Pipp]

Originally posted by simonm
They weren't being ridiculed until now. Now it has been unleashed in earnest (from some key American figures).


I remember the "Old Europe" comments from Rumsfeld and they were from already 2 weeks ago


Perhaps, or perhaps they actually agree that Iraq is a serious threat that that needs to be dealt with by whatever means are necessary.

If you can't credit America's supportive allies with the possibility that they may genuinely believe they are in the right rather than just capitulating to the will of America for economic gain, why should anyone credit Belgium/France/Germany with any motivations outside of their own vested interests?


That is also a possibility but still we're in every right to frown upon evidence provided, the rationale and motives behind it and the rethoric used.
What these other countries do is entirely up to them but why should we allow being branded as 'traitors' ?
There are multiple sides to a story, certainly this story and most sides aren't seriously explored or conveniently forgotten.
We will certainly follow the majority's decision, such is democracy, but voicing your opinions and exercising your given rights is also democracy and that's what's being forgotten here (not by Mendhak I note).
So, whatever rethoric behind it, we've exercised our democratic right within the NATO. If they don't like it then they should abolish the veto rights in favour of a majority voting.
I'm sure if that was in place no-one would have made it such a big deal.
Are we not entitled to doubt ? Should we, because everyone else thinks it's supposed to be the way, keep our mouths shut and waive our rights because it's against the interests of all the others ? You as a staunch advocate of rights should understand that.


Well, the majority of the European Union countries support America's line. But what are the chances of the EU ever unanimously agreeing on anything?

Be that as it may there's always room for compromise. Should we all agree with the biggest bully on the block jsut because he pretends to be calling the shots ?

[plenderj]

Originally posted by simonm
Has anyone heard this devestating attack on the French by republican congressman Pete King: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listen/listen.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin//radio4...gID=1044956954

Holy mary and joseph.
What right do the americans have to decide who is and is not important in europe ?

France, Germany and belgium can **** off because the real people in power are coming to town.

Jesus christ.
How can american politicians get away with spouting such bull**** ?

[Arc]

Lets not forget that the only reason France/Germany/Russia are opposed to the war is because IRAQ owes them multi millions of dollars in OIL. These countries are disgracing themselves in front of the entire world and all over OIL money. I find it really hard to believe France cares sooo much about the IRAQI soldiers. There is obviously a hidden agenda that even a blind man could see.

Why is it France fights so hard against it's allies but bows down to it's enemys? They have a very long history of being nothing but cowards and trouble makers. IMO they should be banned from NATO and the UN.


Also, these "New Documents" should have been released when we first asked for them not 3 months later. And Hans Blix said the "New Documents" contain no new information..so what good were they? It's just IRAQ's usual stall tactics. As far as the U2 spy planes being allowed, Sadam has now come out and demanded that certain conditions be met in order for those flights to be allowed, something along the lines of we can not fire on IRAQI military sights in the no fly zones or something...just more bullcrap. He is in no position to be trying to demand anything.


The world has given Sadam enough chances to be a good boy and cooperate... it's obvious he never will.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Arc
There is obviously a hidden agenda that even a blind man could see.

Well I must be far-crippled beyond that of a blindman.
Of course, America, who's fast using more and more oil as the weeks go by, has no hidden agenda for oil.

[simonm]

plenderj

Holy mary and joseph.
What right do the americans have to decide who is and is not important in europe ?

France, Germany and belgium can **** off because the real people in power are coming to town.

Jesus christ.
How can american politicians get away with spouting such bull**** ?

Yeah, it's a bit over the top to say the least.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Arc
Lets not forget that the only reason France/Germany/Russia are opposed to the war is because IRAQ owes them multi millions of dollars in OIL. These countries are disgracing themselves in front of the entire world and all over OIL money. I find it really hard to believe France cares sooo much about the IRAQI soldiers. There is obviously a hidden agenda that even a blind man could see.

Let's assume for a moment that these three nations, and others which oppose war, are worried about their economic ties with Iraq. So what's wrong with that? The US wouldn't be feeding us oil in case Saddam blew up the oil wells in Iraq. If the US cannot give any convincing proof of Iraq possessing WMDs and intending to use them, it's all crap by GWB. And other nations do have a right to voice their concerns about their own economic problems arising out of a possible war. If the US president cannot do anything about the US economy, it doesn't mean all other nations should do the same.

Apart from Iraq and US, do you have any bloody idea how many economies will be wrecked by a near-inevitable oil crisis in case there's a war against Iraq? All this for not a single credible piece of evidence and you talk of world responsibilities...

.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by simonm
Honeybee

Why wait until war is declared? What if Iraq launch an immediate and desperate attack into Turkey as soon as war is declared? It will be too late then.

There's no credible evidence of Iraq having WMDs. All that war-talk by the US wouldn't last a minute if Iraq and US were engaged in a court battle in the international court.

More than that there is absolutely no proof Iraq harbours intentions of attacking another country. From all the statements being issued from Baghdad, I personally think they will attack neighbouring nations only if the US strikes them, in a desperate attempt to spread the damage they are taking from the US around them. So I can easily discard the assumption of "just in case" again because there's simply no proof whatsoever.

And if we are to assume that Iraq might have secret plans of invading Turkey, private assistance by the US is fine. If NATO has to come into picture, it has to be only when the war is imminent and that is going to be decided only when the NATO nations feel all other options have failed. In short, the NATO bolstering the Turkey defences means only that NATO accepts there's no other means of resolving the dispute. Turkey is free to ask other nations privately for help.

Have there been any reports of any border disturbances or skirmishes between Iraq and Turkey recently, which can be attributed to any secret plans of Iraq to attack Turkey?

.

[plenderj]

Just like I said above - Iraq wants to be left alone.
America is forcing saddam into a corner - and that is such a bad idea.

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by plenderj
Well I must be far-crippled beyond that of a blindman.
Of course, America, who's fast using more and more oil as the weeks go by, has no hidden agenda for oil.

This is interesting.
Taken from:
http://www.bp.com/centres/energy2002/index.asp

USA's daily oil consumption went down by 0.2 % from 2000 to 2001,
While France went up by 0.9 %,
and Germany went up by 1.4 %


{Three thumbs up to Azerbaijan, who decreased by 25.8 % !!!!
While, conversely, Thumbs down to Qatar and its 19.7 % increase.}


-Lou

[honeybee]

Originally posted by NotLKH
This is interesting.
Taken from:
http://www.bp.com/centres/energy2002/index.asp

USA's daily oil consumption went down by 0.2 % from 2000 to 2001,
While France went up by 0.9 %,
and Germany went up by 1.4 %


{Three thumbs up to Azerbaijan, who decreased by 25.8 % !!!!
While, conversely, Thumbs down to Qatar and its 19.7 % increase.}


-Lou

The US has resorted to economic warfare whenever its own economic interests have been at the receiving end, so I personally don't see what's wrong with the three nations and others to oppose a war purely based on their oil interests. And I do think they are opposing not just because of the oil issue.

If you do want to single out the oil issue, please conduct a study of how many countries will be facing severe economic crises because of oil shortage during and after the war. That itself should tell you how critical the decision to start or not to start a war is. And for such critical decisions there has to be a proof beyond any doubts. We can't go by rhetoric war talk and mere photographs of vehicles taken from air or loose electronic intercepts which, for all we know, could have been taken completely out of context. This war may push many developing countries back to the starting square.

Not to exclude the possibility that if the US does capture Baghdad, it would be controlling the biggest oil reserves in the world

.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by honeybee
Not to exclude the possibility that if the US does capture Baghdad, it would be controlling the biggest oil reserves in the world

And tons of chemical and biological weapons supposedly

[honeybee]

Originally posted by plenderj
And tons of chemical and biological weapons supposedly

.

[simonm]

Honeybee

There's no credible evidence of Iraq having WMDs. All that war-talk by the US wouldn't last a minute if Iraq and US were engaged in a court battle in the international court.

What's that got to do with the possibility of Iraq attacking Turkey?

More than that there is absolutely no proof Iraq harbours intentions of attacking another country. From all the statements being issued from Baghdad, I personally think they will attack neighbouring nations only if the US strikes them, in a desperate attempt to spread the damage they are taking from the US around them. So I can easily discard the assumption of "just in case" again because there's simply no proof whatsoever.

They obviously believe there is a possibility that Turkey might suffer some kind of reprisals from Iraq if war breaks out. Therefore it is logical that NATO (with it's mutual defense treaty) should seek to prepare Turkey for such an eventuality. You don't need proof to prepare your defenses.

And if we are to assume that Iraq might have secret plans of invading Turkey, private assistance by the US is fine. If NATO has to come into picture, it has to be only when the war is imminent and that is going to be decided only when the NATO nations feel all other options have failed. In short, the NATO bolstering the Turkey defences means only that NATO accepts there's no other means of resolving the dispute. Turkey is free to ask other nations privately for help.

No, NATO is oblidged to help Turkey defend itself. OK, war has not yet broken out and Turkey has not yet been attacked so technically speaking the NATO treaty has not been breached. The actions of Belgium/France/Germany go against the spirit of the treaty however.

Have there been any reports of any border disturbances or skirmishes between Iraq and Turkey recently, which can be attributed to any secret plans of Iraq to attack Turkey?

Not that I have heard but that's not the point. All you need is an intelligence report with the mere suggestion of a threat to prepare defenses.