The US CANNOT launch an attack by themselves

**plenderj** · Sep 13th, 2001, 06:22 AM

The US has sort of gotten itself into an off situation.

Basically, North America is part of NATO. As is europe.
Under NATO law/ruling, if one of the member states is attacked as an act of war, it will be deemed as an attack on all member states, and there should be a collaborated retaliation.

President Bush declared that the terrorism was an act of war against the US, thus bringing NATO into the situation.

So, because the US is bound by NATO, they cannot launch an attack by themselves. It must be done with NATO.
Obviously there's nothing stopping Bush from attacking anyone, but it wouldnt be a wise move politically speaking.
Reason being that for one problem he's abiding by international treaties, and another problem he's decided to forget about them.

**kedaman** · Sep 13th, 2001, 06:28 AM

So you mean chances are low that there won't be any hastely taken action in scale of war?

**plenderj** · Sep 13th, 2001, 06:31 AM

Yeah.
I cannot see any nation taking a hasty strike against any country.

If something is going to happen, it has to, by international law, come from NATO themselves.
And if its from NATO I would imagine its going to be a well thought out plan.

**jjortiz** · Sep 13th, 2001, 10:18 AM

Nato has implemented Article 5. Which if any place in Europe or USA are attacked. The attacked country is allowed to make a decision. Which George Robertson Nato president says they stand behind America on their decision. That means we have no problems attacking another country.

**plenderj** · Sep 13th, 2001, 10:21 AM

Well as I understand it, normally speaking if this happened, NATO would take charge. But maybe NATO's just stepped to one side on this one ?

**Patoooey** · Sep 13th, 2001, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
Yeah.
I cannot see any nation taking a hasty strike against any country.

If something is going to happen, it has to, by international law, come from NATO themselves.
And if its from NATO I would imagine its going to be a well thought out plan.

Well....not an expert on International law as such but from what I've heard, one question pops up.

When has the USA ever really given a **** about international law and why would we start now just because some toads in Europe invoked some silly rule ??

They only invoked it to make them-selves look good anyway and if that dullard ***** president of ours allows Europe to call the shots on this, he will dis-appear off the radar screen just like his 'Daddy" did.

**SurfDemon** · Sep 13th, 2001, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Patoooey

Well....not an expert on International law as such but from what I've heard, one question pops up.

When has the USA ever really given a **** about international law and why would we start now just because some toads in Europe invoked some silly rule ??

They only invoked it to make them-selves look good anyway and if that dullard ***** president of ours allows Europe to call the shots on this, he will dis-appear off the radar screen just like his 'Daddy" did.

*Surf Demon shakes his head sadly in disbelief at Patoooey's simplistic view of life*

You obviously need some serious education. US is only a small part of the world (despite what your TV and schools preach to you). Grow up, and try to read some non-american papers (they are free on the web), I think you will quickly realise how bad an isolationist stand point would be for America.

SD

**Patoooey** · Sep 13th, 2001, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by SurfDemon

*Surf Demon shakes his head sadly in disbelief at Patoooey's simplistic view of life*

You obviously need some serious education. US is only a small part of the world (despite what your TV and schools preach to you). Grow up, and try to read some non-american papers (they are free on the web), I think you will quickly realise how bad an isolationist stand point would be for America.

SD

An 'isolationist stand point' would be bad for all. As far as the USA being a small part of the country and how I need to grow up, keep in mind we have a military and economy bigger then most of the world combined. We fall, you fall.

What happened tuesday is something that can make a nation go mad and your silly comments about papers on the web show you simply don't understand one thing.

I don't give a **** about what foreigners think. So-called 'allied status' not withstanding. This is NOT your problem. WE need to extract vengence on not just the people personally responsible but the policies by most of the Middle Easts nations that allow this **** to happen. Rules and laws cannot be a hinderance to that vengence.

chenko · Sep 13th, 2001, 10:48 AM

*shakes head*

*Sigh*

**kedaman** · Sep 13th, 2001, 10:48 AM

Look we're all in the same boat, if you shoot a hole in it, we all sink

**chrisjk** · Sep 13th, 2001, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Patoooey
just because some toads in Europe invoked some silly rule ??

They only invoked it to make them-selves look good anyway and if that dullard ***** president of ours allows Europe to call the shots on this, he will dis-appear off the radar screen just like his 'Daddy" did.

NATO are not a bunch of european toads...it's an alliance between 18(?) or so countries, some european countries are not even in NATO. At no time did NATO say the US could not start action alone, what nato were saying is that were the US to start fisticuffs, all NATO countries would provide assistance, be it aircraft, ships, troops, medical supplies, ammunition, whatever.
If it were upto me, I'd say **** you all anyway, why the hell should we waste tomahawks and 2000lb bombs when it's your problem. Out nuclear subs and aircraft carriers can stay in dock thank you very much.

**plenderj** · Sep 13th, 2001, 10:50 AM

Jesus christ kedaman's getting very poetic these days isnt he

Must be old age or something...

**chrisjk** · Sep 13th, 2001, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Patoooey
we have a military and economy bigger then most of the world combined.

That's just plain arrogance. Figure this: GDP of US 2000: 9 trillion dollars
GDP of all countries in the world: 40 trillion

Looks like you've got your sums wrong.

**SurfDemon** · Sep 13th, 2001, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Patoooey

An 'isolationist stand point' would be bad for all. As far as the USA being a small part of the country and how I need to grow up, keep in mind we have a military and economy bigger then most of the world combined. We fall, you fall.

What happened tuesday is something that can make a nation go mad and your silly comments about papers on the web show you simply don't understand one thing.

I don't give a **** about what foreigners think. So-called 'allied status' not withstanding. This is NOT your problem. WE need to extract vengence on not just the people personally responsible but the policies by most of the Middle Easts nations that allow this **** to happen. Rules and laws cannot be a hinderance to that vengence.

You are showing your incredible nievity here.

Europe has larger economy than US.

India and China each have 3-4 time the population. Canada has much larger land mass than US. You're military is over-extended around the world (I will explain this for you - You have troops in so many hot spots, and you are committed to defending you own country that it is considered logistically difficult for you to actually concentrate an attack somewhere without weakening another part of your deployment).

Besides, what use is a large military when so many other countries can strike back with biological/gas/nuclear/terrorist attacks.

It is interesting that you think my comment that you should read international newspapers is "silly". Of course US newspapers do not lie to you, and of course they do not tailor the news to fit the public mood

Try reading some of them. You might be surprised at how the world views America.

As for thge middle-east allowing it to happen. I would suggest that lax airport security is most responisble for allowing this to happen.

Maybe you would like to kill them as well

SD

**plenderj** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:01 AM

Not wanting to get up anyone's nose, but its that arrogance that allowed this ****up to happen.

**CiberTHuG** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:02 AM

This is a moot point.

We have the full support of NATO under Article 5, and we have the support of nearly every NATO nation on a individual level. I honestly think Prime Minister Blair is more outraged then President Bush.

I am sure America plans to take no action without the support and help of NATO. Mind you, if the action is small enough (a simple surgical strike or cruise missle) then it may look like NATO is not involved, but I'm certain they have no complaints.

Taking this a step further, Secretary General Annan is also very outraged. I would imagine the UN could be bent to police any nation that may bear the brunt of a NATO attack. If you look at the 13 members of the Security Council, you won't see anyone would will vote against such a measure.

America does not want to do this alone. And America won't have to do this alone.

**CiberTHuG** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:05 AM

Oh yeah, almost forgot, SD. Patoooey is a self-centered, racist bigot. He is as bad as Abdul. There is no need to argue with him.

**Patoooey** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by kedaman
Look we're all in the same boat, if you shoot a hole in it, we all sink

So in other words, no matter what happens to you or your people, you would always just smile and turn away peacefully and have everyone assume your an idiot and a coward ??

Everyone is talking about 'getting those responsible' but that ain't going to happen. Most presumably died in the planes.

No matter what , we are going to HAVE to carpet-bomb a city or two. To let all those rat-bastards out there know that we will respond when attacked, no matter how that attack occurs.

And Europe will stand by and go "Tsk, Tsk, Tsk" and make all sorts of snide remarks feigning the air of superiority that I've grown to hate over the years.

It's time to remove all US troops from all of Europe and South Korea and everywhere else. Time for the "superior" beings populating other countries to be responsible for your-selves... which would be the first time since early last century.

**CiberTHuG** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Patoooey
So in other words, no matter what happens to you or your people, you would always just smile and turn away peacefully and have everyone assume your an idiot and a coward ??

You obviously don't know what a coward is.

Everyone is talking about 'getting those responsible' but that ain't going to happen. Most presumably died in the planes.

Yeah, sure.

No matter what , we are going to HAVE to carpet-bomb a city or two. To let all those rat-bastards out there know that we will respond when attacked, no matter how that attack occurs.

But we need proof of who did it. We are a nation that respects due process, that maintains the presumption of innocence. We will not begin a witch hunt here today!

And Europe will stand by and go "Tsk, Tsk, Tsk" and make all sorts of snide remarks feigning the air of superiority that I've grown to hate over the years.

You don't understand who our friends are. Europe will not discourage our actions. They will very likely offer military hardware and troops to the effort should it come to full scale war. And they will do this with honor and willingly. This is not a time for America to go alone. And no one is going to ask us to.

You must be blind. We have support. No one expects us to attack alone.

It's time to remove all US troops from all of Europe and South Korea and everywhere else. Time for the "superior" beings populating other countries to walk, like you don't talk.

Again, you fail to understand that we have friends and neighbors, and we help each other.

**Patoooey** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by CiberTHuG
Oh yeah, almost forgot, SD. Patoooey is a self-centered, racist bigot. He is as bad as Abdul. There is no need to argue with him.

Wow......Such a comfirmed opinion of someone who exists only in cyber-land.

I'm amazed how people take all this Net **** seriously. I have about 30 different names on the Wonderful-Wide-Web(as you seem to view it) and basically have a different view with each. It's called ****ing with people !!!

My best one is where I'm a woman from LA who is trying to become an actress. People really seem to like to talk to 'her'

ROFLMAO.

Morons.

**chrisjk** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Patoooey
It's time to remove all US troops from all of Europe and South Korea and everywhere else. Time for the "superior" beings populating other countries to be responsible for your-selves... which would be the first time since early last century.

No US troops here, other than the ones stationed at your own bases. A few in former yugoslavia, but there's some from every country in UN there...

**Gaffer** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:19 AM

Every rat-bastard already knows that the US will respond if aggrivated. That's probably what they want you to do. he solution is not, however, to carpet-bomb cities full of innocent men women and children. Do you see this?

I can fully appreciate why you're upset here, but I'm not sure why you want to make enemies with people like ourselves that fully sympathise with your nation.

**Gaffer** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Patoooey
Morons.

Big up ya mate. You are indeed a ****

**chrisjk** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Gaffer
Big up ya mate. You are indeed a ****

amen to that!

**Patoooey** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Gaffer

Big up ya mate. You are indeed a ****

Yep.

**CiberTHuG** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Patoooey
Wow......Such a comfirmed opinion of someone who exists only in cyber-land.

I'm amazed how people take all this Net **** seriously. I have about 30 different names on the Wonderful-Wide-Web(as you seem to view it) and basically have a different view with each. It's called ****ing with people !!!

My best one is where I'm a woman from LA who is trying to become an actress. People really seem to like to talk to 'her'

ROFLMAO.

Morons.

You are such a 1user. This is not a place for you to play make-believe and waste our time. This is a forum for public debate. This is just a real as a group talking on a street corner, or legislators in congress. Would you walk into any of these groups and enjoy being a struggling, transvestite actress?

Now go away, and seek some professional help. I am honestly concerned about your lack of a stable, healthy self identity.

**Patoooey** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by chrisjk
amen to that!

Hey Chris....want me to switch to 'Angela" and we can have cyber-sex ?? I hear that's all you ever get anyway.

heheheheheheheh

**chrisjk** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Patoooey
Hey Chris....want me to switch to 'Angela" and we can have cyber-sex ?? I hear that's all you ever get anyway.

Damn, I told Parksie to keep that quiet

**Patoooey** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by CiberTHuG
Now go away, and seek some professional help. I am honestly concerned about your lack of a stable, healthy self identity.

What ???

Wow.....you equate being the cyber-stud you obviously are, with a stable and healthy self identity ??

WOW !!!

Uhmmmm....sorry to tell you junior, but most "Professionals" would tell you to "Put down the mouse and step away from the keyboard".

Well...it's lunch time here people....time for a trip to KFC or some-such.

Ta-ta.

LOL

**CiberTHuG** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Patoooey
want me to switch to "Angela" and we can have cyber-sex?

I have a very serious question. This is not a joke, I just have an interest in human psychology and social interactions with technology.

Do you find role-playing sexual encounters via an alter-gender personality (ie Angela) entertaining or stimulating? Can you explain to me your attraction to this activity?

**CiberTHuG** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Patoooey
you equate being the cyber-stud you obviously are, with a stable and healthy self identity ??

So you think I'm a "cyber-stud"? Should I be flattered?

Uhmmmm....sorry to tell you junior, but most "Professionals" would tell you to "Put down the mouse and step away from the keyboard".

Based on what?

**parksie** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:36 AM

Chris - sorry, when my mum told me about you 3 it was far too comical NOT to say anything

PS: Patoooey, I agree that you need help. There is no difference between me on the web and me in reality. If you feel the need to act out a different persona then you obviously don't like the personality you have, which is your problem.

**Gaffer** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:36 AM

Hope you choke on it, ye patronising <unt

LOL

HOOOOOHHAAAAAAAAAAAA

**Patoooey** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by CiberTHuG

I have a very serious question. This is not a joke, I just have an interest in human psychology and social interactions with technology.

Do you find role-playing sexual encounters via an alter-gender personality (ie Angela) entertaining or stimulating? Can you explain to me your attraction to this activity?

My attraction is people like you, who ACTUALLY TAKE THIS **** SERIOUSLY.

This is La-La land. Nothing matters. (well....as long as you don't create a virus and have the FBI kick your door down or go over the bandwidth limit of your ISP)

As far as my alter-egos, they change depending on my mood or the silli-ness going on. Last week, when they were talking about the 'lock-box' of Social Security, I made a name where I was an old guy living on 700 bucks a month, selling cans I picked out of garbage cans and bitching about how I 'fought in Dubya-Dubya 2' and nobody cared.

Had alot of fun with that.

**chrisjk** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by parksie
Chris - sorry, when my mum told me about you 3 it was far too comical NOT to say anything

Urrgh! That's the last time I cyber with your mum..and she was expensive!

**CiberTHuG** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Patoooey
This is La-La land. Nothing matters.

I'm sorry, you have to explain this. What is "this", and what makes it immue?

And please, use words as small as neccessary, we are all very interested to hear.

**Patoooey** · Sep 13th, 2001, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by parksie
PS: Patoooey, I agree that you need help. There is no difference between me on the web and me in reality. If you feel the need to act out a different persona then you obviously don't like the personality you have, which is your problem.

I just love all the people who claim how they are the same in person as they are online.

Everyone online is smart and friendly and goodlooking and so-on and so-forth.

I've met dozens of people in person from a 'New Jersey' chat room and NOBODY is like they claim to look/act online....Including me......personally I'm 6 foot 2, eyes of blue with a 22 1/2 inch ****.....yes it's useless at that size, but it keeps my thighs warm.

This contraption called the Net is now man-kinds greatest cause of self delusion. Before this, that greatest cause was called the Democratic Party.

Oh my....now we're going to have a roar of "right wing bastard" responses ?? Wait....let me change to my 50-something conservative business man alter-ego. <<Just imagine superman ripping off his suit but without all the muscles>>

ROFL

**Serge** · Sep 13th, 2001, 12:17 PM

Hi all, I've been fllowing this thread and it made me sad to see that people (by having different views) are in the feud. It is unfortunate what happened here in US and regardless of NATO, US will take military actions against those who are responsible.
But here is my view on this.

If US takes this act as an act of War and declared a War against Terrorism, then it doesnt even matter who did it.
They DO know what countries train terrorists and hide them when needed. If you have a real War, casualties are expected (even innocent people). The reason why US needs an approval from NATO is because they think that the terrororists are not only against US but all civilized countries. NATO and other countries that are not part of NATO are ready to stay side by side with US to bring the terror down. I think at this point it is inevitable that some city or even a country will be destroyed. US spends trillions of dollars per year on the millitary teachnologies and they were attacked by people with plastic knifes (ironic, isn't it?) .

It is hard to comprehend what had happened to New York and Washington. At this time all resources are being used to find survivers and bodies from under the wreckage. But US will never leave this alone. And even if some countries will not agree with their actions. Many people are saying that why would innocent people have to be punished? Yes, sure it is hard, but even if US proves that Bin Laden is guilty of this terror what would they have to do to prevent this from happening? Even if they send some bombs and destroy some millitary bases in the Middle East will not stop it from happening. They have to send a message to the world with much bigger intentions.

Just my opinion.

**filburt1** · Sep 13th, 2001, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by plenderj
The US CANNOT launch an attack by themselves

They will still probably be the largest contributor for obvious reasons.

**Kzin** · Sep 13th, 2001, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Serge
Hi all, I've been fllowing this thread and it made me sad to see that people (by having different views) are in the feud. It is unfortunate what happened here in US and regardless of NATO, US will take military actions against those who are responsible.

I don't get your point. At the moment the NATO involvement and UN support seems to mean that this is being carried out in a far more civilized and impressive way than we might have guessed it would be at first - by due process of international law rather than as a feud. Culprits are being found, formerly intrasigent nations are offering to hand over people who we might otherwise have expected them to shelter

Originally posted by Serge
US spends trillions of dollars per year on the millitary technologies and they were attacked by people with plastic knifes (ironic, isn't it?) .

Not really - It just means that they are strong against certain types of attack. World response makes it much less likely that anyone is going to want to do this again (no-one benefited - everone disowned it). Even if someone does try again by implementing UK or if necessary Israeli levels of airline security that type of attack can be stopped or a least reduced significantly in the future.

Thread: The US CANNOT launch an attack by themselves

Thread Tools

Display

The US CANNOT launch an attack by themselves

Re: The US CANNOT launch an attack by themselves

Posting Permissions