Matrix Games Forums

Do you think that any nation is going to undertake serious military action (home soil + possessions excepted) without the full agreement of the US?

Not when home soil and possessions excepted.

But then I thought that the main purpose with NATO was the home soil and possibly the possessions.

ORIGINAL: operating

Ya, now you are showing your age![:D] That was joint effort by both Great Brittan and France to take back the Suez Canal until the USA pulled the rug from under the whole deal IIRC. My third grade class had quill pens then.[:)]

warspite1

Except I wasn't around then [;)] BTW it was the UK, France and Israel.

But its a serious matter - sounds like just a bit of Euro bashing. Is he suggesting that Brezhnev or Kruschev (sorry spelling) was afraid of any one European power??

ORIGINAL: Orm

Do you think that any nation is going to undertake serious military action (home soil + possessions excepted) without the full agreement of the US?

Not when home soil and possessions excepted.

But then I thought that the main purpose with NATO was the home soil and possibly the possessions.

warspite1

I was thinking of the Falklands and the fact that the UK took action despite the protestations of the US and many of our European 'friends'.

As it turned out both the US and France came down ultimately with the UK, but many didn't... But because this was an attack on British owned territory, the British decided it was for them to decide what action to take.

However, if - in this example - Turkey were invaded, then I would expect a NATO response. That is what its there for.

If Obama doesn't lead NATO into battle, no other NATO member will lift a finger militarily even if another member is invaded

This quote suggested that some/all members of NATO should act regardless of what its main member does, and furthermore, is a very strange thing to say (unless of course I have the idea of NATO wrong and the treaty states that NATO countries will act if one is attacked - unless they don't want to and can opt out and leave to others).

As I say - just sounds like Euro bashing.

Like Brittan: Wouldn't be Turkey's decision on calling for help from NATO, if another country DOW on it followed up with some kind intrusion of it's sovereign soil? However, if was Turkey DOW on another nation, then it would be up to NATO to join in? Or, Would it be up to member states to arbitrarily chose to join the conflict or not? My belief is that NATO was set up more for a defensive organization (mutual aid) than an offensive organization. Although in recent times NATO has been on the offensive outside of the domain of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

ORIGINAL: operating

Like Brittan: Wouldn't be Turkey's decision on calling for help from NATO, if another country DOW on it followed up with some kind intrusion of it's sovereign soil? However, if was Turkey DOW on another nation, then it would be up to NATO to join in? Or, Would it be up to member states to arbitrarily chose to join the conflict or not? My belief is that NATO was set up more for a defensive organization (mutual aid) than an offensive organization. Although in recent times NATO has been on the offensive outside of the domain of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

warspite1

My understanding is its a defensive organisation. If attacked it would expect help from its NATO allies. If Turkey is the aggressor - then I see no requirement (unless they wanted too) for those allies to assist.

Not sure why you said Like Britain?

I'm not aware that Turkey has been supplied arms to Russian insurgents (surely they do other for countries or insurgent groups), which is accepted to some extent. What if other countries are supplying arms to the Turkish Kurds? How do you think the Turks should respond? "You reap what you sow", is what comes to mind... [&:] Come to think of it: I don't think Turkey has DOW on Syria, yet the Turks bomb in Syrian territory, even at times in Iraq... No innocence there...

I think the smart thing to do for Assad is to give the Syrian Kurds autonomy, a state of their own. One less headache..

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: operating

Like Brittan: Wouldn't be Turkey's decision on calling for help from NATO, if another country DOW on it followed up with some kind intrusion of it's sovereign soil? However, if was Turkey DOW on another nation, then it would be up to NATO to join in? Or, Would it be up to member states to arbitrarily chose to join the conflict or not? My belief is that NATO was set up more for a defensive organization (mutual aid) than an offensive organization. Although in recent times NATO has been on the offensive outside of the domain of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

warspite1

My understanding is its a defensive organisation. If attacked it would expect help from its NATO allies. If Turkey is the aggressor - then I see no requirement (unless they wanted too) for those allies to assist.

Not sure why you said Like Britain?

Article 5

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.

Article 6

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America,
, on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

ORIGINAL: warspite1
You make it sound like this is a recent development which seems a little strange.

Sorry I was trying to convey my thoughts without getting political. I’ll try and clarify. The current administrations actions in world affairs make it seem to me he believes that any NATO member can take the lead on military issues at the flip of a switch. I think he’s made a fundamental misjudgment on the state of military readiness in the world and fails to understand it’s the US or no one in the lead. This has lead to power vacuums opening up all around the globe which opportunistic leaders with ill intent are now moving to fill.

His announcement today about leaving a few troops in Afghanistan gives me a faint glimmer of hope that he is finally starting to get it. But as far as Putin is concerned I think it’s too late. The only thing that will reign in Putin is Putin himself, I doubt this administration will do anything to stop him even if he attacks the Baltic state members of NATO. Obama will “red line” it with talking points and speeches about NATO obligations, but when push comes to shove I think Putin has his ticket and no longer even listens to what he says. I pray I’m wrong but I bet Putin tests him before his term is up.

So even though my statements seem a simple statement of fact to you, there are many people in the world who simply do not understand Geopolitics and the military the way most of us in this forum do. We have been witness to on the job training with this administration and it has left me with a firm belief no one should be allowed to run for office without passing an exam first. The job is simply too important to world peace to allow that chance will give us someone who knows what they’re doing every 4 years.

Jim

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Not sure why you said Like Britain?

Falkland Islands: Britain went on it's own, by choice I believe..

ORIGINAL: operating

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Not sure why you said Like Britain?

Falkland Islands: Britain went on it's own, by choice I believe..

warspite1

Deleted. Getting too complicated and I think we are both on the same page.

Burns: I understood what it was you were doing...and once again I whole heartedly agree. Thanks for spelling it out. Believe it or not, there are some who read these forums who would disagree.

I think Obama realized his mistake in Iraq...and that's why he's not pulling out of Afghanistan (He is still making a mistake in Afghanistan with his rules of engagement and his saying there will only be support personel). No one knew that ISIS or some other group would rise, and I think there was a lot of "hope" (I hate that word) that Iraq would/could take care of itself. Iran was able to take control of the Iraqi government. US troops in Iraq kept everything relatively stable after the surge...the Sunni areas (tribesmen) were brought on board as key elements for stability in at least their areas...when the US left...anarchy, suspicion of the Iranian influenced Iraqi government in the non-Shite areas (the Sunni tribesmen thought they could trust the US, even though they could not trust their own government). This same mistake in Afghanistan could have seen the Taliban coming back into power there...in fact they are constantly testing the various conditions and situations.

Never tell your enemy what you will do, and never conduct a mostly political war...this has been happening these last 7 years (among other things).

Definitely some "who disagree"... and you are on very thin ice [8|]

I'm going to settle for padding my post count in my quest for my 5th Star... and will forget I read this...

Good night.

Yep - this is getting very close to political.

Cheers

Pip

FEAR NOT. THE GREYS WILL RESCUE US FROM CERTAIN DOOM!!

Would it be too political if I simply pasted a link to a Washington Times article from this morning? The article discusses troop levels in Afghanistan.

In the interest of steering things away from politics, let’s discuss what we think Putin’s long term goals in the Middle East are. Personally I don’t think propping up Assad is his main intent. I think he’s embarked on a cold war era goal of positioning himself to be in a position to control most of the world’s oil supply.

If he can turn Iran into a satellite state of Russia, he’ll create lots of military bases along the Persian Gulf. Russia will then be within 10 minutes of wiping out Saudi oil wells at will and he’ll then have two deterrents he can use to leverage what he wants from the world. His nuclear arsenal and shutting off the oil spigot.

Building a Russian military base on the Mediterranean is already a guarantee, once he builds it up he’ll have clear airspace to threaten any NATO member that borders the Mediterranean Sea. Russia will not leave once they help Assad stabilize Syria. I think from this point forward Syria is a puppet state of Russia and if he then clears out ISIS on his own, I bet he does the same thing in Iraq too.

Jim

Hi Pip,

Can we get a little more leeway here? There's been a lot of interesting discussion and information being shared here. Yes, there is some that is not on the straight and narrow. Hey! That goes on all over this forum, some funny, some not so funny, it takes all kinds to make up society and this thread is a pretty good example. Besides, the discussion is not so much about the past as it is in the present, which is what we don't always get here.

Thanks, Operating

let’s discuss what we think Putin’s long term goals in the Middle East are. Personally I don’t think propping up Assad is his main intent.

One could suspect that the proposed gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey play part in current events.

There is a interesting quote about this on the linked wiki page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline

In 2012 an analyst cited by Ansa Mediterranean suggested that Qatar's involvement in the Syrian civil war was based in part on its desire to build a pipeline to Turkey through Syria:


"The discovery in 2009 of a new gas field near Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus, and Syria opened new possibilities to bypass the Saudi Barrier and to secure a new source of income. Pipelines are in place already in Turkey to receive the gas. Only Al-Assad is in the way. Qatar along with the Turks would like to remove Al-Assad and install the Syrian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood

Yes the above quote caught my eye from your suggested site..