Trump re-upped his disdain for European allies that have refused to take part in the U.S. and Israel's military operation against Iran.

President Donald Trump has warned the U.K. and France that the “U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore,” as he vented his frustration over the close allies’ refusal to join military action against Iran.

  • pet the cat, walk the dog@lemmy.worldEnglish
    310·
    1 day ago

    Really? Let’s check that:

    The decision to invoke NATO’s collective self-defense provisions was undertaken at NATO’s own initiative, without a request by the United States, and occurred despite the hesitation of Germany, Belgium, Norway, and the Netherlands.

    Two small military operations were ultimately authorized under the terms of the resolutions: Operation Eagle Assist, consisting of the deployment of several aircraft to North America; and, Operation Active Endeavour, a mostly symbolic naval deployment in the Mediterranean Sea. The United States, which was skeptical of NATO capabilities, elected not to seek further Article 5 support and the alliance did not participate in the ensuing American invasion of Afghanistan, though some individual members did make contributions outside of the NATO command structure.

    • TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      141·
      1 day ago

      You check it with a Wikipedia source. Not the most trustworthy of sources.

      Here’s another source.

      Article 5 has been officially used only one time in history. This occurred after the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.1 On September 12, 2001, the North Atlantic Council (NAC), which is the political leadership of NATO, agreed that if the attack was found to be directed from abroad, it would be treated as an action covered by Article 5.3

      The alliance formally confirmed that Article 5 applied on October 2, 2001. This happened after the United States presented evidence showing that the attacks were carried out by the al-Qaeda terrorist group and directed from outside the country.4 In response, NATO began its first-ever military mission in direct support of the United States. This was called Operation Eagle Assist, and it involved sending NATO planes to patrol and protect the skies over the U.S.5

      Another measure was Operation Active Endeavour, which was a naval mission in the Mediterranean Sea. This operation was designed to help detect and stop terrorist activities by monitoring shipping lanes. These actions showed how the alliance could use its military assets for collective defense even when the threat came from outside of Europe.

      The fact remains article 5 was used after the terrorist attack on the US and NATO members responded. It has been the only time article 5 was used, and it was in response to an attack on the USA. Just like NATO article 5 states, the US it’s allies came to help. Not just a tiny operation, but years and years of deployment in Afghanistan. I myself took part in operation Active Endeavour for which I earned 2 medals.

      So Trump his argument that NATO won’t help the US while the US always helped NATO, is bullshit.

      Most NATO countries even helped when the US attacked Iraq without proper cause. There are also NATO countries helping the US in counter drugs operations around the Carribean, even outside jurisdictional zones of overseas territories.

      The US has always been a war monger, with economy thriving around that. Since the second World War the US has been the agressor, the bully, not the protector it claims to be.

      • pet the cat, walk the dog@lemmy.worldEnglish
        28·
        1 day ago

        Did your military brain forget that Wikipedia is not a primary or even a secondary source, but they cite those?

        Ever heard of RAND Corporation? Well their ‘The Counterterror Coalitions: Cooperation with Europe, NATO, and the European Union’ says:

        NATO reacted swiftly and strongly to the September 11 attacks. Within hours, the North Atlantic Council (NAC) unanimously condemned the attacks and pledged its assistance and support. NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, speaking with Secretary of State Colin Powell later that evening, encouraged the United States to formally invoke the collective self-defense provisions included in Article 5 of the NATO Charter. Robertson later recalled that he told Powell that “invoking Article 5 would be a useful statement of political backing, that it would help the United States build an instant anti-terror coalition based in part on the moral authority behind Article 5, and that it would be a deterrent—in that whoever was responsible for the attack would know they had taken on not just the United States, but also the greatest military alliance in the world.” U.S. officials soon responded that they would welcome an invocation of Article 5, even though they later stressed that they had not officially asked NATO to do so.

        U.S. officials soon responded that they would welcome an invocation of Article 5, even though they later stressed that they had not officially asked NATO to do so.

        How about NATO Defense College, whatever that is?

        There are differing accounts of what happened on 9/11. It seems that the deputy director of the Secretary General’s private office immediately suggested invoking Article 5. The Dean of the Council and Canadian ambassador David Wright also mentioned Article 5 that day, and told US ambassador Nicholas Burns that NATO should invoke it. Burns agreed, then sought – and got – approval from the White House, and formally made the proposal to the Council. A former US official offered this author a slightly different version: reportedly, the United Kingdom requested the Secretary General at the time to ask Member States to declare an Article 5 contingency. The Secretary General then claimed that the United States had asked for NATO support. In fact, the White House had approved the invocation of Article 5, nothing more.

        the White House had approved the invocation of Article 5, nothing more

        Meaning approved, but didn’t invoke themselves.

        The United States – legitimately consumed, as it was, with national priorities – did not seriously consider a full-fledged NATO operation in Afghanistan. US Central Command General Tommy Franks reportedly said in an interagency discussion: “I don’t have the time to become an expert in the Danish Air Force.” (It is to be recalled that 9/11 came only two years after the Kosovo war, during which slow and contentious decision-making was often criticized as “war by committee.”)

        A few days after the attacks, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told the Council that he “didn’t come here to ask for anything.” Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz threw more cold water when speaking to the Council on September 26; he emphasized that the mission should determine the coalition, with what some called a “we’ll call you if we need you” attitude. After formally invoking Article 5 on October 2, NATO agreed two days later on a set of eight measures, notably to protect the North Atlantic airspace (Operation Eagle Assist) and the Mediterranean (Operation Active Endeavour). Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan remained a US-, not NATO-, led operation (though NATO further expanded its non- Article 5 geographical reach – after first doing so in the Balkans beginning in 1994 – by intervening in Afghanistan after 2003).

        • TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          51·
          24 hours ago

          My point is that NATO countries came to aid as required by NATO article 5 after the attacks on the US on 9/11, which has been the only time NATO article 5 was used. While Trump claims NATO countries never helped the US.

          What is your point exactly?

          So far you’ve come with loads of text proving my point, what are you trying to achieve here?

          Did your military brain forget that Wikipedia is not a primary or even a secondary source, but they cite those?

          Are you aware anyone can edit Wikipedia? I used to work in Intel, you don’t have to tell me how sources work. I can tell you Wikipedia is forbidden to be used in Intel.

          Here’s an article on Wikipedia and it’s flaws.

          • pet the cat, walk the dog@lemmy.worldEnglish
            38·
            24 hours ago

            So you immediately forgot that you wrote:

            “There’s only one NATO country who used NATO article 5 “an attack against one is an attack against all”: the US after 9/11”.

            Whose words were those, could you elaborate? Probably not, as you apparently have severe dementia making you forget everything after a few minutes.

            Are you aware anyone can edit Wikipedia?

            Can everyone also edit RAND Corporation’s documents? No, but that doesn’t matter to you because you can’t tell one from another anymore, thanks to your extensive brain damage.

            • ranzispa@mander.xyzEnglish
              11·
              5 hours ago

              Man, chill out and learn to have a conversation. Insults were absolutely uncalled for. If there’s a misunderstanding in the wording of things you should try to solve it in order to carry on a conversation online.

              Enjoy the sunny day!

            • TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              51·
              24 hours ago

              So you claim article 5 wasn’t used when the US was attacked in 2001? Again, what are you trying to prove here?

              Question: did NATO countries came to aid when the US was attacked on 9/11 2001, in compliance with NATO article 5 “an attack against one is an attack against all”? Or did NATO countries never helped the US, like Trump claims?

              Another question: do you have to be so rude?

              • pet the cat, walk the dog@lemmy.worldEnglish
                28·
                22 hours ago

                Just to make it clear to your evidently severely delayed comprehension: if you served in NATO’s nothingburger deployments in 2001, it was only because your country preemptively bent down to slob on Bush’s knob, without him asking for it.

                • TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                  41·
                  21 hours ago

                  So you claim that when a country joins NATO and agrees to its terms, it’s a matter of choice whether they oblige to the rules of being in NATO?

                  Is that how your insurance company works too? The contract you sign states: “If you pay a monthly fee we will cover expenses in case of theft.” Case of theft: “Nah mate, go fuck yourself.”

                  Can you at least acknowledge article 5 was used once during the entire existance of NATO, when the US was attacked on 9/11?

                  And can you acknowledge article 5 states “an attack against one is an attack against all”, which is a term countries are to agree with when they join NATO and should follow in case one of it’s allies gets attacked?

                  So when the US was attacked, it was the duty of all NATO members, as stated by the terms of NATO, specifically article 5, to join the war with the US?

                  Also, I didn’t serve in 2001, I was still in high school back then. I did Active Endeavour in 2012 as my country, among many others, were pulled into the American shit show for over 20 years.

                  Sorry mate, I don’t understand why something as simple as this can be so hard for someone to understand. You even provide sources yourself proving my point yet you claim I’m wrong and are pretty rude.

                  Maybe try to find some joy in life, go out and drink some beer, meet some friends, I think you need it.

                  • pet the cat, walk the dog@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    23·
                    5 hours ago

                    It’s hilarious that someone can seriously think that NATO sloshing around in Mediterranean for a bit and flying around over the US a little constituted any kind of a serious response. The US themselves said they didn’t want any more of that silliness.

                    And, you once again contradict yourself and weasel out of what you said in the first place. The fact, which you just confirmed in the above comment, is that the article 5 response was triggered by NATO. The US didn’t ask for it.

              • pet the cat, walk the dog@lemmy.worldEnglish
                15·
                23 hours ago

                Amazing how you weasel unabashedly out of what you yourself have said before.

                Question: “There’s only one NATO country who used NATO article 5 “an attack against one is an attack against all”” — which country is that? Can you answer that without dodging your own phrasing?