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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
So? I stated it was used only once, when the US was attacked. As this is one of the articles of NATO.
How?
That’s what NATO article 5 means. How is that so hard for you to comprehend?
The US was attacked, it’s NATO allies came to aid as required by being a member of NATO.
You claim the US didn’t ask for it, but they did when they created NATO after WW2 with the other nations, as it is one of the prerequisites for being a member of NATO. How are you unable to understand the meaning of what article 5 means?
Let me explain it in simple terms.
You have a friend. You agree with your friend that when one of you gets into a fight, the other one automatically joins in to help you. So you’re in a bar, get into a fight with this asshole who punches you in the face, so your friend who you made this deal with jumps in and starts bashing this asshole’s face.
That’s NATO article 5.
Are you going to complain you didn’t ask your friend first to join into the fight, even though you already made a pact with him?
The US asked for it by being a member of NATO. If they don’t want help from it’s pact allies they shouldn’t have created or agreed to article 5.
On another note:
But boy, did they beg for help with Afghanistan and Iraq. And they begged everyone not to leave as they were fucking everything up big time. And now they’re begging for help with another war, which they started just like Iraq. And fucking it also up big time.
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?