The recent act of cruise missile diplomacy is a violation of article 1 of the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO treaty).
This shows ONCE AGAIN that the United States of America lack the moral high ground to demand anything from its NATO allies.
S O
.
2017/04/07
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It would appear that NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg disagrees with you.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-nato-idUSKBN1791IB
But then, everyone with half a brain does also.
I'm writing for the complete brain faction here because honestly, I don't think people with only 50% brain functionality could follow my points.
DeleteIt would appear your English comprehension is somewhat less than perfect.
DeleteIn a "most unique" sort of way.
Well, sadly your text incomprehension isn't unique.
DeleteI "got" what was written, but apparently you didn't get that I used it as a base to respond to a somewhat indirect with a more subtle insult.
Amusingly, the word "unique" is one that cannot be modified (http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000269.htm). It is, therefore, less than perfect to try to do so.
DeleteWell, my motto is "The most unique MilBlog" ...
DeleteAs mentioned elsewhere, I have learned long ago that such statements are expressions of disagreement, not statements of fact.
DeleteThose who agree with good reason usually find it appropriate to bring forward conflicting facts or reasoning on specific issues.
Not to mention the U.S. Constitution AND the "waging aggressive war" grounds for convicting the Axis leaders of WW2.
ReplyDeleteMy country really is massively hypocritical about war...
The problem is the normalisation of military action. To attack another country with military force was self-evidently understood to be an act of war in times gone by. Nowadays it's normal for the U.S. to bomb some country that's no threat to itself, on some distant continent.
DeleteEverybody got used to it, which of course doesn't make it legitimate or legal.
Well, in other times gone by, it would be considered a punitive expedition; quite a different scale compared a war (those on the receiving side may have disagreed at times.)
DeleteThose were counted as wars during the 19th century, actually.
DeleteWhat would you do if you were leader of the free world and had the military capability to send a strong message that such behaviour will not be tolerated. Could you just sit back and watch?
ReplyDeleteRON.F
There's no "Leader of the free world". That term was largely laid to rest in 2003 and was very rarely used afterwards.
DeleteI could certainly wait for the results of thorough investigations instead of reacting on preliminary info.
Furthermore, I would have made such nonsense unlikely in the first place by pointing out how much military equipment is nearing shelf life and could easily be dumped into certain places where the Assad regime doesn't want it to go.
Assad sure wouldn't want 1k Javelin MCUs, 5k Javelin missiles, 1k 120 mm mortars, 500k 120 mm mortar bombs + 2M auxiliary charges to appear in NW Syria.
But who would we give that equipment too? The moderates have become much weaker and can we truly tell who they are any more, let alone ensure it doesnt fall into the wrong hands. The only other option is the kurds, which would really damage relations with the Turks not to mention how willing are they to extend their operations beyond what they see as their borders.
DeleteRon.F
It could be an effective threat without clarification who would get the supplies.
DeleteBesides, whether a faction is numerous or not depends a lot on cash, for the active fighters are few in relation to the population size and many men could be recruited as mercenaries if pay was ensured. Finally, weakness or strength depends a lot on the availability of such supplies.