Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
Sorry but I have to disagree. NATO wasn't in Iraq because it was "IRAQ" and they weren't asked. The article specifically states a member has to be attacked in Europe or North America or on Turkish Territory or territory owned by NATO members . It also doesn't state "attacked first" it simply states "attacked".
$1:
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 1
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 Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey 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.
Also, apparently if Turkey is attacked on the Anatolian peninsula it can be construed as an attack on NATO which is the scary part because that's going to be the area the Russians will likely hit first if this escalates.
I'm thinking that nobody back in 1949 ever thought one of the NATO members would go rogue and start a conflict so, there was no need to put in an "attacked first" clause which would have, when you think about it hamstrung European NATO members when it came to defending themselves against a Warsaw Pact build up.
I've bolded the important part.
Attacking first isn't self defense. Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations was put in so that there doesn't need to be a UN resolution made to respond to an aggressive attack. That's the entire point of Article 5, to enumerate the collective defense measures by members of NATO, removing that requirement to come to the aid of an ally.
If Turkey hits first, which they technically already have by shooting down Russian planes (if what Bart says is true), we are not obligated to respond to an article 5 invocation. No NATO country is.
Also they weren't asked because it wouldn't have gone through. We were asked to go to Afghanistan, and we did. America invoked article 5 on 9/11, and Afghanistan was the response to that. If they thought they could get us into Iraq with them, they would have. But since they were the principal aggressor, then it wasn't a valid use of Article 5.
Yes NATO did invoke article 5 of the Washington Treaty and that was because the US was attacked on North American soil. But if the Americans could have proved that Iraq had anything to do with the attack even after they'd attacked Iraq in 1990 it would have meant that they could have invoked the same article to get NATO assistance. But, my guess is that they thought that the best NATO would do is participate in Operation Enduring Freedom because no one seemed to agree with their "weapons of mass destruction" excuse for attacking Iraq.
Like I said before. I'm not positive how proxy wars work under the NATO Charter but I do know that the UN has no military authority over NATO in any way shape or form because if they did, there would be no need for NATO.
Hell if UN Resolutions or treaties were binding and enforceable our PM wouldn't have been able to slough off our obligations as a signatory on the ones for the UN Drug Resolutions on NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES.
But that's a whole other argument.
Most NATO countries would never consider invoking Article 5 unless they were blind sided by an attack. But since Erdogan isn't normal the possibility remains open that, because this current conflict with the Russians is happening in Syria that if it happens to escalate into the Anatolian peninsula or Europe he will call on NATO to honour their treaty obligations. The question then becomes, will NATO fall for his bullshit.
