4 ms·

This is technically true and also 100% bullshit. It is phrased that way, but I have never heard anyone actually believe that NATO is anything except the US prom

This is technically true and also 100% bullshit. It is phrased that way, but I have never heard anyone actually believe that NATO is anything except the US promising to use its military and its nuclear weapons to defend weaker European states that didn't have the ability to credibly defend themselves from the USSR.

jacquesm 5y ago
You must be the only person then that slept through Yugoslavia, 9/11, the Iraq war, Afghanistan, Libya and others.
- jolux 5y ago
  NATO didn’t authorize the Iraq War.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    You have your parties mixed up I think. You probably meant to write 'UN'. NATO does not 'authorize wars'. Even so, in fact the 'alliance' contained many nations not in NATO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing The really bad part is that they were acting during the 'first installment' against people that weren't part of the attack on the United States to begin with (it was essentially a pretext), and the second time they outright lied about the intelligence regarding the WMDs (of which there already was conflicting data collected by the UN weapons inspectors).
    - hef19898 5y ago
      Oh yes, I almost forgot the "Coalition of the Willing" against the "Axis of Evil". Still sounds like straight of a Marvel movie. Including the Mission Accomplished speak on a carrier, also that part is more like Michael Bay.
    - skissane 5y ago
      NATO does “authorize” military operations - the NATO ambassadors meet and agree to take military action, which means that NATO assets and staff can be used to help plan and support the action. NATO never authorised the invasion of Iraq, so NATO’s own assets and facilities could not be used. By contrast, Libya and Kosovo were NATO authorised operations, so NATO resources could be used. NATO’s own resources are essentially office buildings, computer and communication systems, bureaucrats, and seconded military planners. The US didn’t need them for the Iraq War, although it would have liked to have had them involved, because of what that would have meant politically/diplomatically/symbolically. Despite claiming a broad “coalition”, only three countries actually contributed fighting assets to the initial US invasion - the UK, Poland, and Australia - only the first two are NATO members, and Poland at the time had only recently joined (only 4 years prior). 3 more NATO members (Netherlands, Italy and Spain) provided non-combatant support. I don’t see in what meaningful sense it could be said to be something NATO did. More NATO members joined in the occupation forces after the initial invasion. But that was never an official NATO operation because those require unanimous approval, and certain member states (most notably France) were always opposed to that. NATO eventually did become involved in Iraq - training the new Iraqi government’s military. But no fighting ever happened in NATO’s name.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        > By contrast, Libya and Kosovo were NATO authorised operations, so NATO resources could be used. NATO was very careful to obtain requests from the UN in both cases, resolutions 1244 and 1973.
        skissane 5y ago
        NATO has never said they have to get UN approval to engage in non-defensive military operations. Consider the NATO intervention in Kosovo: NATO member states sought UN Security Council approval for the intervention; when it became clear China and Russia would veto it, NATO went ahead and intervened anyway in the absence of any UN authorisation. NATO still reserves the right to engage in non-defensive military operations without UN authorisation, whenever its member states can unanimously agree that is appropriate.
- wolf550e 5y ago
  When other countries join US adventures, it's not because of the NATO defense pact.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Again, NATO isn't a defense pact, and in some of those adventures NATO took a leading role.

jacquesm 5y ago

You must be the only person then that slept through Yugoslavia, 9/11, the Iraq war, Afghanistan, Libya and others.

jolux 5y ago
NATO didn’t authorize the Iraq War.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  You have your parties mixed up I think. You probably meant to write 'UN'. NATO does not 'authorize wars'. Even so, in fact the 'alliance' contained many nations not in NATO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing The really bad part is that they were acting during the 'first installment' against people that weren't part of the attack on the United States to begin with (it was essentially a pretext), and the second time they outright lied about the intelligence regarding the WMDs (of which there already was conflicting data collected by the UN weapons inspectors).
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Oh yes, I almost forgot the "Coalition of the Willing" against the "Axis of Evil". Still sounds like straight of a Marvel movie. Including the Mission Accomplished speak on a carrier, also that part is more like Michael Bay.
  - skissane 5y ago
    NATO does “authorize” military operations - the NATO ambassadors meet and agree to take military action, which means that NATO assets and staff can be used to help plan and support the action. NATO never authorised the invasion of Iraq, so NATO’s own assets and facilities could not be used. By contrast, Libya and Kosovo were NATO authorised operations, so NATO resources could be used. NATO’s own resources are essentially office buildings, computer and communication systems, bureaucrats, and seconded military planners. The US didn’t need them for the Iraq War, although it would have liked to have had them involved, because of what that would have meant politically/diplomatically/symbolically. Despite claiming a broad “coalition”, only three countries actually contributed fighting assets to the initial US invasion - the UK, Poland, and Australia - only the first two are NATO members, and Poland at the time had only recently joined (only 4 years prior). 3 more NATO members (Netherlands, Italy and Spain) provided non-combatant support. I don’t see in what meaningful sense it could be said to be something NATO did. More NATO members joined in the occupation forces after the initial invasion. But that was never an official NATO operation because those require unanimous approval, and certain member states (most notably France) were always opposed to that. NATO eventually did become involved in Iraq - training the new Iraqi government’s military. But no fighting ever happened in NATO’s name.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      > By contrast, Libya and Kosovo were NATO authorised operations, so NATO resources could be used. NATO was very careful to obtain requests from the UN in both cases, resolutions 1244 and 1973.
      - skissane 5y ago
        NATO has never said they have to get UN approval to engage in non-defensive military operations. Consider the NATO intervention in Kosovo: NATO member states sought UN Security Council approval for the intervention; when it became clear China and Russia would veto it, NATO went ahead and intervened anyway in the absence of any UN authorisation. NATO still reserves the right to engage in non-defensive military operations without UN authorisation, whenever its member states can unanimously agree that is appropriate.
wolf550e 5y ago
When other countries join US adventures, it's not because of the NATO defense pact.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Again, NATO isn't a defense pact, and in some of those adventures NATO took a leading role.