against article 5.
Explain what this means in real world scenario, where let's say, Germany is attacked and the interests of Turkey makes Turkey to veto against firing up the article 5.
What happens. Again, in the real world and not in lalaland with batmans and unicorns therein, farting happy feelz to everybody.
NATO member states can always veto
Cooper Wilson
Other urls found in this thread:
nato.int
nato.int
en.wikipedia.org
forums.anandtech.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Dylan Wilson
No they can’t.
Are you thinking of france’s position that the UN Security Council can veto nato actions? Which is bull
Jason Robinson
I thought so.
No answer.
No NATO to binlan then.
Jacob Gomez
Euros are ruled by women and foreigners and won’t fight
Jackson Long
They all can veto. At least last time I checked years back. Maybe they have wisened up.
Henry Ortiz
No, article 5 is much stronger than that, however they can individually decide the retaliatory action needed. I.e. decide to do fuck all back.
nato.int
Gavin Turner
That's strange.
About 10 years ago I read the docs and it stated clearly that the member states can veto and that the article 5 requires unanimous decision.
What you're saying just makes this worse. They can pretend to be batmans and then send a box of socks to aid Germany and a strong letter to condemn the attacker, all within article 5.
Luke Green
It really fucking annoys me to the core, when the debate is going on around NATO here, that everybody are just so fucking stupid. Cannot see a simple thing like this and get even litte doubts about this. It cannot work. Democratic military infrastructure is a joke. Lethal joke.
James Sanders
General Bad Ass:
>OK, soldiers. Today we are going to go through the enemy like shit goes through a goose
Soldier boi:
>we have decided to play vidya, instead, we voted as the first thing in the morning
Levi Rogers
>nato.int
which part of the treaty says that? You just invented something that isn't there
Carson Turner
>what this means in real world scenario,
that USA can be obligued -or not- about intervention.
Kevin Hill
>Any Forums posts are diplomatically binding
If only, my fellow autist... The world would either be completely fixed or destroyed within 48 hours.
Camden Cooper
-->
Everybody else have neglected to keep their own armies in good shape except USA. If Biden weren't president, I could propose a Nordic alliance with direct deals with USA. Biden in charge and Kamala as vice president.. oh boi.
What a mess.
Finland, other hand, has no worries against any conventional army. How it goes in Ukraine and factor in our difficult territory which is very defenssible, we should just keep our moufs shut and be prepared to shoot in all directions of the compass.
Brody Green
Any Forums decides what happens in the world. Everybody knows this.
Sebastian Powell
> Explain what this means in real world scenario
Erdogan triggered article 5 in 2012 when Syrian Civil War was starting.
And everyone told him to fuck off. That's what the real scenario was back then, and that's what it will be in real life too.
en.wikipedia.org
> NATO Secretary-General Rasmussen later said in advance of the October 2012 ministerial meeting that the alliance was prepared to defend Turkey, and acknowledged that this border dispute concerned the alliance, but underlined the alliance's hesitancy over a possible intervention: "A military intervention can have unpredicted repercussions. Let me be very clear. We have no intention to interfere militarily [at present with Syria]."
Carter Campbell
Yes.
All these
>UN
>EU
>NATO
>etc
are just circle jerking clubs. They have flamboyant titles, everyone of them, nice offices with flamboyant names.. They seem like they are busy, and they are, in masturbating on their self importance, which always, at the end of the day, is nothing but Le Wangeours (flamboyant wanker) warm air coming from dried out balls.
I argue that Binlan has NEVER benefitted from even ONE such treaty. Binlan has just lost money, a fucking gigatons.
Quite expenssive international group masturbation.
Lincoln Nguyen
>"A military intervention can have unpredicted repercussions.
Reminded me of Monty Python's joke:
>I'd like to leave the army, sir.
>good heavens, man, why?
>well, it's dangerous
Eli White
Pretty sure you're confusing article 5 with the procedure to join NATO here.
Cooper Ward
Nope.
Austin Brown
Then you're just remembering wrong or read some bs. Go read the actual treaty.
Dylan Fisher
I admit, this is bizarre.
Found an old topic which disqussed veto in NATO:
forums.anandtech.com
Also, this is from 2013, last time I've checked this was 10+ years ago. Maybe they have wisened up and dicthed the veto option.
en.wikipedia.org
"The US, the UK, and most other NATO countries opposed efforts to require the UN Security Council to approve NATO military strikes, such as the action against Serbia in 1999, while France and some others claimed that the alliance needed UN approval.[57] The US/UK side claimed that this would undermine the authority of the alliance, and they noted that Russia and China would have exercised their Security Council vetoes to block the strike on Yugoslavia, and could do the same in future conflicts where NATO intervention was required, thus nullifying the entire potency and purpose of the organization. Recognizing the post-Cold War military environment, NATO adopted the Alliance Strategic Concept during its Washington summit in April 1999 that emphasized conflict prevention and crisis management.[58]"
>hmm