Posted on 02/08/2015 7:54:09 PM PST by Krosan
I would like to point out the misconception you have about the WW2. Listing from north to south Russia invaded Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania while they were secretly allied with Nazi Germany. Molotov-Ribbentrop pact secret protocol drew a dividing line in the middle of Europe and Hitler and Stalin invaded the countries on their side of the line. Poland was split by that line so they gracefully held a joint victory parade in Brest-Litovsk.
From my perspective, NATO became a renegade against its own charter when this organization began a bombing campaign in Libya at the behest of the United Nations (fostered by Obama as part of his “lead from behind” alternative).
But the only NATO article 5 operation throughout the whole history has been response to 9/11 and Afghanistan. This is the only time that article 5 has been invoked.
Libya was just countries agreeing to do something and benefiting from having harmonized their command structures and trained together.
My point was it wasn’t their purview to be doing it. This was OBAMA - too chicken to have our military do it because he was running for re-election. So he quietly helped UN push NATO into it. From my perspective it wasn’t training. It was undeclared war.
But it wasn’t a NATO operation. It was a coalition. US is so powerful that the President can always make a “strong suggestion” to countries and influence them to comply, but there was no treaty obligation. What the existence of NATO caused is that after this operation was started the forces from different countries were more efficient in working together.
Google “NATO Libya bombing campaign”. I never said anything about a treaty obligation - my intent was to convey there was no obligation. In that respect “training” was a piss poor excuse, IMO.
Why are you so hostile? Maybe it is my fault as I didn’t express myself clearly enough. I’ll try again.
* It was not a NATO operation
* For example a non-NATO Sweden committed 8 jets + more (more than larger Canada) and NATO member Germany didn’t even show up
* Majority of a coalition was made of NATO members
* That was good as these countries were going to be there anyway, but due to harmonized command structure and joint trainings there were less f*ck-ups and this probably saved some lives
When I said joint training helped I meant that when the key part coalition going had harmonized command and experience from joint training it meant lives are saved and things go smoother. I did not mean that it was a live fire training exercise.
I’m not trying to be hostile - really.
I just don’t buy into all the diversion about the reason for the ‘concerned’ NATO member countries bombing and killing in Libya. They didn’t save any lives bombing it - they just killed less innocents because their kill rate on the intended targets was good “through their training, I guess.”
Obama wanted it and started it with his “lead from behind” stuff (he didn’t want to be seen as a sole-US invader of Muslims). Nothing good came from it in my opinion.
But this sounds more like you just oppose Libya operation and not NATO. I don’t even want to argue about that. Can we just put that aside?
I think that this operation would have happened NATO or no-NATO. Only thing NATO changed is that our side did better than without NATO. Had less losses and all that yadayada (but losses and success are important).
I don’t want to argue about Libya!
Politicians say who we go to war against. I want to pursue the thought saying - wherever the target is it is better to be stronger than weaker. If you don’t agree about target it is one thing. Another thing is arguing toward lessening effectiveness against any target so that those politicians CURRENTLY in power would have less options.
I look at it by the old farmer’s saying “You fool the field one time, the field will fool you nine times in a row”. Weakening one Obama does not deserve suffering nine times the field taking its revenge.
You’re right. It’s Libya. My only connection was the NATO related connection with it. Not specifically NATO per se, but still, the connection. I don’t like that it allowed itself (even if by name only, and not just by me) to be associated with the action.
One thing you mentioned “Politicians say who we go to war against” is now the norm because Congress abrogated its clear responsibility to hold Presidents to limited, clearly defined goals for short term actions.
As one very last comment on the “weakening the field....” thing, I can only say this. I’d say that stopping Obama from undermining governments and destabilizing them in Muslim countries for the benefit of dubious Muslim groups such as the Brotherhood and promulgating instabilities that allow such groups as ISIS to proliferate IS (to me) nine times the field.
It’s been good discussing with you. Again, I’m not trying to be hostile, but we have a President who will use anything and everything, including subverting any organization or group he can to help radical Islam. I have absolutely no doubt about this.
Obama is not NATO. Obama is something we have to survive and not let him do too much damage to the alliance of Western Civilization, Greece and Turkey.
I also don’t believe Obama can do what he likes. I think he is “stupid left” instead of “demonic left” and is just now meeting the real world. American system of checks and balances does not allow outright dictators. I have said in other threads that since Victoria Nuland has been a career foreign service officer for over 20 years it means she is not an Obama creature. I believe the whole big state department machine leans away from dumb.
I suspect most of the career foreign service officers hate Obama and Susan Rice. Just for incompetence. Probably hate Hillary too as she is just so wrong.
with regards,
Optimist
US, France, Italy and several others would have bombed Libya no matter If NATO existed or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.