Would you be prepared to go to war over this?

[misterboo]

As a politics student i understand how the events of the past few days could swell dangerously into a war. Due to the rules of NATO membership, under Article 5, if one member country is attacked, it is considered an attack on all member countries. This means, hypothetically, and in a worst case scenario, we could see many European countries engaged in fighting with the Americans in parts of Afganistan in the near future. Would you be prepared to sacrifice the peace we have enjoyed for generations to protect your democracy and freedoms, or would you refuse to fight and stop this crisis getting out of hand even further?

 

[MadelynIris]

Unfortunately, 'the peace' has already ended. It ended yesterday.

We didn't end the peace that we've enjoyed all these years. They did.

There have been over 50,000 people go through Bin Laden's training camps over the years. I'd say it's going to escalate no matter what we do unfornuately.

Seems best that we escalate it, on our own terms, instead of them.

Mark
http://www.mp3.com/madelyniris

 

[z edge]

hell yes.

 

[U2Byrd]

I would and will fight for the children of America to have the freedom I have been so blessed to have up until yesturday. I will fight to defend freedom. If you are a person who has never had freedom I would not expect you to understand. Those who have lived with freedom I think will agree with me. A lot of Americans take freedom for granted yes the US has problems there isn't a place on earth that doesn't have some problems but it is still in my opinion the best place on earth to live. I would like to think we all feel that way about the country we live in be it France, England, US ect.

------------------
Dream up the kind of world you want to live in.
Dream OUTLOUD. At HIGH VOLUME.
Peace to U2 and 2U
U2Byrd

 

[Like O2]

Originally posted by misterboo:
Would you be prepared to sacrifice the peace we have enjoyed for generations to protect your democracy and freedoms, or would you refuse to fight and stop this crisis getting out of hand even further?

Peace was sacrificed yesterday morning the moment the first plane struck the WTC.

The only way to assure future generations of peace is for free countries around the world to unite and demonstrate with full force that democracy WILL BE DEFENDED!!!!!

------------------
This certainly does not feel very Elvis.

 

[jsuhr]

I'd fight my ass right off.

 

[J-Tree]

Originally posted by misterboo:
As a politics student i understand how the events of the past few days could swell dangerously into a war. Due to the rules of NATO membership, under Article 5, if one member country is attacked, it is considered an attack on all member countries. This means, hypothetically, and in a worst case scenario, we could see many European countries engaged in fighting with the Americans in parts of Afganistan in the near future. Would you be prepared to sacrifice the peace we have enjoyed for generations to protect your democracy and freedoms, or would you refuse to fight and stop this crisis getting out of hand even further?

I'd hate to be all technical right about now. I mean, I'm not even American and I'm ready to rock this bastard's ass.

However, I'm a political science student too. NATO wasn't designed to deal with terrorist threats. Article 5 works on the basis where if a member state is attacked by a non-member state (unnamed at the time, Russia), then it is considered as an attack to all member states... Cold War era. Article 5 assumes that "states" are in conflict rather than terrorists vs. states. As a result, I think that changes the playing field a bit. Whether that allows member states to decline participation, I don't know.

I dunno, let me know what you think.

------------------
Tell the ones who hear no sound, who's sons are living in the ground... Peace on Earth

 

[STING]

All rules on the books can be rewritten as far as NATO is concerned. It is a Military alliance that has already performed missions that were never concieved of and are not on the books. When the rules were written, terrorist were not a large menace on the world stage. Enter the 21st century. This is an attack on all NATO nations. Even if it is not supported by another state. Plus, if any state has in anyway aided the terrorist, given them safe haven, funds, training, etc, they have attacked NATO as well.

 

[J-Tree]

I realize that NATO's books can be rewritten, don't get me wrong.

Originally posted by STING:
Plus, if any state has in anyway aided the terrorist, given them safe haven, funds, training, etc, they have attacked NATO as well.

That's not entirely true. Article 5 strictly states an armed attack. Although I believe after this incident, NATO will be re-evaluating the agreement in regards to it's role against terrorism.

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.

I've said enough for one day.
JT


------------------
You're singing out of tune but the beat's in time; it's us who makes the noise.

 

[DoctorGonzo]

NATO voted to invoke Article 5 of it's charter sometime Wensday afternoon.

This is the first time in the organization's 52 year history that this has been done.

I'd say this just raised the stakes a bit.

[This message has been edited by DoctorGonzo (edited 09-13-2001).]

 

[StarsnStripes]

Originally posted by misterboo:
Would you be prepared to sacrifice the peace we have enjoyed for generations to protect your democracy and freedoms, or would you refuse to fight and stop this crisis getting out of hand even further?

According to recent polls, 94% of Americans approve retaliation, 66% EVEN IF it means harm to civilians in harboring countries.

------------------
Sometimes the most powerful thing you can do for someone is to just tell them to fuck off. I am told to fuck off rather a lot by these three gentlemen.

 

[STING]

J-tree,
a country that trains and arms a terrorist that attacks another nation has in itself launched an armed attack on that nation.

 

[U2One]

Originally posted by misterboo:
Due to the rules of NATO membership,

My question is, why is NATO still around???? Wasn't their only reason for being formed to stop Russia and Communism???? Well the Cold War is over. Or maybe I'm just an idiot and don't know my history.....