Originally posted by FMF
Perhaps you did not or do not understand what N.A.T.O. is.

Perhaps you don't. NATO is a Cold War relic established to protect Western Europe from the always very slim threat of Soviet invasion. It serves no useful purpose now and should be abolished. There is no way its original mission or purpose can be squared with military interventions in the Middle East or Northern Africa.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Perhaps you don't. NATO is a Cold War relic established to protect Western Europe from the always very slim threat of Soviet invasion. It serves no useful purpose now and should be abolished. There is no way its original mission or purpose can be squared with military interventions in the Middle East or Northern Africa.

Agreed. But the military action in Libya was under the banner of N.A.T.O. and that is - at least one reason - why the U.S. was involved... the fact that N.A.T.O. serves no useful purpose now, and there being no way its original mission or purpose could be squared with what it did in Libya, notwithstanding.

Originally posted by normbenign
N-orth A tlantic T reaty O rganization.

What treaty was NATO conforming to in going to war with Libya?

You should look up N.A.T.O.'s rationale on wikipedia or elsewhere for yourself, normbenign. I have no interest in trying to explain it, and certainly not to argue its corner. To frame the Libyan crisis as an issue for N.A.T.O. was risible. But it goes some way to explaining the U.S. involvement, about which whodey seems to be feigning surprise.

Originally posted by FMF
Agreed. But the military action in Libya was under the banner of N.A.T.O. and that is - at least one reason - why the U.S. was involved... the fact that N.A.T.O. serves no useful purpose now, and there being no way its original mission or purpose could be squared with what it did in Libya, notwithstanding.

I disagree. Government leaders, including President Obama, decided to intervene in Libya. They then used NATO as the operating arm of that intervention.

If NATO did not exist, they would have intervened anyway.

Originally posted by FMF
You should look up N.A.T.O.'s rationale on wikipedia or elsewhere for yourself, normbenign. I have no interest in trying to explain it, and certainly not to argue its corner. To frame the Libyan crisis as an issue for N.A.T.O. was risible. But it goes some way to explaining the U.S. involvement, about which whodey seems to be feigning surprise.

Why would I want to know more about NATO than that the US ought to be out of it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Perhaps you don't. NATO is a Cold War relic established to protect Western Europe from the always very slim threat of Soviet invasion. It serves no useful purpose now and should be abolished. There is no way its original mission or purpose can be squared with military interventions in the Middle East or Northern Africa.

It is scary, but like a stopped clock twice a day, I am with you on this 100%.

How about the UN?

Originally posted by normbenign
It is scary, but like a stopped clock twice a day, I am with you on this 100%.

How about the UN?

There's some useful organizations inside the UN umbrella.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If NATO did not exist, they would have intervened anyway.

Yes, maybe so. Although using N.A.T.O. meant that it was other N.A.T.O. members that were flying virtually all the sorties.

Originally posted by normbenign
Why would I want to know more about NATO than that the US ought to be out of it.

It was you who asked "What treaty was NATO conforming to in going to war with Libya?" not me. I really don't know what you do or do not "want" to know about it.

Originally posted by FMF
Yes, maybe so. Although using N.A.T.O. meant that it was other N.A.T.O. members that were flying virtually all the sorties.

Not all NATO countries even joined in the operation (Germany being the largest). Non-NATO countries were in the operation. NATO was a fig leaf.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Not all NATO countries even joined in the operation (Germany being the largest). Non-NATO countries were in the operation. NATO was a fig leaf.

Well, be that as it may, I can hardly see how the U.S. and N.A.T.O. intervention was surprising to whodey, especially when he was predicting it during the run up to it starting, while at the same time urging the U.S. to intervene in Sudan.

Originally posted by FMF
Well, be that as it may, I can hardly see how the U.S. and N.A.T.O. intervention was surprising to whodey, especially when he was predicting it during the run up to it starting, while at the same time urging the U.S. to intervene in Sudan.

It was surprising to woodman only because it was an effective deployment that happened on Obama's watch. Same can be said for all the other gop trolls whose favorite meme is that Obama has achieved nothing in office.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Not all NATO countries even joined in the operation (Germany being the largest). Non-NATO countries were in the operation. NATO was a fig leaf.

I don't think every single NATO country must directly participate for something to constitute a NATO action. The operation wasn't so large scale that it required troops from every country. Even so, Germany certainly didn't completely opt out.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,752709,00.html

The government of German Chancellor Angela Merkel elected not to take part in the United Nations-approved military operations in Libya. On Wednesday, however, her cabinet voted to increase Germany's role in surveillance flights over Afghanistan in an effort to free up NATO AWACS planes for ongoing air strikes in North Africa.

The decision, said Defense Minister Thomas de Maizière, is a "political sign of our solidarity with the alliance." When it comes to standing by its NATO allies, he added, the government doesn't "require instruction from anyone."

Wednesday's decision came in the form of a new draft mandate for Germany's involvement in Afghanistan. It calls for up to 300 German troops to man AWACS surveillance flights over Afghanistan in support of ongoing operations there.

Originally posted by FMF
Well, be that as it may, I can hardly see how the U.S. and N.A.T.O. intervention was surprising to whodey, especially when he was predicting it during the run up to it starting, while at the same time urging the U.S. to intervene in Sudan.

Predicting the obvious is hardly prophetic.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
I don't think every single NATO country must directly participate for something to constitute a NATO action. The operation wasn't so large scale that it required troops from every country. Even so, Germany certainly didn't completely opt out.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,752709,00.html

The government of German Chancellor ...[text shortened]... n AWACS surveillance flights over Afghanistan in support of ongoing operations there.

Germany certainly did "opt out":

The government of German Chancellor Angela Merkel elected not to take part in the United Nations-approved military operations in Libya.

Of course it is highly questionable to claim that UN-approved the actual military operations that took place.