President Donald Trump has warned the U.K. and France that the “U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore,” as he vented his frustration over the close allies’ refusal to join military action against Iran.
President Donald Trump has warned the U.K. and France that the “U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore,” as he vented his frustration over the close allies’ refusal to join military action against Iran.
My point is that NATO countries came to aid as required by NATO article 5 after the attacks on the US on 9/11, which has been the only time NATO article 5 was used. While Trump claims NATO countries never helped the US.
What is your point exactly?
So far you’ve come with loads of text proving my point, what are you trying to achieve here?
Are you aware anyone can edit Wikipedia? I used to work in Intel, you don’t have to tell me how sources work. I can tell you Wikipedia is forbidden to be used in Intel.
Here’s an article on Wikipedia and it’s flaws.
So you immediately forgot that you wrote:
“There’s only one NATO country who used NATO article 5 “an attack against one is an attack against all”: the US after 9/11”.
Whose words were those, could you elaborate? Probably not, as you apparently have severe dementia making you forget everything after a few minutes.
Can everyone also edit RAND Corporation’s documents? No, but that doesn’t matter to you because you can’t tell one from another anymore, thanks to your extensive brain damage.
So you claim article 5 wasn’t used when the US was attacked in 2001? Again, what are you trying to prove here?
Question: did NATO countries came to aid when the US was attacked on 9/11 2001, in compliance with NATO article 5 “an attack against one is an attack against all”? Or did NATO countries never helped the US, like Trump claims?
Another question: do you have to be so rude?
Just to make it clear to your evidently severely delayed comprehension: if you served in NATO’s nothingburger deployments in 2001, it was only because your country preemptively bent down to slob on Bush’s knob, without him asking for it.
So you claim that when a country joins NATO and agrees to its terms, it’s a matter of choice whether they oblige to the rules of being in NATO?
Is that how your insurance company works too? The contract you sign states: “If you pay a monthly fee we will cover expenses in case of theft.” Case of theft: “Nah mate, go fuck yourself.”
Can you at least acknowledge article 5 was used once during the entire existance of NATO, when the US was attacked on 9/11?
And can you acknowledge article 5 states “an attack against one is an attack against all”, which is a term countries are to agree with when they join NATO and should follow in case one of it’s allies gets attacked?
So when the US was attacked, it was the duty of all NATO members, as stated by the terms of NATO, specifically article 5, to join the war with the US?
Also, I didn’t serve in 2001, I was still in high school back then. I did Active Endeavour in 2012 as my country, among many others, were pulled into the American shit show for over 20 years.
Sorry mate, I don’t understand why something as simple as this can be so hard for someone to understand. You even provide sources yourself proving my point yet you claim I’m wrong and are pretty rude.
Maybe try to find some joy in life, go out and drink some beer, meet some friends, I think you need it.
Amazing how you weasel unabashedly out of what you yourself have said before.
Question: “There’s only one NATO country who used NATO article 5 “an attack against one is an attack against all”” — which country is that? Can you answer that without dodging your own phrasing?