Sweden has formally joined NATO as the 32nd member of the transatlantic military alliance, ending decades of post-World War II neutrality and centuries of broader non-alignment.
Nothing clever needs to be invoked. It’s baked into the text of the treaty. Article 5 is what’s invoked to bring the whole alliance together to defend against an attack on any one member. However, Article 6 limits Article 5 to attacks within Europe, North America, Turkey, and islands in the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer. Strictly speaking, even an attack on Hawaii wouldn’t invoke it.
I guess countries outside that area could join, but without a change to the treaty, the key clause in the whole thing wouldn’t apply to them.
If only there was some way to address this. I guess we should just start a new alliance if we ever want to accept people outside of the North Atlantic.
You got downvoted but you’re not wrong. NATO is getting good PR at the moment because of Ukraine, but the invasion of Iraq and Libya are examples of how god-awful NATO is. Iraq was invaded out of trumped up accusations but the real reason is gaining access to Iraqi oil. I remember it was France and UK who were antsy to invade Libya while US refused initially but eventually caved in. Look at the long term implications of such invasions. ISIS sprung up, and Libya is in a civil war causing thousands of refugees which Europe absorbed.
NATO is getting good image at the moment because of recency bias
NATO didn’t participate in the invasion of Iraq, so what exactly are you talking about?
You might remember the term ‘coalition of the willing’. The only major ally the US actually got to come along with us to Iraq was the UK. Everyone else rightfully sat out of that mess.
Personally, I see no reason why ever nation couldn’t join NATO at some point.
I expect “clever” dipshits to be like “NORTH ATLANTIC”, though.
Nothing clever needs to be invoked. It’s baked into the text of the treaty. Article 5 is what’s invoked to bring the whole alliance together to defend against an attack on any one member. However, Article 6 limits Article 5 to attacks within Europe, North America, Turkey, and islands in the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer. Strictly speaking, even an attack on Hawaii wouldn’t invoke it.
I guess countries outside that area could join, but without a change to the treaty, the key clause in the whole thing wouldn’t apply to them.
We got one!
If only there was some way to address this. I guess we should just start a new alliance if we ever want to accept people outside of the North Atlantic.
Changing that treaty is not going to be easy. There are a lot of parties involved.
Edit: as to your second sentence, there are some thoughts about making a NATO-equivalent for the Pacific.
Maybe they don’t want to die in middle east for US oil companies.
You got downvoted but you’re not wrong. NATO is getting good PR at the moment because of Ukraine, but the invasion of Iraq and Libya are examples of how god-awful NATO is. Iraq was invaded out of trumped up accusations but the real reason is gaining access to Iraqi oil. I remember it was France and UK who were antsy to invade Libya while US refused initially but eventually caved in. Look at the long term implications of such invasions. ISIS sprung up, and Libya is in a civil war causing thousands of refugees which Europe absorbed.
NATO is getting good image at the moment because of recency bias
NATO didn’t participate in the invasion of Iraq, so what exactly are you talking about?
You might remember the term ‘coalition of the willing’. The only major ally the US actually got to come along with us to Iraq was the UK. Everyone else rightfully sat out of that mess.
Good thing the west would never invade anything if they don’t have a defensive pact. Ow wait!
Did Iraq and Libya invade any democracies or NATO? Plenty of coping and short term memories in this thread. Or it could be something else?
Did anyone say they did?
You did.
Quote it then
Wasn’t libya a un coalition?