[GreenTiger]

martin14 martin14:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I'd be well wary of this mission.

#1 reason. The French are leading it with the Italians also calling the shots....DISENGAGE!

The real question is:

Which will happen first, surrender or changing sides ?

Will they have to fly the rail way car in which they surrendered to the Germans in 1940 over to Tripoli to surrender in. It's a French tradition !

[HyperionTheEvil]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

It doesn't really matter what either of you say (and it's an Article 6 invocation –Attack on North America, check the fine print). We had a treaty obligation to the US under NATO.

We can argue about it until the cows come home, who was wrong, who was right. At the end of the day Canada and the other NATO nations honoured their treaty commitments. Endex.

Whether it was right or wrong is another debate. Whether we should withdraw from NATO is another debate.

On Libya, NATO countries maybe there but there is no treaty obligation for us or any other NATO nation to be there.

The only treaty obligation we had was to investigate the claim, nothing more.

Frankly if NATO and the Canadian government had been more diligent, we might be talking about Afghanistan being a multi-generational project now. Same problem with Libya.

No matter how you dress it up mission creep is mission creep

[EyeBrock]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

It doesn't really matter what either of you say (and it's an Article 6 invocation –Attack on North America, check the fine print). We had a treaty obligation to the US under NATO.

We can argue about it until the cows come home, who was wrong, who was right. At the end of the day Canada and the other NATO nations honoured their treaty commitments. Endex.

Whether it was right or wrong is another debate. Whether we should withdraw from NATO is another debate.

On Libya, NATO countries maybe there but there is no treaty obligation for us or any other NATO nation to be there.

The only treaty obligation we had was to investigate the claim, nothing more.

Frankly if NATO and the Canadian government had been more diligent, we might be talking about Afghanistan being a multi-generational project now. Same problem with Libya.

No matter how you dress it up mission creep is mission creep

You should examine the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 and the signatories’ obligations under that treaty, Canada being one of them, as you are talking a right load of old crap.

[EyeBrock]

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

martin14 martin14:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I'd be well wary of this mission.

#1 reason. The French are leading it with the Italians also calling the shots....DISENGAGE!

The real question is:

Which will happen first, surrender or changing sides ?

Will they have to fly the rail way car in which they surrendered to the Germans in 1940 over to Tripoli to surrender in. It's a French tradition !

Well, once the Nazi's accepted the surrender of France in 1940, Hitler had it destroyed.

[HyperionTheEvil]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

It doesn't really matter what either of you say (and it's an Article 6 invocation –Attack on North America, check the fine print). We had a treaty obligation to the US under NATO.

We can argue about it until the cows come home, who was wrong, who was right. At the end of the day Canada and the other NATO nations honoured their treaty commitments. Endex.

Whether it was right or wrong is another debate. Whether we should withdraw from NATO is another debate.

On Libya, NATO countries maybe there but there is no treaty obligation for us or any other NATO nation to be there.

The only treaty obligation we had was to investigate the claim, nothing more.

Frankly if NATO and the Canadian government had been more diligent, we might be talking about Afghanistan being a multi-generational project now. Same problem with Libya.

No matter how you dress it up mission creep is mission creep

You should examine the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 and the signatories’ obligations under that treaty, Canada being one of them, as you are talking a right load of old crap.

And im talking about Libya and the tendency of countries and including Canada these days of walking into wars with blinders on

What are you talking about?

Oh the NATO treaty, which of course completely avoided the tpic of this thread anyways

Article 6 which is directly the causative clause for article 5, Ill explain it to you out there You cant have article 6 without article 5 , therefore no article 5 no Afghanistan. I suggest you re read and then get back to me when your reading comprehension becomes better

[EyeBrock]

Yea, I'll get right on trying to educate you in reading legal documents. Now run along.

[Canadian_Mind]

EB, where can one actually find the doc?

[DerbyX]

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/off ... _17120.htm

[Canadian_Mind]

Thanks Deby.

[Gunnair]

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

martin14 martin14:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I'd be well wary of this mission.

#1 reason. The French are leading it with the Italians also calling the shots....DISENGAGE!

The real question is:

Which will happen first, surrender or changing sides ?

Will they have to fly the rail way car in which they surrendered to the Germans in 1940 over to Tripoli to surrender in. It's a French tradition !

Tiring... at best.

France is doing some decent work in this and in Ivory Coast. Irrelevent I guess if all one can do is mindlessly trot out the usual list of silly nonsense for cheap shots. In future, one hopes you don't whine when someone takes the US to task for its tendency to mistakenly bomb the crap out of civilians.

[ShepherdsDog]

...or its allies.

[Gunnair]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

...or its allies.

True that.

[EyeBrock]

Agreed, but still. The French...

[Gunnair]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Agreed, but still. The French...

Haven't dropped bombs on since... whenever.