I was saying it would be relatively difficult for US to invade Iraq this time around.
Result of US war games in 2002 was not favorable. Now Iran has far more capabilities.
There were reports about US running out of shells when they decided to give DU shells to Ukraine.
I was talking about local contractors.
Again, how is it harder to think it would be for US to invade, if you look at US troop deployment, they were up to 40% at that point in 2003 when they deployed to Iraq, Beside the that's the reason why we dipped into National Guard for deployment. We had around 80,000 troop in Afghanistan, 5000 in KFOR, another 10,000 in variety of UN Duty and also overseas US deployment (like station force in SK, Japan, Singapore, Australia, Philippine and so on), we still able to scratch up 130,000 US troop for Iraq
Now, beside the Oversea deployment, we don't have any active war, don't have any active UN or NATO mission, and you think we can't deploy enough troop to Iraq and fight a war??
Iran has more capability than 2003, but then so did the US, and it would be honestly naive to think Iran have more capability than the US. And we don't depends on local contractor in Iraq, it's either US or TPN (Third party nation) such as Nepal (eg Gurka solution), locally we only hire translator.
And finally, either you have misheard or misunderstood the term or reason why DU shell is sent to Ukraine. First of all, no country in this world is stupid enough to send all their stock and completely taken out their combat readiness to help other countries, there are red line on aid, and you can't go below that line, in the US, that line is roughly 25% of the US stock, because that would take them roughly a year to restock, and that is the balance here because 75% opf their ammunition would last between 12-18 months of operation.
"Running Out" means running out of that red line, it does not mean it run out of shell in munition depot......
Article 5 only covers attack on NATO member's territories, not on half a world away colonial outposts
There's one notable exception to the areas protected by the original NATO agreement. It seems to have forgotten about what drew the United States into World War II in the first place: Hawaii.
www.military.com
no..........again, I have quoted both Article 5 and 6, it does not.
And a giant hint for you, Turkey themselves seek Article 5 protection from Syria means they also think it was protected, and I don't think there are no legal scholar available in Turkey to say they couldn't, if they couldn't. Which mean they think it is the case here. Again, as I pointed out already. Ground Forces in North Atlantic and the Med north of the equator is covered, as long as they were not there to conduct offensive operation.