Will Paris invoke NATO's article 5 ?

[xenon54 out]

u have confused me more, pls explain

Lets not go offtopic anymore, come to cay bahcesi.

 

[Vergennes]

al Qaeda was designed and shaped by the CIA. Islamic State was shaped as the result of so called "liberation" of Iraq. Crisis in Syria was sponsored and orchestrated from the USA. ISIS and al-Nusra are getting arms from the same source. Current France is not the same as at times of de Gaulle. Current France is just US puppet. So what the France can do? Post more caricatures in Charlie Hebdo?

Better to be an US puppet than being a semi failed country (Like Russia and most of the countries that were part of the USSR.... Only the Baltic states almost saved their faces...) where the elite prefers to spend billions in tanks,submarines than improving the quality of life of Russian people. The day you'll have higher standards of living than Montenegro..... Got it ? Why are you guys emigrating "en masse" to our countries if we are just puppets and pssies ?
Russians like to emigrate to Europe ! Last year we gave more asylum status to Russians than any other nationality...

 

[flamer84]

And thats what im saying, in case of a NATO intervention Turkey will be in the front row by sharing the border with booth countries and hosting the most important base, thats the last thing i and many Turks want just as you dont want your country to be involved.

One of the interests is to stop terrorism which is not possible by simply shutting down the borders as long as the organisation is existent.

If someone is to fight for Syria i say we round up every male "refugee" in Europe from 16-60 (they all pretend to be Syrians anyway),dump them on Syrian shores,tell them a "God bless you son",put an AK in their hands and wish them good luck in their struggle for their country.

 

[xenon54 out]

If someone is to fight for Syria i say we round up every male "refugee" in Europe from 16-60 (they all pretend to be Syrians anyway),dump them on Syrian shores,tell them a "God bless you son",put an AK in their hands and wish them good luck in their struggle for their country.

We have 2 million refugees, lets assume 1 million are adult males or even 500'000 for that matter, it would be a huge fighting force but do you remember the US trained FSA? Those were people that were already fighting but the result is still nothing.

 

[flamer84]

We have 2 million refugees, lets assume 1 million are adult males or even 500'000 for that matter, it would be a huge fighting force but do you remember the US trained FSA? Those were people that were already fighting but the result is still nothing.

Well,then,let them live in refugee camps with one meal/day for the rest of their lives if they care so much about their own country.It's not even like they're asked to fight against the invading Red Army,just a rag tag militia on Toyotas.

 

[LeGenD]

They were bombing Syria regardless. What are they going to do now, do more bombings? Or send their soldiers in? And what will that achieve? A few battles perhaps to please the home crowd and satisfy ego. But they can't win the war, that much is obvious. Otherwise the US would have won both the Afghan and Iraq wars.

They will still go in, kill a lot of people, get some of their soldiers killed as well. But it will not solve any issue.

You don't have an iota of idea about what is going on in the Middle East. I shall take some time to explain the ground realities to all of my Pakistani brethren.

Two alliances have been competing for supremacy in the Middle East for a long time:-

Alliance # 1

- NATO (US; Canada; UK; Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal)
- GCC states (Saudi Arabia; Kuwait; UAE; Qatar; Bahrain; and Oman)
- Turkey
- Israel
- Jordan

Alliance # 2

- Iran
- Syria
- Hezbollah (Lebanon)
- Russia

The Ba'ath regime (led by Saddam Hussein) in Iraq served as a buffer force between GCC states and Iran in the Middle East due to hostility towards Iran. This is why Alliance # 1 assisted Iraq during its war with Iran. However, Ba'ath regime was perceived as an "ally of convenience" by Alliance # 1 because Ba'ath regime was officially an ally of USSR during the era of COLD WAR. However, US policy makers felt that Saddam Hussein would not ditch USSR for Alliance # 1, and would threaten the interests of Alliance # 1 in the Middle East at some point. This assessment turned out to be correct when Iraqi armed forces invaded a GCC member state Kuwait in 1990 because Saddam Hussein wanted to annex it. Prior to this geo-political move, Saddam Hussein actually consulted a US official about US policy vis-a-vis Kuwait and he was led to believe that US had no interest in Middle Eastern politics; in reality, Saddam Hussein was deceived and US was springing a trap.

US had been busy developing a (new) Network-centric War Machine during 1980s in the aftermath of devastating Vietnam conflict and wanted to test it somewhere to send a message to USSR that its chances of winning a war in any region (post-Vietnam) would be slim. An opportunity came when Kuwait was occupied by an ally of USSR in the Middle East (i.e. Ba'ath regime). Alliance # 1 declared Ba'ath regime a major threat to its interests in the Middle East and destroyed much of its war machine in a war dubbed as Persian Gulf War 1991. Kuwait was liberated and a message was sent to USSR and China to refrain from meddling in the affairs of Middle East. However, Ba'ath regime was spared (for the time being) so that it would continue to serve as a buffer force between GCC states and Iran.

USSR eventually came to an end [due to several factors] but Russia remained strong and determined to pursue USSR-led interests in some areas including Middle East. Russia soon found new allies in Iran and Syria because these two nations perceived Alliance # 1 as a threat to their existence after Persian Gulf War 1991. Iran also facilitated the rise of Hezbollah movement in Lebanon to counter-check Israeli influence in the region. In this manner, Alliance # 2 came into existence.

As expected, Alliance # 1 perceived Alliance # 2 as a threat to its interests in the Middle East but Iraq was a paradox to both. Iraqi populace is divided on ethnic level such as Shia, Sunni and Kurd. These factions have competed for supremacy in Iraq for years and and have been exploited by members of Alliance # 1 and Alliance # 2 for political gains in the Middle East. However, Sunni faction remained dominant [i.e. Ba'ath regime] and suppressed both Shia and Kurd factions for a long time. Moreover, Ba'ath regime remained an ally of Russia irrespective of its dispute with Iran.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was eventually planned to dismantle Ba'ath regime in Iraq and replace it with a [coalition] government that would not challenge the interests of Alliance # 1 in the Middle East. It was assumed that the oppressed Iraqi factions such as Shia and Kurd would not challenge the effort to overthrow Ba'ath regime. US-led military forces invaded Iraq in 2003 to overthrow Ba'ath regime and dismantle its security apparatus (i.e. Iraqi armed forces) and succeeded in these objectives. However, Iran saw an opportunity to influence events in Iraq by motivating a powerful Shia cleric named Muqtada al-Sadr to compete for supremacy in Iraq and assisted him in establishing the Mahdi Army which was to serve as an extension of interests of Alliance # 2 in the region. This developed fueled a bloody civil war in Iraq [during the occupational phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom] as militant wings of Shia, Sunni and Kurd competed for supremacy once again under the shadow of their supporters and the legitimacy of the newly formed [coalition] government was threatened. US military might was once again brought to bear against the Mahdi Army and it was defeated but several Iraqi cities were destroyed in these struggles (including Fallujah) and Muqtada al-Sadr fled to Iran. The [coalition] government was saved from annihilation and continues to govern Iraq in current times.

However, cost of military operations in Iraq was increasing with passage of time and President Barack Obama decided to withdraw US troops in 2011. But before leaving, US policy makers decided to utilize a trump card to prevent potential gains of Alliance # 2 in Iraq; Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was released from US captivity and has been (motivated) to establish ISIS movement which would challenge the interests of Alliance # 2 in the Middle East and draw its members in to lengthy war to exhaust them.

Syrian civil war have opened a new avenue for Alliance # 1 and Alliance # 2 to compete for their interests in the Middle East. ISIS movement soon conquered large swaths of both Iraq and Syria; it comprises of many (ex) Iraqi military men in its ranks. All members of Alliance # 2 are actively resisting spread of ISIS.

ISIS represents an (indirect) extension of policy of Alliance # 1 in the Middle East, though no member of Alliance # 1 would officially admit this. Its primary agenda is to spread chaos in the territory of members of Alliance # 2 in the Middle East in an effort to weaken them. Not surprisingly, ISIS is operating in Libya, Syria and Iraq at the moment.

US can tackle ISIS movement but it was not interested in doing so for reasons mentioned above. Now, it remains to be seen how terrorist attacks in France will influence the plans of Alliance # 1 in the Middle East because it have introduced a new dynamic to this clash of civilizations.

 

[xenon54 out]

Well,then,let them live in refugee camps with one meal/day for the rest of their lives if they care so much about their own country.It's not even like they're asked to fight against the invading Red Army,just a rag tag militia on Toyotas.

Buffer zone in Syria is the only option to stop the refugee influx.

 

[aliaselin]

Why are you guys emigrating "en masse" to our countries if we are just puppets and pssies ?

France has a better condition not because you are puppet of US but when you are not a puppet, France is the two of the strongest countries with UK.
Russia becomes worse? Yes, compared to USSR, but not to Empire of Russia.
So the logic is simple: did France become better when becoming a puppet? No! So what makes you become so happy and ignorant. If we drew a line of whatever condition of France has changed with time, after becoming a puppet, your country becomes worse and worse. So if we did a prediction following the trends, Russian has better future compared to France, which can be inescapable because Russian is in the lowest point while France has not reached the valley bottom.

 

[Vergennes]

France has a better condition not because you are puppet of US but when you are not a puppet, France is the two of the strongest countries with UK.
Russia becomes worse? Yes, compared to USSR, but not to Empire of Russia.
So the logic is simple: did France become better when becoming a puppet? No! So what makes you become so happy and ignorant. If we drew a line of whatever condition of France has changed with time, after becoming a puppet, your country becomes worse and worse. So if we did a prediction following the trends, Russian has better future compared to France, which can be inescapable because Russian is in the lowest point while France has not reached the valley bottom.

Look at the countries that you consider as "US puppets" and then look at those you consider "Russia's supper allies". I'll prefer everyday to be under the orders of Washington than Moscow and then being a failed,corrupt country. What future has Russia ? This contry only depends on oil&gas and the people that say "look Russia became so rich,thanks to Putin!!" Russia's 'revival' wasn't the work of Putin,but because the oil prices increased,even with a brain-dead monkey in the Kremlin their GDP would have increased...

 

[flamer84]

NATO (US; Canada; UK; Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal)

Oh yeah,Iceland surely has some hegemonical plans on the ME....

 

[aliaselin]

Look at the countries that you consider as "US puppets" and then look at those you consider "Russia's supper allies". I'll prefer everyday to be under the orders of Washington than Moscow and then being a failed,corrupt country. What future has Russia ? This contry only depends on oil&gas and the people that say "look Russia became so rich,thanks to Putin!!" Russia's 'revival' wasn't the work of Putin,but because the oil prices increased,even with a brain-dead monkey in the Kremlin their GDP would have increased...

It seems you still do not understand what I mean. What we care about is the trends, not the condition of the moment.
For a country like China, transient leading is only a glimpse of the history, and we have seen so many emperor rise up and collapse. Emperor of Russia has left her descents with land for prolonging prosperous，and USSR has left them with nuclear bomb for guarding the land, so we can safely speaking that Russian can an important country in the world for quite a long time, which can be as long as you can imagine,while time left for France is limited.

 

[victor07]

Better to be an US puppet than being a semi failed country (Like Russia and most of the countries that were part of the USSR.... Only the Baltic states almost saved their faces...) where the elite prefers to spend billions in tanks,submarines than improving the quality of life of Russian people. The day you'll have higher standards of living than Montenegro..... Got it ? Why are you guys emigrating "en masse" to our countries if we are just puppets and pssies ?
Russians like to emigrate to Europe ! Last year we gave more asylum status to Russians than any other nationality...

Typical answer of a representative of a nation which is on the way to loose own identity in favour of economic and political safety. Mi amigo, direct following the US policy led France to current act of terrorism. Or may be you think that US foreign policy follows national interests of European countries? What about current low level of Russian currency, it is a way to defend domestic market. All products and services for residents in Russia are at least twice cheaper then for guests. As for quality, for example in any Russian region, in any city you can buy 100% natural agricultural products produced in the same region.
And at least, remember Benjamin Franklin's (1706—1790) words: "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[bsruzm]

Only US who invokes NATO in such cases, others only participate.

 

[rubyjackass]

I hope not.The enemy is in Europe,at home,not in Syria.

That is so true.

 

[Vergennes]

France "could" invoke NATO's article 5.
The US said it is absolutely ready to back a French decision to invole the Article 5.
The US said it depends on the French's decision and is ready to do whatever it could to support us. @F-22Raptor @AMDR @LeveragedBuyout @Taygibay

La France pourrait invoquer l'article 5 de l'OTAN.
Si la coopération entre la France et les Etats-Unis sur les interventions en Syrie vont se matérialiser par des mesures concrètes contre le groupe Etat islamique avec notamment le partage de renseignements, Washington se dit «absolument» prêt à approuver une éventuelle invocation de l'article 5 de l'OTAN. Ce texte prévoit qu'une attaque armée contre un pays membre est considérée comme une attaque dirigée contre tous les 28 pays de l'alliance. «Il revient aux Français de prendre la décision d'invoquer l'article 5. Nous sommes prêts à faire tout ce qui est nécessaire pour soutenir la France dans cette tragédie», explique sur CNN Ben Rhodes, conseiller adjoint du président américain à la sécurité nationale

EN DIRECT. Attentats à Paris : l'importante opération de police se poursuit à Molenbeek