Fmr CIA Director Rages At Trump, "You Fool, You Fool"

We disagree. In any case, such a coalition would have made short work of him.

 

There was the League of Nations. That didn’t deter Hitler. There was isolationism in the US after WWI. But there were also economic limitations. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor all that changed.

 

The League of Nations was not a military alliance.

 

All true, but imperialists and warmongers refuse to see the truth. If only we had followed the advice of our Founding Fathers. Their words are lost to history and a controlled media.

We’re 35 trillion in debt, yet we have military bases all over the world. Like all prior military empires, we’re killing ourselves for benefit of a small elite segment of our population who benefits greatly from war.

 

No way to know that.

I suppose you think a new Hitler is born everyday, but only to the so called enemies of the establishment. So naturally we must go around the world killing people to stop him. How beneficial for the war machine that runs our government.

 

Yes, he would not have attacked Poland, id he knew 20 other countries were ready to jump on him. At the time his army was nowhere near as big as it was later

 

It was envisioned as a peace keeping alliance which implies military action as required.

The real root cause of Hitler’s ascension to power are the draconian provisions of Versailles followed by the apathy and appeasement of the European powers to monitor the military buildup in Germany.

 

There were no 20 other countries militarily capable of jumping on him.

 

Probably not. All he asked of Poland was to return historical German lands taken from Germany after WWI, and was willing to pay for it. Poland ignored his demands and refused to negotiate, thanks in part to FDR’s many machinations.

 

Correct, because NATO did not yet exist, but it does now.

 

Nope.

 

Highlighted in red: Hammer meets nail right on the head.
This is a phenomenon that Christianity has used for a long time. Religion and Trump worship go hand in hand, which is why many of Trump's supporters tend to be of the fundamentalist Christian type. They are used to accepting that there is one great entity.

 

What then does article 10 mean?

.

 

Article 10 explicitly exempts the members from any obligation to act: ". . . the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled."

That's very different from NATO Article 5:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

 

But Article 10 doesn't prohibit members from acting. NATO Article 5 is IMO dangerous in that all members are obligated to in collective self-defense of any member. Why should the US military be obligated to supply soldiers to some kind of civil war in Greece?

 

Then it sounds like you agree with me. I understand that we view ourselves as the planetary police force and have military in nearly every country. But that has nothing to do with NATO nor does it indicate that NATO membership saves us money. I get the impression that people think NATO membership saves money because the government says it does not because it actually does.

Russia was one of those allies and was fiercely successful in the effort to defeat the Nazis. I think Hitler's decision to attack Russia was a terrible mistake. He must have thought that he had conquered Western Europe and didn't realize that the campaign there wasn't over. In fact it was really just about ready to start. I think he may have been able to take most of Western Europe but he failed to consolidate power and misused the power he had. There aren't many positive things one can say about war. It is ugly in every sense of the word.

 

LOL. I tried, but clearly I am talking to a wall. I won't repeat it again, but I am confident other posters and readers got the point.

He did take Western Europe with the exception of UK. Him allocating 80% of his military and firepower to USSR was a big mistake of course.

 

Article 5 does not apply to civil conflicts.

 

But the civil war could be a pretext for takeover by a foreign government who was funding and supplying men and equipment to one side of the conflict. The Spanish civil war in which Hitler supported Franco comes to mind.

 

Hitler was militarily involved in Spanish Civil war.

 

That is exactly my point.

 

Civil conflicts are not NATO questions, and any mixed conflict such as you describe would certainly be handled on the basis of specific facts involved. It's not a topic for hypothetical speculation.

 

Cough cough, the Yugoslavian civil war cough cough

 

By the time there was intervention, there was no longer a Yugoslavia. The war was between states.
NATO's action was not triggered by Article 5. It was a response to a UN request.
NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › NATO_intervention_...


The NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina was a series of actions undertaken by NATO whose stated aim was to establish long-term peace during and ...

 

I'm not sure where you draw the line in a civil war. Was America two countries when Fort Sumter was fired on or one country the whole time? This was a civil conflict that NATO involved itself in that didn't threaten the NATO member countries.

As always, thanks for the Wikipedia link but I can read that on my own. You are not providing special secret knowledge with that, nor or are truly responding to my comment.