Additionally, and probably more military inclined posters can answer this, but does the fact that France has essentially declared an all out war on ISIS after being attacked carry any obligations to Canada as a NATO member?
September 11th triggered Article 5 of the NATO Charter, which is the one that states that an attack on one Ally shall be considered an attack on all.
These attacks, if actually linked back to ISIS, would be very similar.
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
On the NATO side its only if an attack hits French Soil and they request help with their defense. The NATO offensive side of things, you can ask for assistance and NATO will decide if they're going to run it as a NATO lead operation.
So there's no obligation from Canada unless NATO makes the request for Canadian help, which I doubt is going to happen.
When Trudeau called Obama and probably the NATO general command and informed them of his decision to pull out, they probably all thought the same thing, that Canada is going to go back to being an unreliable NATO ally under this leadership (This isn't a shot at Trudeau, but an indictment about how NATO is going to react)
Basically Canada isn't going to have a seat at the table for the discussions around France's and possibly NATO reaction to this terrorist event.
Canada over the most recent years was given a bit of a slip about their Military spending not meeting NATO requirements because they were pretty robust in terms of working with NATO and supplying men and equipment when needed. But spending 1.1% of the GDP on defense and pulling out of what is considered a pretty significant NATO mission isn't going to fly.
Thanks I was hoping you'd be the one to address this. I would agree that NATO would see us as an unreliable ally. I'm not sure what exactly the "ground troop training" would involve but it sounds frivolous and something that they're throwing in just to say they're doing something.
I don't know what the answer is but it's pretty disingenious for Trudeau to say one thing and do another.
September 11th triggered Article 5 of the NATO Charter, which is the one that states that an attack on one Ally shall be considered an attack on all.
These attacks, if actually linked back to ISIS, would be very similar.
I think it was a different situation, the US invoked it because of how the attacks were carried out, it allowed more flexibility in terms of air support in combination with NORAD.
In Frances case, it wouldn't make much sense for them to invoke it as it would limit their options militarily.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
On the NATO side its only if an attack hits French Soil and they request help with their defense. The NATO offensive side of things, you can ask for assistance and NATO will decide if they're going to run it as a NATO lead operation.
So there's no obligation from Canada unless NATO makes the request for Canadian help, which I doubt is going to happen.
When Trudeau called Obama and probably the NATO general command and informed them of his decision to pull out, they probably all thought the same thing, that Canada is going to go back to being an unreliable NATO ally under this leadership (This isn't a shot at Trudeau, but an indictment about how NATO is going to react)
Basically Canada isn't going to have a seat at the table for the discussions around France's and possibly NATO reaction to this terrorist event.
Canada over the most recent years was given a bit of a slip about their Military spending not meeting NATO requirements because they were pretty robust in terms of working with NATO and supplying men and equipment when needed. But spending 1.1% of the GDP on defense and pulling out of what is considered a pretty significant NATO mission isn't going to fly.
Is the Syria/Iraq a NATO mission? I thought it was just a US led offensive?
In short, the biggest thing stopping democracy in the Middle-East is the constant violence. Security would enable democracy.
And essentially agree with this....
Quote:
Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler
Thanks for the patronizing response, but I know exactly what I am talking about. Let me restate that for you - these societies are largely incapable of functioning as parliamentary democracies where power is passed peacefully from one group to another because the primary loyalty is to the group as opposed to the state. Whatever the reason.
The following gives a great start to understanding why ISIS took off:
Until the Sunni and Shia can share power in Iraq, and the Alawites and other groups can share power in Syria, you're going to have groups who turn to insurgency and terror, and you'll never truly have countries anyone will fight to defend
Last edited by Mike F; 11-16-2015 at 08:30 PM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Mike F For This Useful Post:
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 23 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Thought this was really good, and I can't disagree with anything he's saying.
I've always wondered if ISIS just lays claim to any and ever terrorist attack across the globe just to seem larger than they actually are.
Probably. Take the recent Russian air incident. ISIS claimed immediate responsibility saying they "shot it down". It turned out that it was terrorism (a bomb planted on the plane), but the fact that their media wing didn't know how the plane was destroyed suggests that they aren't really organizing things within but are just promoting others to take initiative. Still not good obviously, but less intelligent than they would have us believe. Heck, these types of radicals even take credit for natural disasters when they hit "infidels".
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
DW Sports @dw_sports 5m5 minutes ago
BREAKING: Reports that German police have discovered a truck bomb disguised as an ambulance near football stadium in Hanover. #GERNED
DW Sports @dw_sports 5m5 minutes ago
BREAKING: Reports that German police have discovered a truck bomb disguised as an ambulance near football stadium in Hanover. #GERNED
I feel like if history has taught us anything, it's to maybe not get the Germans and the Russians too fired up. Going after both at the same time appears colossally stupid to me.
DW Sports @dw_sports 5m5 minutes ago
BREAKING: Reports that German police have discovered a truck bomb disguised as an ambulance near football stadium in Hanover. #GERNED
Excellent read. It completely contradicts those who believe that ISIS is just full of murderers and psychopaths who don't care about religion, ISIS is built on one of the strictest interpretations of Islam we've ever seen. It also explains why ISIS is so eager to fight anyone and everyone without regard to their own well-being or future. They fully expect to be driven to near defeat only to be saved by Jesus swooping in and smiting all of their enemies (that part was a bit of a surprise)
Islam desperately needs it's own new-testament version of the Koran, yet at the same time also seems the religion least capable of adapting to modern times
