US explains why it is not shooting down missiles over Ukraine as it does over Israel.
US explains why it is not shooting down missiles over Ukraine as it does over Israel
You're viewing a single thread.
Ukraine has recieved several anti missile systems from the US, but do not man them as in Isreal. I suppose if US Troops were killed by the Russians in an attack, then all kinds of escalating shit would happen.
What kind if escalation does putin have though? Hes bombing civilians, schools and hospitals. And the nUcLeAr saber rattling has been used so much the saber is all dull.
But he's not bombing US hospitals. Read NATO, Article 5
Article 5 requires co-defense an attack occurs in the territory of NATO nations (or places occupied by members when NATO was created). It doesn't cover US forces getting put in harms way and attacked in a non-member country. It doesn't even cover troops getting attacked in Hawaii.
Which is the reason NATO joined the US is Afghanistan
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this comment, but NATO was in Afghanistan because the US mainland was attacked, not because some soldiers got attacked in a foreign country.
NATO joined the US in Afghanistan well after 9/11. Fact is NATO will respond to the attack of any member's forces, if in their homeland or not. At sea, for instance.
That's just not true. These aren't arcane pieces of information, they're bureaucracy from an international treaty. You can just go read the NATO treaty, which defines what an attack is (Article 6). Or go read the history of the NATO in Afghanistan. Article 5 was invoked for the first and only time on September 12th not because troops got hurt later. Remember how the same thing didn't happen in any of America's other wars?
NATO will respond to attacks on forces at sea, but only in the North Atlantic or Mediterranean. It's not a general "if you hurt an American soldier anywhere" treaty.
Remember when NATO countries hit Libya?
Literally not Article 5. They can talk to each other and decide to do things that aren't obligated by the treaty using the NATO organizational structure. The Libya mission was only the countries who willingly joined in, not a treaty obligation. That wasn't even in response to an attack on a NATO member. JFC, why are you arguing about this? These are just facts.
How'd you get so ignorant? Natural causes or at birth?
That's not how article 5 works.
Yes, it does.
I see you can't support your own statement.
But escalating with Iran is fine I guess?
Iran would be destroyed by US Airpower. They know it.
And then what? Iraq got destroyed by air power, Afghanistan got destroyed by air power. Now both countries are hot beds of terrorism and instability.
No, Afghanistan was not about air power. Iran has a lot to lose and could lose it very easily.
Yeah, but the Taliban or Iraq are not able to mass manufacture drones to sell to Russia.
WE. JUST. SPENT. 20. YEARS. FIGHTING. IN. A. COUNTRY. WITH. NO. AIR. FORCE.
Fuck you very much. If you want this so badly then you go invade Iran and stay there until "the job is done".
And they're not a nuclear power. Like, pointedly not. We made real sure of that.