Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

What's NATO for

by Jerome a Paris Mon May 14th, 2007 at 05:47:31 PM EST

Now we know the answer to Migeru's longstanding question about what NATO is for:

Nato muscle for oil majors

Nato is considering deploying sea-borne rapid-reaction forces to help private oil firms such as BP, one of its senior officials has announced.

Jamie Shea, director of policy planning in the office of Nato's secretary-general, said the proposal may mean sending Nato forces to Africa, Asia and the Middle East to protect oil companies' facilities. "In Nato, we are looking very actively at using our maritime resources," Shea told a conference in London on Monday. He said Nato wanted to "see how we can link up with oil companies".

Oh boy.


Display:
You people are getting very freaking dangerous and crazy.

I despair for civilization.

"When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins

by EricC on Mon May 14th, 2007 at 05:56:24 PM EST
Maybe you would like to explain what's in NATO for us?

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 14th, 2007 at 05:59:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Breath-taking adventures in tropical climes?

I heard today that Wolfowitz is taking over as head of the U.S. contingent in about two months.

"When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins

by EricC on Mon May 14th, 2007 at 06:16:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that's the core question behind all our questioning of what NATO is for.

NATO is the instrument whereby US policy becomes the policy of the "international community", and thus takes on added legitimacy. NATO is the diplomacy-laundering operation of the White House.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon May 14th, 2007 at 06:07:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
At this time in history, I believe the U.S. needs NATO more than the European members need NATO. It may have worn out its usefulness to Europe, but I think the alliance did help European nations out once upon a time. Is there nothing that can be done to salvage the marraige?

I feel that if NATO dissolves, then ever member is poorer because of it. Likely a totally American view point, but we need friends -- in sickness and in health.

Put it this way, America has fallen ill and now needs help. Presently seems to be having a difficult time help itself. Can NATO or Europe, somehow, help revitalize an old partner?

by Magnifico on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 02:24:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If the US needs help, it is not military help, so NATO is not needed.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 02:32:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
why the rest of the world plays along baffles me sometimes. it's bad enough to have to hear my fellow americans bellowing about the need for their "leadership" day in and day out, but rather stunning to see the rest of the world basically acquiesce to said "leadership."
by wu ming on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 03:13:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Have you noticed how Dubya uses the word "leadership"?

Whenever he says such a person or country has "shown leadership" or needs to "show leadership", it invariably means they did or should do what he wants.

In the Bushie up-is-down dictionary, "leadership" means "obedience".

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 03:28:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I belive you are thinking of the UN.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 10:15:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
NATO works as well, when the UN doesn't.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 10:17:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I hesitate to use the word Illuminati but the concepts of a totalitarian, fascistic, Orwellian police state complete with thought control comes to mind here.
by Lasthorseman on Mon May 14th, 2007 at 07:47:59 PM EST
 ... the spice must flow ...

 ... bring on the Imperial Sardaukar ...

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Mon May 14th, 2007 at 08:47:33 PM EST
Thank you Jamie Shea, director of policy planning in the office of NATO's secretary-general for finally making it sooo clear. Thank you guys for finally saying it loudly. Not that I think you didn't know it before. But it takes a little bit of courage to stand up and admit what your tax money and lives of your solders are spent on!
What is there for you, people of European NATO countries? What ever small piece of that cake USA decides to give you! Not exactly to you but to your rich.
It's not very funny to see things as they are but they obviously feel so comfortable now that they allowed Jamie Shea to break it to you!


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Mon May 14th, 2007 at 10:30:24 PM EST
Here's what Hugh Collins has to say about this at  Foreign Policy's blog:

On the list of bad ideas in world relations, this ranks pretty high. When the people of a desperately poor nation (such as Nigeria) see western firms leeching their nation's mineral wealth away, they tend to draw a simple conclusion: These companies are heartless profit-seekers with no regard for human life or welfare. Sending NATO forces to protect such corporations would cement the perception that western countries care only about securing energy supplies. After all, we've tried this experiment before; the whole concept harks back to the disastrous gunboat diplomacy of the 19th century. Think again, Mr Shea!

Oil -- the root of idiocy.

One way or another our dependency on oil is going to end. Obviously, we can either start weening ourselves off of oil now, or we can destroy everything in our path and expend all our treasure to get those last drops of oil.

In the States, during WWII, Americans had gas rationed to 3 gallons per household per week. Now, many of my fellow Americans burn up that much gas and more commuting to work each day. Plus, we had a national speed limit of 35 miles per hour to save rubber and gas. Now, we speed along over 70 miles per hour in some places.

The "American way of life" that Americans claim to have fought for has vanished in the 1950s with a puff of foul smelling cloud of automobile pollution. America is unrecognizable now. A lot of good has happened since WWII, but my country's 60 years of automobile-centric planning has made my country's future bleak.

As an American, I feel frustrated that we've lost the ability to lead and make sacrifices. And as a citizen of a NATO member nation, I am embarassed by how terrible an idea this is. I had hoped that saner minds in Europe would hold NATO together somehow and make it work for a post-Cold War world. Now, it seems Bush wants to revive the Cold War with his missile shield pipedream and it seems that only the Russians are saying no to Bush.

The U.S. Congress seems unable to control the man, but what does Bush have over the Czechs and Poles that they go along with his secret prisions and missile shields? Why can no one stand up to this madman?

Shea's a Brit and I would have hoped he had learned about Britain's and America's most recent oil war in Iraq that this sort proposed military exercise doesn't work, let alone the 19th century example of gunboat diplomacy.

Thank you for the utterly depressing, but unshocking story.

by Magnifico on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 02:07:16 AM EST
Finally big and very dangerous boys found the matter that would justify their expences. Not sure about propaganda impact of all this. Spin doctors of Western media houses will sweat trying to sell it to sceptical public but anyway this is welcome (because this happens very seldom) respite from usual stream of Western concerns over democracy, freedom, human rights etc.  
by FarEasterner on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 03:11:52 AM EST
Join the NATO force
Travel to strange exotic lands
see strange exotic people
...kill them and steal their oil.

Nice to see that the new Empire has taken to sending in the gunboats everytime people show insufficient "leadership". h/t afew

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 06:15:28 AM EST
I cannot see any problems with NATO forces being deployed in helping oil companies in a crisis.  The Aljazeera article states accurately that in most cases oil companies have their own security arrangements that are sufficient, but at some occasions they might need, for the most part good intelligence, during a crisis and that is where NATO can help.  

The aim most be to resolve conflicts and make sure people working in troubled areas are safe, like for instance in Nigeria.  The NRF force are a NATO force and are in under the command of the joint member states and it is not meant to be a force for hire at random will, which is quite obvious when you look at the NATO charter and the NRF mandate.  Still, if you are a NATO sceptic, no amount of evidence and reassurances in the world will make you change your mind, I guess.  

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 11:33:05 AM EST
There used to be no problem in deploying troops to help out United Fruit in a crisis, so why should there be a problem helping Shell in Nigeria?

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 11:43:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, if you choose to look at it from that angle of course then I can see the problem.  I, for one, do not share your scepticism of NATO and do not see these forces being used in such a way.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 11:47:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So the whole NATO issue is a matter of framing and there can't be a rational debate on it?

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 11:54:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have not said that.  Debates are always good, but in most cases people have their minds set before the debates and thus do not enter into them with an open mind and that is why I see most debates as a venting and sharpening of established opinions/arguments more than a probing of ideas/scenarios.  That is what I am saying.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 12:06:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What I am saying is that ET's ongoing "debate" on NATO sounds a lot like the nuclear energy debate, and in fact all I can get from Atlanticists is huffing and puffing, accusations of prejudice, and suggestions that no amount of evidence or resoning can change anyone's mind about NATO.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 12:09:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, huffing and puffing might be the right words if you by that mean a given impression of only criticism and not new ideas.  I have had many debates on NATO and when you for the most part see criticism and the added argument that NATO is outdated and not useful any more it should come as no surprise that NATO supporters see a pattern.  These arguments have been around ever since NATO was founded back in 1949 and are for the most part used by NATO sceptics.  In my opinion NATO is still highly relevant, but its challenges are of another nature today than it was some 20 years ago.  That is why the organization is downsizing its forces and are focusing on speed and mobility when restructuring, abandoning the large mobilized force structure from the Cold War period.      

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 12:24:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, when I was 11 years old and Felipe Gonzales pulled off his NATO referendum hat trick, I thought the NATO sceptics were quaint, and that impression lasted for a few more years, up to the first gulf war. But I grew up, saw things for myself, and decided Atlanticism is not in the interest of Europe. Apparently one is not allowed to criticise what there is without proposing a fully worked out alternative.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 12:41:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Apparently I haven't grown up yet and can not form an opinion of my own, what a shame, but maybe things will change for the better in the future. :)

The best thing would of course to present alternatives when criticizing something, but that is my opinion.  I have to add that that is not always easy and that I am no better than anyone else one that department.  

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 12:49:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, sorry for taking your comment personally. I read it again and I shouldn't have.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 12:50:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No need to apologize and no, my previous comment was not meant to be of a personal nature.  Personal comments are never rational comments and thus have nothing to do in serious debates.  

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 01:02:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why is NATO in the EU's interest? That's the question I can't get answered.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 02:03:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
NATO might not be in the EU's interest as such, but it is certainly in the interest of the member states.  It is an organization that has provided security for its member states for almost 60 years and is an efficient defense organization to rely on in the future.  With the development of a multi polar world the need for security are as great as it was during the Cold War only different.  

In addition to function as a credible defense organization in is also functioning as a forum for discussion between former foes taken more seriously than other international organizations.  NATO funnel security issues within a forum that has evolved for more than fifty years an expertise that is highly relevant even today.  For those of us that are interested in good relations with the US it provides bridges across the Atlantic and thus a viable forum for resolving security disputes within a friendly framework.  

With the development of the ESDP, the successor of the ESDI under NATO, the EU can benefit from the established infrastructure and force structure of the old defense organization given the fact that the EDI is still in its infancy.  This is also the plan agreed upon by the EU and NATO concerning the NRF, which are meant to be used in NATO-led, EU-led and UN-led operations.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 03:57:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I would be much happier if the EU developed its European Defence Agency.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 04:59:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, some day I imagine it will.  

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 06:36:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The US can't allow that to happen: it would lose the control it exerts over EU foreign policy via NATO.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 06:37:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, the US has no say in the matter when it comes down to real policy matters in the EU.  The EU ought to listen to US concerns of course, but when it comes down to internal EU matters it is in the end the EU countries that decide.  

Much of the reason why the EU haven't got a security policy and regime on their own has to do with disagreements within the EU member states.  The US has actually spoken positively of a stronger defense presences by the EU.  The disagreement is over how NATO are to fit into that equation and the insistence of US control over certain aspects within the Defense organization, some of it quite reasonable since the US are by fare the greatest contributer, of all the member states, to the organization both money wise and equipment wise.  

If the EU countries can resolve their differences then I am quite sure that the ESDP will develop much quicker and NATO will function more like a defense and security forum with the infrastructure ready to function as a military defense organization if need be.  This will guarantee a close relationship to the US and at the same time give EU its own military capability.  The NATO structure will evolve from essentially a one pillar system, the US, into a two pillar system consisting of Europe and the US as equal partners.  

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 07:26:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The US accepts no equal partners.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 03:02:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You have to be on rysskräck to understand.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 05:00:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
;)

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 05:15:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah in Norwegian we call it russerfrykt. ;)

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 06:37:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I just remembered that Norway, like Poland, shares a border with Russia. That explains a lot.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 06:39:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It might do, but historically Norway have had excellent relations with Russia ever since the time of the Viking ages.  It was quite some concern over the expansionist policies of the Soviet Union just after 1945, with the communist takeover in many of the Eastern European countries, especially Czechoslovakia in 1948, and the forced agreement on Finland just after the war.  Norway got a similar offer from the Soviet Union, but declined.  This offer plus still having the German attack in 1940 in the back of their minds, made the Norwegian government turn to NATO for protection.  Norway had no national defense at the time only a well organized resistance movement to fall back on.  

That said the Norwegian government at the time led by the Norwegian Labour party, a party, at least the majority of the party, that had been a supporter of the Russian revolution and a onetime member of Comintern back in the 1920s, was led by people that wanted to have a good but cautious relationship to their big neighbor in the east.  That is why the government put restrictions on NATO activity in the most northern parts of the country.  That didn't include intelligence activity of course, but then again the Russians were hard at work in that department too.  

I guess what I am saying is that the fear of Russia in Norway was not as great during the Cold War as in many other countries in Europe, primarily in Eastern Europe, and keeping a good relationship to Russia was high up on the security agenda for all parties irregardless of political color.  It was part of the stabilizing policy in the North, which simply stated meant, to the east: Finland was leaning towards the Soviet sphere of influence, in the middle/the buffer zone? Sweden was neutral, at least officially, and to the west: Denmark, Island and Norway were members of NATO and part of the Western sphere of influence.  

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 07:10:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Heh, now I have two choices: "you're on rysskräck" and "would you like russerfrykt with that?".

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 04:54:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He, he.....life is full of choices.  

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 09:20:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
what are the procedures for the use of NATO forces to help oil companies - in other countries?

Should a UN mandate be needed? Which countries can see the intervention of NATO troops without a UN mandate? Is there a troop size trigger? Who decides? Which NATO members' forces participate?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 01:11:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, as you know the procedures for the use of NATO forces to help companies are under development and are not yet decided upon, but the concept of helping companies from NATO countries in a crisis is not a new one.  This has been part of a national defence strategy for many years.  Since NATO has adapted an out-of-area concept it has to be ready to protect member states and subsidiaries, including some national companies, in extreme circumstances.  This has to be done of course in collusion with the government of the state in question and only if the country in question is unable to provide security on its own.  The Rapid Reaction forces are not forces meant to be in an area fighting a prolonged war but meant to be used in case of an emergency.  

The decision to deploy such a force are to be taken by the member states and that usually means under a UN mandate even though NATO is a stand alone organisational, that has always been the strength of the organization, but most NATO operations have usually been based on a UN mandate, with the exception of the Kosovo operation.  The participants in the NRF and thus such an operation are to be drawn from the member states on a rotational basis, decided upon in the Prague meeting in 2002.  

Most of the procedures for such a rapid reaction forces have yet to be decided upon are still on the drawing board, but this kind of operation has to be decided by the NATO member states and will, I imagine, be of a more protective nature like escorting tankers through troubled waters.  Still, in some cases it could mean rescuing hostages or intervene in a situation where big installations, including oil and gas installations, are under attack from terrorist or guerrilla forces.

Here are some NATO links 1. 2. and 3.  that might shade some light on the mission and purpose  of these RR Forces.  The details are yet to be hammered out.      

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 02:47:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just to add, this is of course a result of what has evolved into what has been called a wider security concept.  The old national security concept usually meant a military threat to national sovereignty or an armed threat against vital national installations.  Today the concept of security has been widened and includes, amongst other things, the supply of energy and planning and preparing for a national or an international crisis like a natural disaster.  

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 03:18:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So oil companies corrupting third-world governments is not enough, sovereignity over oil company property should be exercised by us...

The Fundi Greens were right, get out of NATO, asap.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 02:13:09 PM EST
It is not really a sovereignty issue, but more a question of being able to safeguard vital supplies from attacks by terrorist and, in some cases, piracy.  

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 02:52:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
<snark> What other "costs-of-doing-business" would you like the "vital" oil companies to externalize?

Hairdressers, dinner companions...  Maybe expand the military industrial complex into METO, AUSTO, ATO, AFTO, all based in DC?  Want to subsidize their exploration and drilling too before paying at the pump?</snark>

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.

by metavision on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 03:16:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, ignoring the snark for a moment :), I would say that anyone has the right to protect themselves, which also includes oil companies.  That said I don't think that NATO forces are going all over the world trying to protect oil facilities or commercial property in general, that is not possible and not wanted.  Still, the need to prepare for and be ready for terrorist attacks in the future is, in my opinion, a necessity considering the vulnerability of most NATO members' states when it comes to, amongst other things, energy supplies.  Al-Qeada has demonstrated its willingness to attack such installations and infrastructures, where ever they might be, previously and have stated that this is going to be part of their strategy for the future.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 03:35:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The only preparation that has a good chance to work is eliminating dependence.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 03:56:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Agreed, but in an interdependent world that has become almost impossible.  

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 04:03:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I would say that anyone has the right to protect themselves, which also includes oil companies.

Yes, oil companies are "welcome" to hire Blackwater if it is allowed by the laws of the countries where they operate, but NATO is not a mercenary force, last time I checked.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 04:57:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Let´s cut back on the kool aid, please:

anyone has the right to protect themselves

A basic personal right, now misused by the gun lobby.

which also includes oil companies.

Comparing an individual person with an oil company is a major stretch and their duty and capacity are not comparable.  Oil companies do not even protect themselves by avoiding conflict in foreign countries or even by maintaining pipelines.  Other "vital" industries could demand the same protection:  banks, power companies, transport companies...

I don't think that NATO forces are going all over the world trying to protect oil facilities

This article does not say "only in the North Atlantic"

the need to prepare for and be ready for terrorist attacks in the future is

to stop creating terrorists by pre-emptive oil-war policies.  It has been popularly and officially acknowledged that 43&Co are the major cause of terrorism.

Al-Qeada has demonstrated its willingness to attack such installations and infrastructures

from countries that continue to attack their people and destroy their countries.

When the world powers stop being the biggest offensive threat and --get this-- create a Department of Peace, terrorism will be a rare event.

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.

by metavision on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 05:57:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, just like I am entitled to have mine.  :)

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 06:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How exactly does a rapid-reaction military force protect against terrorism, or piracy?

Why do you think that protection by the armed forces other than the country concerned is NOT a sovereignity issue?

What does that mean, "vital" supply? What does that mean, "safeguard"?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 03:54:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]