cronenthal@discuss.tchncs.de to NonCredibleDefense@sh.itjust.worksEnglish · 2 days agoPeakdiscuss.tchncs.deimagemessage-square67fedilinkarrow-up1282arrow-down16
arrow-up1276arrow-down1imagePeakdiscuss.tchncs.decronenthal@discuss.tchncs.de to NonCredibleDefense@sh.itjust.worksEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square67fedilink
minus-squarecouldhavebeenyou@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·2 days agoIt’s important not to conflate the attack on Iraq with NATO. Not that many nations were dumb enough to follow Bush into that one
minus-squaremimavox@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·2 days agoExactly, The Article 5 thing didn’t fly, so they created a “coalition of the willing” instead. But that didn’t have anything to do with NATO.
minus-squareEnkrod@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 day agoStill, many members of the “willing” were NATO members, so NATO servicemen lost their lives for a US war.
minus-squarecouldhavebeenyou@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·1 day agoMost NATO members weren’t part of that ‘coalition’, and most members of that coalition weren’t NATO members. So I think it’s at the very least a bit disingenious to try and rub those two things together
It’s important not to conflate the attack on Iraq with NATO. Not that many nations were dumb enough to follow Bush into that one
Exactly, The Article 5 thing didn’t fly, so they created a “coalition of the willing” instead. But that didn’t have anything to do with NATO.
Still, many members of the “willing” were NATO members, so NATO servicemen lost their lives for a US war.
Most NATO members weren’t part of that ‘coalition’, and most members of that coalition weren’t NATO members. So I think it’s at the very least a bit disingenious to try and rub those two things together