Re: Guest Post - NATO Support Act

1

Meanwhile, a similar House bill for the ROK, and 74 votes in the Senate for the Forever War in Syria. (The House NATO act passed 357-22. Maybe that should be the headline.)


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 01-31-19 8:26 AM
horizontal rule
2

From the linked piece:
"An indication that NATO's framers might not have imagined that the United States would ever withdraw is that the treaty specifies that notice must be given "to the Government of the United States of America."

Remarkable oversight on their part - the isolationist idiocy of Wilson et al (including refusal to join the League of Nations) wasn't very far in the past!


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 01-31-19 8:41 AM
horizontal rule
3

And IIRC NATO itself was based on the Western European defence union, a European initiative which the US had to be persuaded to join. So, yeah.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 01-31-19 8:47 AM
horizontal rule
4

This is reminiscent of the debates around the Fourteenth Amendment: its framers didn't load it up with enforcement provisions to set it in stone, likely because they saw clearly that if Congress didn't share and want to advance its ideals, it would be a dead letter no matter what they wrote that year.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 01-31-19 9:29 AM
horizontal rule
5

"An indication that NATO's framers might not have imagined that the United States would ever withdraw is that the treaty specifies that notice must be given "to the Government of the United States of America."

Surely that is a reference to the US government's role as depositary of the NATO treaty? That's a bureaucratic function, not political.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-31-19 11:40 AM
horizontal rule
6

I guess its the North Atlantic Treaty, not the NATO treaty. Or rather, not the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Treaty.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-31-19 11:42 AM
horizontal rule
7

It's "The North Atlantic Treaty Organization."


Posted by: The Ohio State University | Link to this comment | 01-31-19 12:10 PM
horizontal rule
8

I think it's a very good idea to try to roll back presidential power, but I think the real damage was done by proving to the world that we could elect someone as bad as Trump. Trying to fix the damage by legislation is great, but the only real fix is strong and lasting electoral rebukes of Trump and Republicans. That's harder.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-31-19 12:49 PM
horizontal rule
9

NATO being in the news led me to thinking about an oddity that the experts here probably already know, but in case anyone was wondering: Article 5 is often glossed as "an attack on one is an attack on all," so why didn't NATO join against Argentina in the Falklands War? It turns out that Article 6 spells out what an "armed attack on one or more Parties" is, and it explicitly excludes areas south of the Tropic of Cancer and areas outside North America or Europe more generally, with a few exceptions. Makes sense for a decolonizing world.

Anyway, there are still foreign policy hawks among the Republican Senators. Slightly fewer than recently, but they're still there. Maybe this has a decent shot in the Senate?


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 01-31-19 4:16 PM
horizontal rule
10

Keep the NA in NATO!


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 01-31-19 4:22 PM
horizontal rule
11

Baby steps, Mobes.
NATO is a *defensive* alliance. You don't have to be a hawk to like it. It does its work by deterrence.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 01-31-19 4:30 PM
horizontal rule
12

I would like to think that after the disastrous shutdown maybe Republican Senators will be a little more careful about giving Stupid free reign over everything.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-31-19 6:53 PM
horizontal rule
13

They need to be careful that plutocracy doesn't get a bad name.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-31-19 7:09 PM
horizontal rule
14

TWERPS BETTER STAY OUT OF BUSINESS.


Posted by: OPINIONATED NEPTUNE | Link to this comment | 01-31-19 7:13 PM
horizontal rule
15

10: I didn't know NATO had issues with substance abuse, but I'm really proud of it taking the first step and admitting there's a problem, and working on it. I think I definitely speak for the House when I say, keep coming back.


Posted by: alameida | Link to this comment | 01-31-19 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
16

12 I don't think there's much hope of hat.

As it turns out, presiding over the government of a superpower is a big damn deal, and voting for people who aren't dead serious about running it sensibly is more or less unforgivable. Oh, wait, look over there, the coffee guy thinks he can be the thinking man's Trump. He'll settle for having the idiot's Trump, but cn't believe the people would pick the dumb Trump over the smart Trump.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 01-31-19 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
17

I'm boycotting Starbucks, because why not?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-31-19 7:53 PM
horizontal rule
18

There's a barrista Trump? What.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 01-31-19 8:15 PM
horizontal rule
19

Just a billionaire who is worried that all the racist extremism might make people vote against his tax cut.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-31-19 8:18 PM
horizontal rule
20

15: now make a Krokodil joke! Nice.


Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 01-31-19 8:47 PM
horizontal rule
21

it explicitly excludes areas south of the Tropic of Cancer and areas outside North America or Europe more generally, with a few exceptions

What do you expect of an organization designed to keep the Germans down, the Americans in, and the Russians out?


Posted by: Ordlay Ismayyay | Link to this comment | 01-31-19 9:13 PM
horizontal rule
22

Nice blog! Thanks for taking time to share this with us. Looking forward to learn more from you.


Posted by: WordPress Training in Chennai | Link to this comment | 02- 1-19 2:29 AM
horizontal rule
23

17. I've been boycotting Starbucks for yonks because their product is beyond horrible. I don't need a political excuse to avoid them.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 02- 1-19 6:05 AM
horizontal rule
24

Speaking of constitutional stuff:

"The House and the Judiciary Committee are under a controlling constitutional obligation and commitment to act expeditiously in carrying out their solemn constitutional duty," wrote Chairman Peter Rodino in a letter dated Mar. 8, 1974 to John Sirica, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It was, Rodino said, the "Committee's view that in constitutional terms it would be unthinkable if this material were kept from the House of Representatives in the course of the discharge of its most awesome constitutional responsibility."

I have a suggestion for Jerry Nadler, the current occupant of Rodino's old office: He should consider taking a page from his predecessor's book and formally requesting a referral of possible impeachment material.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 02- 1-19 6:27 AM
horizontal rule
25

23, I don't know if that's a "boycott". Might as well observe Lent by depriving yourself of things you hate.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 02- 1-19 8:12 AM
horizontal rule
26

Might as well observe Lent by depriving yourself of things you hate.

LIKE SIN??


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 02- 1-19 8:28 AM
horizontal rule
27

NMM to the INF treaty.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 02- 1-19 8:42 AM
horizontal rule
28

AITIspeculatedHB the defining business model of Starbucks was to push people's habits in the direction of lattes and the various more expensive drinks. Their beans/roasts are extremely different between drip and espresso, I think deliberately better in the latter.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 02- 1-19 9:09 AM
horizontal rule
29

Starbucks sells lots more sweet coffee drinks than actual coffee, right? I know that's what I get on the fairly rare occasions I go to Starbucks - when I've ordered regular coffee there, I regretted it.

The thing is that it's kind of ruined coffee as a drink for adults -- most kids think regular coffee is yucky, but a super-sweet coffee beverage -- yum!


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 02- 1-19 9:20 AM
horizontal rule
30

I haven't read into it, but it seems Russia probably has been in violation of INF for some time, and leaving costs little in Europe and gives the US more freedom in countering China. Trump's implementation on the diplomacy has of course been a counterproductive shitshow though.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 02- 1-19 10:58 AM
horizontal rule
31

AITIspeculatedHB the defining business model of Starbucks was to push people's habits in the direction of lattes and the various more expensive drinks. Their beans/roasts are extremely different between drip and espresso, I think deliberately better in the latter.

That sounds about right. I go there at least a couple times a month but only for the Iced Americano.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 02- 1-19 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
32

I haven't read into it, but it seems Russia probably has been in violation of INF for some time, and leaving costs little in Europe and gives the US more freedom in countering China.

What "leaving" the treaty means is resuming our own intermediate-range nuclear weapons program. I have concerns that this may not end well.

Best case scenario is an expensive and destabilizing arms race, worst case is total annihilation of life on Earth.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 02- 1-19 1:02 PM
horizontal rule
33

All the treaty covers is land-launched intermediate-range ballistic and cruise missiles, conventional and nuclear. China has hundreds of missiles just like that pointed at US and allied bases in the Pacific. Offsetting those with land-launched missiles will be a lot cheaper than sea- or air-launched ones.
To the arms-race point: they've started already, not just in this domain but in many. America thus far has mostly been ignoring that.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 02- 1-19 5:44 PM
horizontal rule
34

You can't artificially inseminate a panda with nuclear arms.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 02- 1-19 5:46 PM
horizontal rule
35

Unless you can. I'm not a veterinarian.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 02- 1-19 5:48 PM
horizontal rule
36

To the arms-race point: they've started already, not just in this domain but in many.

Oh. Maybe they will stop if we point more missiles at them?


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 02- 1-19 7:15 PM
horizontal rule
37

That is exactly how previous arms control regimes were achieved.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 02- 1-19 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
38

We must build more missiles in order to limit them!


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 02- 1-19 7:48 PM
horizontal rule
39

There is a reason its called MAD, you know.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 02- 1-19 7:48 PM
horizontal rule
40

Guys, no fighting in the war room.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 02- 1-19 7:50 PM
horizontal rule
41

This is foolish and only suits Russia's interests. It's something they've wanted for a long time so why hand it to them without anything else in return? Oh right, world's best negotiator. Do we even have any new intermediate range missiles under development? And where will we deploy them? No European countries will allow the US to base new intermediate range missiles on their territory and we now lack the buffer zone that was Eastern Europe under the Warsaw Pact. This is dumb all the way down.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 02- 2-19 2:03 AM
horizontal rule
42

Do we even have any new intermediate range missiles under development?
No, because you honored the treaty.
No European countries will allow the US to base new intermediate range missiles on their territory
Post-1989? Post-Crimea? Post-Trump? It isn't the 1980s.
the buffer zone that was Eastern Europe under the Warsaw Pact
?


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 02- 2-19 3:15 AM
horizontal rule
43

Well written post with worthy information. It will definitely be helpful for all. Do post more like this.


Posted by: AWS Training in Chennai | Link to this comment | 02- 2-19 4:07 AM
horizontal rule
44

For instance.

The intermediate-range ballistic missile is also known as the "Guam killer" for its range - 3,000km to 5,741km (1,864 to 3,567 miles) - that puts the US island in the western Pacific within striking distance.

It could be used in nuclear, conventional and anti-ship strikes, meaning China could use it to attack US aircraft carriers and naval bases in the Asia-Pacific region.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 02- 2-19 4:18 AM
horizontal rule
45

I'm sure they have only the best intentions.

When asked if China would agree to a new multilateral treaty on arms control to replace the INF, Geng responded: "The multilateralization of the INF Treaty involves a series of complex issues covering political, military and legal fields, which draws concerns from many countries. China opposes the multilateralization of this treaty. What is imperative at the moment is to uphold and implement the existing treaty instead of creating a new one."


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 02- 2-19 5:50 AM
horizontal rule
46

44 and 45 are completely irrelevant as China is not a party to the INF treaty. More nukes are not the answer.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 02- 2-19 12:51 PM
horizontal rule
47

For most questions, sure.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 02- 2-19 1:02 PM
horizontal rule
48

46: Try to see past your jerking knees. They are entirely relevant. Intermediate range-missiles are now a multilateral problem; INF is a bilateral treaty. That means the INF isn't a workable global control regime, even if both parties were honoring it, which they aren't. The sainted Obama accused Russia of being in breach in 2014, and NATO concurs with the accusations Pompeo is making now.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 02- 2-19 2:54 PM
horizontal rule
49

48.1: Is it too much to ask to not reach so quickly for rhetorical tactics like referring to "jerking knees" or "reflexive" whatever it was in that earlier thread? Not a lot of people comment here anymore and we all more or less know each other, and that's the kind of argument strategy I associate with large forums of strangers.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 02- 2-19 2:59 PM
horizontal rule
50

It doesn't surprise me at all the Russians cheated. After what the US did, dropping out of the ABM treaty, its difficult to even blame them.

But that means it time to reopen talks on the subject matter of the treaty, not abandon it entirely.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 02- 2-19 8:50 PM
horizontal rule
51

Do we even have any new intermediate range missiles under development?

Yes, we do.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 02- 2-19 9:53 PM
horizontal rule
52

Thinking about Trump and nuclear weapons isn't really helping my sleep.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 02- 2-19 10:06 PM
horizontal rule
53

Learned a lot from your post and it is really good. Share more tech updates regularly.


Posted by: Python Training in Chennai | Link to this comment | 02- 4-19 2:23 AM
horizontal rule
54

Interesting Things.


Posted by: Anurag gothwal | Link to this comment | 11- 3-19 2:02 AM
horizontal rule
55

wonderful article contains lot of valuable information. Very interesting to read this article.I would like to thank you for the efforts you had made for writing this awesome article.
This article resolved my all queries.good luck an best wishes to the team members.continue posting.learn digital marketing use these following link
Digital Marketing Course in Chennai


Posted by: jegan nath | Link to this comment | 01-13-21 12:34 PM
horizontal rule