Sorry, but I read this twice. Can you point me to where War is mandatory. Or even to the word WAR appearing in this text AT ALL? Cause I can't find it, and I'm squinting pretty hard. (I mean, yeah, armed force as an OPTION, but that's not necessarily WAR. There are levels below where WAR that could be called that, like, uh - kinetic military action, for example! Or killing OSB in a targeted military op.) Article 5 “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
Okay - now, where is obligatory to DECLARE WAR? Still not seeing, but thanks for confirming that it is not there. Glad we agree! Have a great one!
Man, what a silly and unnecessary question! Of course against the perpetrator! But since the perpetrator is from among its own ranks, then of course it will do nothing... Logic 101
I just wonder how it would affect the world markets if the transatlantic undersea cables get sabotaged like these pipelines. The data exchange between America and Europe would be cut off, so no exchange of market data nor online payments anymore... Trading would be severly hit, maybe the stock/options/futures markets even would close. The damage could go into hundreds of billions of $ & €, maybe even into trillions.
OP said NATO has to retaliate to prove they aren't obsolete.I posted the definition of retaliate since you didnt know what it means.
Here is your reply quote to OP: "Who would you suggest NATO go to war with over the pipeline?" YOU used the word WAR. I know what retaliate means. It can mean WAR, but it also has a host of other possible meanings, like sanctions. YOU said war. That's what YOU SAID. I replied that the OP did not say WAR, and WAR was not a necessary implication. I'm pretty sure my communications are clear. You're deliberating misinterpreting just to score points. It's sad, actually. NO. The US/NATO committed the sabotage, then falsely BLAMED Russia for it, therefore, they should have some retaliation (not necessarily WAR, as you claimed above) in response against Russia for the false flag attack. You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting everything anyone says simply to be argumentative, so it's no longer worth interacting with you. I like discussing things with people who are not in petty 'gotcha' points, even if they strongly believe their thesis. I'm not interested in debate / discussion with people who only want to twist words to look they 'won' a pointless internet argument. So, thank you for time. Done.