Allies helping allies

[Elenwe]

Originally Posted by MMM

Read closely what I wrote. If your ally is in trouble, I believe it is your responsibility to help them. That help MAY be in the form of military support or arms, but then again it may not.

I don't understand your question. Can you give an example?

France- USA in the recent (2008-9, don't remember) Israel-Liban conflict. France was considered an ally of the USA, yet the president chose not to support this conflict, because he didn't agree with the USA's actions. So would you if you were in France's president's position, still hold this stance? Would you still rush to your ally's help?

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Elenwe

France- USA in the recent (2008-9, don't remember) Israel-Liban conflict. France was considered an ally of the USA, yet the president chose not to support this conflict, because he didn't agree with the USA's actions. So would you if you were in France's president's position, still hold this stance? Would you still rush to your ally's help?

I think it depends a little situation to situation. For example, if Japan decided to invade N. Korea, I don't think France would be expected to help Japan, even if they are allies. France could even say, "We do not agree with this action of our ally." However, if N. Korea were to invade Japan, I think France, an ally of Japan, should feel responsible to help Japan in some way.

It is not a country's or an individual's responsibility to agree with one's allies all the time. However when an ally is in trouble you should help them, even if you don't always agree with them.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by MMM

On a separate thread I said the following:

"If our ally is being attacked then it is not only our duty but a requirement to help them. If that help is in the form of military defense and is what is needed, then that is what happens."

It was suggested that this is quite an offensive position. However, to me, it seems like normal diplomacy and how countries relate to each other.

Is this a mistaken notion?

It's not an offensive position on its own.

But to use that as a justification for American involvement in say, the Middle East, is not really sufficient.

If you gave that answer to me on the subject of Israel for example, I would take issue with it.

[termogard]

Originally Posted by MMM

On a separate thread I said the following:

"If our ally is being attacked then it is not only our duty but a requirement to help them. If that help is in the form of military defense and is what is needed, then that is what happens."

It was suggested that this is quite an offensive position. However, to me, it seems like normal diplomacy and how countries relate to each other.

Is this a mistaken notion?

In theory, you are entirely right.

From my point of view, your example with "DPRK attacking Japan" is a bit unreal
Much more powerful China would be better example, IMO.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

It's not an offensive position on its own.

But to use that as a justification for American involvement in say, the Middle East, is not really sufficient.

If you gave that answer to me on the subject of Israel for example, I would take issue with it.

Israel is a touchy subject, and has been for centuries. How about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? France was an ally of Iraq, but couldn't get behind this action and helped with the military response to expel Iraq from Kuwait.

[AlfieA]

Originally Posted by MMM

On a separate thread I said the following:

"If our ally is being attacked then it is not only our duty but a requirement to help them. If that help is in the form of military defense and is what is needed, then that is what happens."

It was suggested that this is quite an offensive position. However, to me, it seems like normal diplomacy and how countries relate to each other.

Is this a mistaken notion?

My thoughts: An alliance is merely like a memorandum of understanding - basically saying they are "friends". There may be a notional duty (in honour or even under international law - but even then it's only a "contractual" duty in nature) to assist, but there can never be requirement or strict obligation to do so.

The reasoning to me is simple. Each nation possesses its own sovereignty, and must answer to its own political body (in most cases of the western world nowadays - its people). Whether assistance is ultimately rendered, must always be subject to the will of the political body - in which the sovereign powers are vested.

If there were any sort of strict compulsion to assist an ally under attack - a nation entering in to a treaty would effectively be surrendering elements of its sovereign powers to its ally - its ally could effectively declare war for the nation by antagonising whoever they want.

Just to illustrate the point, say your ally suddenly decided to endorse slavery and human trade for whatever reason - something that your own nation finds abhorrent. A neutral nation (which decides to be a defender of human rights) implements offensive measures against your ally (possibly military action or more likely economic embargos - which can be just as effective or even more devastating in some circumstances etc). Surely your own nation, answering to the ideals and wills of your own people, cannot be bound to assist in something that your nation's populace finds reprehensible?

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by MMM

Israel is a touchy subject, and has been for centuries. How about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait?

Isreal isn't really a touchy subject.

The USA supports a state that systematically marginalises and oppresses a significant population.

Originally Posted by MMM

How about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? France was an ally of Iraq, but couldn't get behind this action and helped with the military response to expel Iraq from Kuwait.

I don't understand what you're trying to convey here in relation to what I said. Are you asking me whether Frances actions were justifiable? I don't know.

Iraq annexing Kuwait was only a big deal because it went against US interests. The USA had no problem funding Saddam while he was commiting atrocities against his own people. Let's not forget that the USA was Iraq's ally too.

[Ryzorian]

For me helping an ally is like this. If I'm allied with a naion and they are agreeively attacked by someone else for no reason, or a flimsy reason. I come to thier aid cause hey, you mess with my friends, you mess with me. However, it doesn't mean I have to help an ally if they are being a jerk to someone simply because they think I will help them.


Ronin4hire, I disagree about Isreal. Isreal doesn't marginalize anyone, they do what they have to to survive because said "group" would kill every Jew in the area if they had the chance. That's just how it is. It's like liveing in a country where a third of the population not only hates your guts but want you dead, your family dead, your pet dog dead.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by AlfieA

Just to illustrate the point, say your ally suddenly decided to endorse slavery and human trade for whatever reason - something that your own nation finds abhorrent. A neutral nation (which decides to be a defender of human rights) implements offensive measures against your ally (possibly military action or more likely economic embargos - which can be just as effective or even more devastating in some circumstances etc). Surely your own nation, answering to the ideals and wills of your own people, cannot be bound to assist in something that your nation's populace finds reprehensible?

No, of course not. Allies become enemies and vice-versa pretty consistently through history. If an ally acts in a way a country's people find abhorrent, then it is time to make some hard decisions.

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Isreal isn't really a touchy subject.

The USA supports a state that systematically marginalises and oppresses a significant population.

Touchy, sensitive, evokes strong emotions, whatever we want to call it, I am not going there here.

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

I don't understand what you're trying to convey here in relation to what I said. Are you asking me whether Frances actions were justifiable? I don't know.

Iraq annexing Kuwait was only a big deal because it went against US interests. The USA had no problem funding Saddam while he was commiting atrocities against his own people. Let's not forget that the USA was Iraq's ally too.

What I am saying is, and ally is an ally and if they are in the right you come to their aid. If they are in the wrong, then you may want to rethink how good an idea being their ally is, as both the US and France did.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by MMM

Touchy, sensitive, evokes strong emotions, whatever we want to call it, I am not going there here.

Well I just did so you don't need to worry.

I'll say it again.

The USA supports a state that systematically marginalises and oppresses a significant population.

Originally Posted by MMM

What I am saying is, and ally is an ally and if they are in the right you come to their aid. If they are in the wrong, then you may want to rethink how good an idea being their ally is, as both the US and France did.

Sure.. but your original statement doesn't say anything like that.

And I think your narrative of history isn't correct. The US and France didn't decide Iraq were in the wrong. They decided Iraq were no longer acting in their interests.

If Kuwait weren't in control of as much oil as they were I'm pretty sure the US wouldn't have lifted a finger.