Comments by "peabase" (@peabase) on "Sweden formally joins Nato military alliance | BBC News" video.

@markfrost9005 I think Congress put safeguards in place to prevent that, but the Appeaser in Chief might still achieve the same effect, without the US officially leaving NATO.
6
@aliquill2252 Wikipedia, for instance, has an article that's titled "United States invasion of Afghanistan". It states that ISAF oversaw the military operation in Afghanistan after the initial invasion, suggesting that NATO joined the invasion at a later date, after gaining a UNSC mandate. Moreover, two years into the conflict, the UNSC expanded ISAF's mandate to proceed further into Afghanistan (read: invade further), meaning beyond Kabul. Call that phase two of the invasion. That's when a personal friend of mine was permanently disabled by an IED.
3
@aliquill2252 Again, we can argue till the cows come home whether the post-Taliban Afghan government, or for that matter, Assad's beleaguered Syrian government, had the authority to call in foreign troops. Let's just agree that from at least one party's perspective there was an invasion by foreign troops.
2
And don't forget, -1 in CSTO, Putin's (zombie?) anti-NATO.
1
@KishorTwist Putin was very worried about NATO expanding. He even tried to forbid it. And, most importantly, he used it as a pretext to invade Ukraine. Keep up with the news.
1
@paul7TM Scores of nations declared themselves neutral in the run-up to WW2. Didn't help them any.
1
@WarAndThunder-li2iv You must've missed the memo that NATO is a defensive alliance. Finland would not agree to serve as a staging ground for an (unprovoked) invasion of Russia.
1
@aliquill2252 When you start lecturing, you have know your stuff. ISAF was a NATO op, approved by the UN Security Council, unanimously and many times over. The USA triggered NATO's Article 5, too. There was a small NATO training op in Iraq, too.
1
@aliquill2252 Misleading? Your statement "Afghanistan and Iraq were solely U.S. operations and had nothing to do with NATO" is factually incorrect. We can argue till the cows come home what constitutes an invasion, but I have it from my fellow veterans, with whom I served in Lebanon before they deployed to Aghanistan as part of ISAF, that they won the territory they controlled from the Taleban, incurring casualties on both sides. Theirs was a real shooting war, unlike mine in Lebanon as a UN peacekeeper.
1
@bonnie7898 Sigh. Here are some Wikipedia quotes for you to chew on: "ISAF's primary goal was to train the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and assist Afghanistan in rebuilding key government institutions; it gradually took part in the broader war in Afghanistan against the Taliban insurgency." "The intensity of the combat faced by participating countries varied greatly, with the U.S. sustaining the most casualties overall, while the British, Danish, Estonian, and Georgian forces suffered the most deaths for their size. The Canadian Armed Forces had the highest per-capita casualty rate among coalition members." Firstly, Bonnie, I suggest you do some research before you reply. The signal-to-noise ratio here is bad as it is. Secondly, don't lecture me about the dangers of operating in a conflict area. As a two-tour veteran, I've carried caskets of fallen comrades. I'm painfully aware of the cost.
1