Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Maybe I don't understand what you're saying. But if you're saying that they said Iraq was an imminent threat, but that they said this because those words are a term of art under NATO agreements, . . .
|
No, I mean that, in the NATO governance rules, when one member nation (i.e., Pakistan) wishes to invoke immediate NATO protection, it invokes a specific rule subsection (don't remember the name or number) that labels the threat to that member nation as "Imminent". That's the conversation that was being had at that time. Completely separate from what we're speaking of. Only reason it comes up is that, when bloggers google "imminent", you get things out of context.
(ETA - maybe I need to add - Pakistan was being pressured by us to request that NATO rule invocation so that we could move in right away to protect it from SH. To do so, one reads the rule language and makes the specifically-called-for request to NATO, using the word "imminent" that is contained in the rule.)
