I'm not going to be your assistant in searching for stuff, but it goes something along these lines if internal attack happens - Article 1 is invoked. If whatever happened is not resolved peacefully, article 4 is invoked. Everyone gathers around and reminds the defender that NATO and Article 5 is linked to United Charters, and that (4-2?) quite clearly puts that into words (about inner conflicts), then everyone finished their high end meal and goes home.
Lmao we have a NATO expert here
TBH I sometimes bombard a family member of mine with questions, who's an officer in army that's under NATO.
Because other articles already clarified that. If one law says "drinking is illegal", another law does not need to say "drinking while being with friends is illegal"
It normally goes 1..2..3.., so if 1 already says something, 5 does not need to repeat something about being exclusively external.
This meme itself feels like AI slop. Also, as a dual user, AI is really not that prelevant on Windows, as opposed to my android phone. Not sure how things are on iPhone, but I heard apple intelligence is going "great"
That's literally false, go and read article 5. It explicitly says external threats, not internal. In this case, Article 1 applies, which is actually about internal conflicts., but it simply says that any conflicts should be resolved peacefully, not that other members have any obligation to get involved.
NATO is an alliance against external threats. We're talking about internal conflicts. Did you miss the part where Trump threatened Canada and Denmark, both being NATO members?
Sometimes caring about your own comes first. I know, shocking, right? Imagine the drama this would have caused, Trump would invoke military threats to free Netanyahu. It's just not worth the conflict and you know he will walk away anyway.
I can assure you Californians and Texans want to stay as part of US. I can also assure you Taiwan wants to stay independant. Your comparisons suck because you're detached from reality and keep pushing government propagandas.
California?! Lmfao. Taiwan is a small island, not the arguibly second most important state. Also, you really should learn history because the comparison you did makes no sense when you know what actually happened. It's more like French giving up their territory overseas but not telling to whom they are actually giving it to, leaving the "ownership" to be dealt with by others, and since "others" can't agree on it, then nothing changes and Taiwan stays independant.
This is delusional and you know it. Some obsolete map you pulled out from history and somehow trying to present it as a valid argument. Taiwan just wants to be independant, they don't want to start conquering Asia, take the pills.
You're seemingly blaming bad governance on the system being exploited by that government, and then saying the system should be eliminated, even tho elimination of the system would be costlier to everyone than trying to fix it/maintain it, and maybe a more logical choice would be to target the government, like it happened in many other parts of the world, including my country, where people generally have respect for police and police respect the people, no drama or unnecessary fights, lil bro.
Honestly, not worth my time.
I'm not going to be your assistant in searching for stuff, but it goes something along these lines if internal attack happens - Article 1 is invoked. If whatever happened is not resolved peacefully, article 4 is invoked. Everyone gathers around and reminds the defender that NATO and Article 5 is linked to United Charters, and that (4-2?) quite clearly puts that into words (about inner conflicts), then everyone finished their high end meal and goes home.
TBH I sometimes bombard a family member of mine with questions, who's an officer in army that's under NATO.