COMMENTS
Why
Not Simply Abolish NATO?
Comments (15)
New
Posted, Wednesday,
August 21, 2008 5:46 am
I am appealing to you to sign the attached petition.
We know that we speak to one of the true and devoted friends of humanity.
The dangerous absurdity of the US intentions to use NATO as the
military tool for the "victory over all the human world" is
coming to the decisive point: the usage of atomic bombs are openly discussed on
every level, while "We, The People" , those who will fall victims to
the well-known catastrophe, are not included into “discussions“ of
this kind.
Your voice is powerful in our defence.
Please, sign the attached petition.
Thank you for your great civility!
Chairman
Ramsey Clark
New
Posted, Wednesday,
August 20, 2008 8:20 pm
Excellent article-the
sooner we get out of NATO the better!
John
New
Posted, Wednesday,
August 20, 2008 7:11 pm
You write that NATO was created as a "defensive alliance" to
protect the member states from "encroachments by the Soviet Union".
This is not correct. It was created as an offensive entity, and in violation of
the Potsdam Conference, for provocation purposes, and as consistent with other
- prior to NATO establishment - violations of the Potsdam Conference.
From the conclusion of your August 19, 2008 article:
"In conclusion, it
would seem that the humanist idea of having peace, free trade and international
law as the foundations of the world order is being cast aside in favor of a
return to great power politics and gunboat diplomacy. This is a 100-year
setback."
It is not a humanist idea to have "peace, free trade and
international law as the foundations of the world order". Of course there
are Italian humanists who may have sympathies with Liberalism. Humanism is the
deepest root of Marxism. To equate humanism with free trade denies all the
advancements in humanities by various communist states, notably of
Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic and Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics.
Eric
_______________
Answer by R.T.:
Of course we can play with words, but until its aggression in Serbia,
NATO constituted and behaved as a system of collective defence whereby
its member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any
external party. This plus the no “first strike” clause made it a
basically defensive alliance. That's what Clinton and now Bush-Cheney wanted to
change.
As to what are the basic humanist principles, you might read my coming
book (“The Code for
Global Ethics”) for that.
New
Posted, Tuesday,
August 19, 2008 1:24 am
At some point we're going to have to define Neocon. Some
writer did [I think his name was Anderson] back in 2004/5--haven't heard much
from him lately. He basically said that they were Zionist Jews-good old
Kharzars--both foreign and domestic. I know it's a difficult issue because many
of those who oppose the polices of the "neocon regime" are also,
Ashkenazi Jews; and there are many more Americans who disagree with the regime,
but they do no more or less than my Jewish brethren here in the states. Perhaps
the reason the "neocon" become so visible is their natural tribal
tenacity and their very tiny numbers [proportional population]: So they are the
easiest group to confront. Then so be it, because we've got to find out as
quickly as possible who's in charge of NWO and what are the details of the
plan--they are not hapless bystanders--they have to be benefiting from the
arrangement, whatever it might be.
Gary
_______________________
Answer
by R.T.:
My
definition of what is a neoconservative is wider than the one used by your
source. To me, a neocon is an ideological (as opposed to pragmatic) pro-war and
pro-Israel individual, but not necessarily a Jew, within an overall cabal to
implement a centralized world order based on military might and economic
dependence, under the shadow of an American empire which operates above
international law. A neocon opposes human rights policies and the right of
people to govern themselves or the right of self-determination for nations.
Overall, a neocon is someone who is opposed to true democracy and to the rule
of law. Neoconservatism is very close to fascism in the sense it proposes to use the military power of
the state to advance some narrow corporate or political interests, such as
those of the military-industrial complex. In my coming book (“The Code for Global
Ethics”), I
oppose humanism to neoconservatism as a source of values and ideas to implement a peaceful and democratic
world order. In the U.S., neoconservatism is a doctrine that is promoted by a
number of think tanks
such as the American
Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for
the New American Century (PNAC), the Heritage
Foundation, and the Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). In my last book
(“The
New American Empire”), I explained their role.
New
Posted, Tuesday,
August 19, 2008 9:54 am
For reasons I could go into I am begining to suspect that the initial
attack in South Ossetia may have been masterminded in Washington or Langley.
Gordon
New
Posted, Tuesday,
August 19, 2008 11:01 am
I am a Canadian who teaches psychology at a local university in Arctic
Norway. Your essay (url below) has reached the ends of the Earth, or one of
them.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9874
Thank you for writing it. It is shocking to me, how compliant the EU
and Canada have been to using NATO for global aggression. The declaration in
the midst of the Georgia war that Poland will put in a missile system, should
make clear to everyone, especially Europe, that this system has nothing to do
with North Korea or Iran, and is indeed aimed at Russia, as Russia has been
saying.
In a comment to a column in The Independent a few days ago, I wrote:
“If Georgia is in NATO, why not Afghanistan and Mongolia? NATO
already defends Afghanistan from foreign military occupation, right? Mongolia
is a good place for a preemptive missile system, just in case we imagine N.
Korea might attack Belgium. The word "Atlantic" in the NATO name is a
problem. So, change NATO's name to the "New Aggressors Treaty
Organization".
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/article899618.ece?startindex=-1
I was doubtful about writing this kind of satire, since maybe there
are many who take it seriously, and think it a good idea.
In any case, the world now needs comments like yours more than
ever. Please keep up your efforts, and do not become cynical or
depressed. Courage and patriotism are more dear and more difficult using
a pen than they are using a pistol.
Floyd
New
Posted, Monday,
August 18, 2008 8:42 pm
With many Trillions in oil profiteering at stake, a mini-war in the
Caucasus may have been a small price to pay -- especially as it was paid in OPB
(other people's blood).
The surprise Olympics bombing and heavy artillery attack on civilian
targets in So.Ossetia (which had no military targets) provided Neocon/Likudnik
warhawk mcCAIN an opportunity to beat his chest. And it wedged his opponent
between mimicking macho-warrior mcCAIN or appearing to have 'punked out' at the
'Return of the (Russki) Evil Empire'.
Fool or wimp, wotta choice! Thus, with complicit corporate media on
one side and an uninformed, largely jingoistic electorate on the other, this
war of convenience/connivance created a nasty dilemma for Obama.
Ok, a convenient war -- for McCAIN, but a connived one?
The dictator of Georgia, long known to be a mercurial flake, has been
bankrolled for several years by the US Govt. His armed forces have been trained
and well equipped by the USA and Israel.
It
is therefore very unlikely he attacked So.Ossetia without 'our' knowledge, or
could have done so without our cooperation.
As the Georgia Govt did not base or permit any military assets in
So.Ossetia, the massive surprise attack was a war crime and exercise in
genocide. As So.Ossetia was populated almost entirely by Russian nationals,
Russia eventually came to their defense.
To deter future genocidal attacks, Russia also included moderate
'punitive damages' on Georgia proper.
As Bush and Rice appear to have been at least passively complicit in
the attack on So.Ossetia, the angry complaints and demands they have directed
at Russia seem to have been received with commensurate candor and gravity.
I have no idea how Senator Obama sees this matter. However, whatever
he may think, his choices appear to be both limited and awkward.
Either he lamely follows mcCAIN along the jingoistic Bush/Media line,
or he attempts to expose their 'war-to-order' gambit -- a very difficult and
risky option, as the general public is inundated with editorialized propaganda
but has little ready access to factual information.
John
______________
Answer by R. T.:
Indeed,
this has all the appearances of an astute and wicked “Wag the
Dog”
scheme designed by the Bush-Cheney White House to place foreign affairs front
and center at a strategically important time in the U.S. presidential campaign,
in order to bolster McCain's campaign and help candidate McCain capitalize on
his perceived advantage on such questions. Indeed, the curious international
crisis that McCain's personal friend Mikhail Saakashvili, President of Georgia,
created from scratch at the outset of the 2008 Olympic Games, during the night
of August 7-8, has all the appearances of a “Wag the Dog” operation.
Indeed, ever since Western countries supported the break-away of the
territory of Kosovo from Serbia in February 2008 and created a precedent to be
applied elsewhere, Georgia's President Saakashvili knew perfectly well that
Russia was prepared to react to any provocation in South Ossetia. Why then did
the hothead Saakashvili go ahead and provoke Russia by bombing and invading S.
Ossetia? And for sure, with American and Israeli “advisers” on the
ground, in Georgia, we can rest assured that Saakashvili would never have sent
Georgian tanks to South Ossetia without receiving some form of go-ahead signal
from Washington.
Many
consider that the Georgian Washington-backed hairy plan to attack Russian
soldiers in S. Ossetia was “beyond comprehension.” But was it? Was
it intended to draw the United States into a newly created de facto conflict with Russia,
even thinking that the Georgian army could successfully occupy S. Ossetia with
Russian soldiers stationed there, as some observers believed initially, or
—was it not also, and this is more logicial, part of a designed plan to
boost Sen. John McCain's campaign to the American presidency, at a time when he
was badly trailing the polls? The fact that the Georgian military incursions
into S. Ossetia were followed with ready-made declarations by candidate McCain
(“We are all Georgians”) in the aftermath of this
provoked and gratuitous crisis points to a possible more cynical political
scenario. At the very least, this is an hypothesis which deserves to be
investigated with all the available clues. If this were proven to have been the
case, this would be tantamount to a criminal conspiracy.
New
Posted, Tuesday,
August 19, 2008 1:06 pm
I see NATO as a legal pretext for keeping US forces and military
supplies near Israel, which, given the Lobby's stranglehold on US public life,
is the only policy goal the US is allowed to pursue. There's no doubt that the
ultimate aim of current US policy is the foist Israel on NATO and use European
troops as cannon fodder in the dirty wars that propping up Israel engenders.
Thus, the discrediting of the US and NATO in the Georgian fiasco is a
very positive development and the horror that the latter has set off among
Lobby shills tends to confirm that.
Dr. Tremblay is, of course, perfectly right to say that NATO should go
but for the above reasons, that will not be easy. Allowing it to go dormant,
while continuing to exist on paper, is probably the best that can be hoped for
from President Obama!
Nouveau
Affiché, mercredi, le 20 août, 2008 6:55 am
Je partage totalement le point de vue que vous y développez,
les événements actuels tant en Géorgie, qu'en Palestine,
en Irak mais également en Algérie me portent à penser qu'
un grand mouvement mondial d' opinion doit être créé
pour faire arrêter les dérives actuelles de ce monde que
l'ont avait coutume d' appeler libre et démocratique.
Au delà et, parce qu' il ne suffit pas de se limiter à
dénoncer, il s' agirait aussi de tenter de contribuer à l'
élaboration de nouvelles propositions pour un monde meilleur et
plus éclairé!
Un monde où la Paix, l'Humanisme et la Liberté ne
seraient pas que des concept-prétextes pour décideurs de
guerres, sans scrupules et dénués de toutes conscience
éthique ou morale.
La création d' un réseau contact Internet pour, dans un
premier temps, en explorer l' idée, me paraît utile!
Bernard
Posted, Wednesday,
August 20, 2008 12:51 am
I am a 19 year old Canadian who has taken many highschool history and
law classes. I have debated the uses of the UN, studied CIA actions in other
countries, and also debated humanitarian rights. I have also passed both
sets of classes with 80 an above, and I have been following world politics
for quite some time.
I read your article "Why Not Simply Abolish NATO", and I,
for one, completely agree with you.
US Imperialism, and the relic NATO, is a huge threat to Canadian, if
not world, security. Ever since the cold war, the long arm of US ambition
to remain the worlds sole superpower has become nothing more than
a frightening, brutal process. The suggested use of smaller bunker buster
nuclear missiles will cause devastation in the East, and plunge us further into
this new age Cold War, potentially ruining this planet. The missile shield in
Poland in putting further strain on diplomatic ties, and the killing of
unarmed South Ossetian civilians, orchestrated by the United States, is a
blatant war crime and infringement on humanitarian rights. The current war
games being conducted to blockade Iran, involves Canadian forces.
Our current Prime Minister (Harper) is, nothing short, than an
American in Canadian clothing, and future Republican or Democratic parties will
not put an end to this, but degrade the situation further. Their ability to
just vetoe anything they do not like in the UN, and being a permanent member of
that council, simply means that the UN itself is in US hands.
But what can we honestly do? Corporate media is determined to silence
anything it does not want the public to know, and silence anyone that might
tell them. Most people are content in believeing that there
is nothing wrong in the world.
Keeping their own people blind, deaf and dumb to the fact that we are
creating huge amounts of suffering so a few, greedy old men and women, can
stuff their pockets with blood money.
China, Russia, United States... Sir, we are all human, regardless of
or origin, colour, or language. I myself am a French Canadian, and proud to be
one.
Alexanders Greece, Ancient Rome, The English Empire, they all fell.
But some nights I wonder, if the curtain ever fell on the United States, would
they bring down the entire stage with them? When the world can be brought down
with a push of a button, shouldn't we now look to the UN and what it stands for
to be the guiding light this world takes?
Scott
Posted, Tuesday,
August 19, 2008 11:38 pm
Indeed, as you point out, the provocation by Georgia bombing Ossetia
and attacking Russian peacekeeping troops was an insane geopolitical action.
The Russian response was correct and quite important as a strategic refusal to
accept the diktat of the Soros agents of British policy influence put into
power in Georgia by the Project Democracy polliwogs on Soros’s British
Intelligence payroll. I don’t’ know too much about the French
collaborators of this insanity, but perhaps you have a better raading.
What your analysis shows clearly is that the expected policies of
neither so-called candidate represents the interests of the American nation or
people. Unfortunately, you have not pinned the tail of blame on the donkey
– the Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy (who gave us Hitler, Mussolini, Franco,
and Pinochet). In my view, you left out the most important factor underlying
this provocation, which is the unstoppable collapse of the failed Anglo-Dutch
(nee British Empire ) financial system. This is a move of desperation to try to
force the Russian nation to bend over backwards to the “New World
Order” as conceived by these oligarchs, for whom Bush-Cheney are their
puppets.
Unfortunately, by blocking the impeachment of the treasonous Cheney,
and blocking any necessary economic legislation to stop the collapse or to
mitigate its effects or try to control it, the Democratic Party apparatchics
like Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, and the billionaires club who are trying to
control (i.e., destroy the effective resistance by) the Democratic Party under the
fascist policies of the new world order (“free” trade, austerity,
budget tourniquet, speculative orgy of credit creation by the bankrupt
financial institutions, green fascist anti-progress ideology, etc.) have shown
themselves to be agents of influence of this Synarchist cartel and enemies of
the United States and all sovereign nations on this planet.
Therefore, it is a very good thing that Hillary has refused to release
her delegates and there will be a political battle at the Dem Convention. The
mass media, which has anointed Obama king, and pronounced Hillary the loser,
despite Obama’s total lack of any real policy to reverse the most
calamitous economic collapse in modern history, and perhaps because of
Hillary’s public hints of looking to the example of empire hater FDR, is
exposed as an instrument of mass brainwashing, and purveyer of lies, just as it
served this purpose during the Bush Cheney fraudulent war pretexts since 9/11.
Help us free the USA of a fascist, London - New York financial cabal
trying to dictate a new world dictatorship under financier oligarchical
(Synarchist) policy. This Vampire, which FDR was committed to destroying, must
be destroyed by a policy change towards a New Bretton Woods. And the
stranglehold of the mass media must be clearly identified as an instrument of
oligarchical (empire) policy (brainwashing).
Every sane policy measure urged by LaRouche (Homeowners and Bank
Protection Act; Two Tier credit policy to promote infrastructure, Retooling of
the Auto production capacity for advanced transport and infrastructure
component production, New Bretton Woods Agreement among USA, Russia, China,
India, and other sane governments) has been blocked by Pelosi and her
billionaire backers who have given us the media star candidate with no real
policy, Obama. This threatens to turn the USA into an Obamanation
(abomination). Is Obama capable of leading the USA away from control of this
insane fascist oligarchy? Or is he an instrument of their rotten policy in
black sheep’s clothing (like Condolezza Rice?).
I only ask these questions to provoke your thinking about this crisis
in history in a broader contact.
Ed
New
Posted, Tuesday,
August 19, 2008 10:12 pm
I much appreciated your comments on the role of NATO going forward. In
my not very humble opinion, Russia wants to have direct control over the wealth
of the major nations of continental Europe such as Germany, Italy and
France. It is only a question of time before they will make the European
nations dependent on Russia for energy and some key commodities. In time,
European countries will make Russia incredibly rich because of their dependence
on Russian energy. European leaders should do anything within their power to
reduce their dependence on Russian energy. The picture of Russia as a bear is
out of date. Today, Russia is better depicted as a spider and the European
nations like helpless moths drawn to the candle of energy that is going to burn
their wings off. Indirectly, Russia is going to cause the USA and Canada to pay
more for energy but the Europeans will be reduced to second world status by the
crippling costs they will incur in feeding the spider. In the end, the European
countries will go to war with Russia but because of their tendency to appeasement,
will lose nearly everything before a real leader comes forward and finally
defeats the bear. The problem is the lack of statesmanship. There is no one in
Europe today that is in the league of Prime Minister Putin. Together with his
new president who comes from eight years at Gazprom, energy strategy will be
everything. Economic policy will be be based on energy. Foreign policy will be
based on energy. Strategic alliances will be based on energy. Russia will
directly and indirectly make itself the prime provider of energy to China and
Russia's enemies will become China's enemies.
So to repeat my earlier comment, Europe must do business with anyone
but not Russia, as it looks to its long term energy needs.
Tom
New
Posted, Wednesday,
August 20, 2008 1:41 pm
I
was most interested to read your excellent article sent by Global Research.
Stalin had only one objective, to hold USSR together against encirclement and
subversion by US agents. The claim that he was about to launch the Red Army
against Western Europe was a bare faced lie. The truth about NATO was exposed
when it was used as a US proxy to destroy the infrastructure and industrial
base of Serbia. As former members of the Warsaw Pact are subverted to join NATO
Stalin must be turning in his grave. Now in Afghanistan it is the agent for US
designs on the Caspian Basin and to further encircle Russia. USA is the
greatest threat to world peace and as its economy collapses so the danger
increases dramatically.
My letters to Cabinet Ministers in the UK fall on deaf ears, not
surprisingly as it is known that since 1945 many western politicians and others
in high places have been bought by the CIA. One can only hope that the
psychopaths in Washington are not stupid enough to provoke Russia further.
Sadly there seems little that ordinary people can do to bring sanity to bear.
Bill
Nouveau
Affiché,
mercredi, le 20 août, 2008 1:00 pm
Article très
intéressant.
Avons-nous une chance de se débarrasser de la marionnette
Harper ?
Les guerres sont payantes pour les gens au pouvoir. Mais le butin ne
profite à personne d'autre qu'à ceux qui fabriquent les armes.
Les humains vont s'auto-détruire d'ici quelques années.
Dixit : Stephen Hawking dans sa chaise roulante, il y a quelques semaines, lors
d'une présentation exceptionnelle à la TV Canal History.
L'espèce humaine serait une erreur de l'Évolution. Pour
accélérer le processus, McCain va choisir le plus sioniste des
sénateurs américains : Joe Liberman qui va le remplacer
à sa mort pour que les USA soient TOTALEMENT gouverné par
ISRAËL.
Gaston.
New
Posted, Wednesday, August 20, 2008
9:50 pm
The aim of writing to you is to appreciate your scholarly article
posted online titled "Why not simply abolish NATO?“ It is indeed a
revelation of the true picture of the nature and practice of American politics.
I humbly wish to say
that the international system should not expect anything good from the USA and
its allies, rather a new international paradigm shift be made in order to
frustrate their global strategic interest. A day will come in history when
there will be a collapse of a wall, that time, it will definetly not be the
Berlin Wall.
I salute your uncommon courage in this direction.
Permit me to add that, my research interest area is on Conflict
management, Peacebuilding, transitional justice and security sector reform and
public sector reforms.
Uchenna
(Home:
TheNewAmericanEmpire.com)