Wednesday, January 30, 2008

And it's 1, 2, 3...what are we fighting for? (part cinq)

Now...this government and it's principles sound like something worth fighting and dying for.

"Afghanistan's Senate has issued a statement lauding the death sentence against a local journalist found guilty of insulting Islam.

The statement, signed by Senate Chairman Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, also condemns attempts by outsiders to have the sentence annulled, calling it "international interference."

...He was charged after printing an article he found on the Internet and distributing it to journalism students at Balkh University.

The article asked why men can have four wives but women can't have multiple husbands."

Meanwhile, NATO wants Canada to continue sending troops to kill and die in Kandahar. Well, of course it would.

"NATO thinks Canada is doing a very important and valuable job in Kandahar," Appathurai told reporters. "We hope Canada will find a way to extend the mission."

Canadians do not wish to extend the mission, of course, but Stephen Harper is not in the position of minority prime minister to carry out the wishes of Canadian citizens but to carry out his own wishes using other peoples lives and money. He seems to forget that he is our representative, not our king. And he represents only a third of us, maybe less.

But considering what NATO's plan for the world is, it's not surprising Harper is on board. A recent "manifesto" from some of NATO's best warmongers sounds like Orwell meets Dr. Strangelove.

Calling for root-and-branch reform of Nato and a new pact drawing the US, Nato and the European Union together in a "grand strategy" to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" since there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world".

To prevail, the generals call for an overhaul of Nato decision-taking methods, a new "directorate" of US, European and Nato leaders to respond rapidly to crises, and an end to EU "obstruction" of and rivalry with Nato. Among the most radical changes demanded are:

· A shift from consensus decision-taking in Nato bodies to majority voting, meaning faster action through an end to national vetoes.

· The abolition of national caveats in Nato operations of the kind that plague the Afghan campaign.

· No role in decision-taking on Nato operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations.

· The use of force without UN security council authorisation when "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings".

So, as far as I can tell, it calls for pre-emptive nuclear war against whomever a "majority" of NATO participants decide is worth vapourising to protect its "civilization". No one is allowed to disagree or abstain from such slaughter. The opinion of the citizens of such countries simply don't count. If you don't fight and bomb, you have no say in what happens. And forget about UN authorization. NATO knows what's best and what's worthy of blasting from the face of the earth.

Sounds like Iraq all over again.

Include me out.

No comments:

Post a Comment