NATO is a treaty on wheels...

From Bill Blum, fighting against useless wars of aggression since the 1960's.

Let's hope Canada gets out before it's crushed by the wheels. Rick Hillier can go on fighting in Afghanistan if he wants to, but not on my dime.

NATO is a treaty on wheels -- It can be rolled in any direction to suit Washington's current policy

Have you by chance noticed that NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, has become virtually a country? With more international rights and military power than almost any other country in the world? Yes, the same NATO that we were told was created in 1949 to defend against a Soviet attack in Western Europe, and thus should have gone out of existence in 1991 when the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact expired and explicitly invited NATO to do the same. Other reasons have been suggested for NATO's creation: to help suppress the left in Italy and France if either country's Communist Party came to power through an election, and/or to advance American hegemony by preventing the major European nations from pursuing independent foreign policies. This latter notion has been around a long time. In 2004, the US ambassador to NATO, Nicholas Burns, stated: "Europeans need to resist creating a united Europe in competition or as a counterweight to the United States."

... It is presently waging war in Afghanistan on behalf of the United States and its illegal 2001 bombing and invasion of that pathetic land. NATO's forces free up US troops and assume much of the responsibility and blame, instead of Washington, for the many bombings which have caused serious civilian casualties and ruination. NATO also conducts raids into Pakistan, the legality of which is as non-existent as what they do in Afghanistan.

... The paper also declares that "Nato's credibility is at stake in Afghanistan" and "Nato is at a juncture and runs the risk of failure." The German general went so far as to declare that his own country, by insisting upon a non-combat role for its forces in Afghanistan, was contributing to "the dissolution of Nato". Such immoderate language may be a reflection of the dark cloud which has hovered over the alliance since the end of the Cold War -- that NATO has no legitimate reason for existence and that failure in Afghanistan would make this thought more present in the world's mind. If NATO hadn't begun to intervene outside of Europe it would have highlighted its uselessness and lack of mission. "Out of area or out of business" it was said."

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.