NATO Puts Canada On The Forefront in Confrontation with Russia in the Arctic
NATO Puts Canada On The Forefront in Confrontation with Russia in the Arctic
http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/65255
"The role assigned to Canada is to serve as either bait or as agent provocateur to trigger a confrontation with Russia which the US and NATO, the first through bilateral defense agreements and the second through the Alliance's Article 5 mutual military assistance clause, would respond to.."
Comments
Actually, I'd see even the Non-Aligned Movement to be but a temporary and partial solution. In the long-run, I'd like to see the gradual creation of aworld miltary force. It would save much money and would allow nations to share a common force thus reducing fears of other nations too.
NATO is trying very hard to be that.
But NATO doesn't represent the world, but only a few select nations.
True, but it's expanding into Eastern Europe, central Asia and there is talk about expanding into the Pacific to include Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, there is talk about expanding into South and Central America (Colombia is a start), the Carribean and Africa. In fact the only continent not talked about is Antarctica.
The U.N. has peacekeeping soldiers. If a global Super NATO comes into being, it will have the same problem of compliance the U.N. does when it comes to gathering troops for peacekeeping or (in the case of NATO) "peacemaking" operations.
Good lord the UN is even worse than NATO.
Hardly,
The NATO concept of "peacekeeping" means that NATO can send its troops, uninvited, to a country. NATO judges who the "good guys" and who the "bad guys" are. Based on that assessment, NATO picks a side, then attempts to achieve peace by waging war until the "bad guys" have had enough and stop fighting.
U.N. peacekeepers cannot enter a country unless they have been invited. At least one side in a conflict has to express a desire for peace. The U.N. assists the warring parties in conducting cease fire and peace negotiations. Peacekeepers are like referees: they keep the opposing groups separate from each other and try to encourage them to respect the cease fire. Peacekeepers' rules of engagement are not to fire on anyone, unless in self defense - ie., only after U.N. soldiers have been fired upon first.
... not to mention breaking down barriers between the peoples of the world to promote justice, peace and brotherhood?
That's (roughly) what the World Court and Peacekeepers do.
Here's a story I read in a Canadian newspaper (no credit was given to the media outlet that released the story) dated September 1, 2009:
"Canada's chief of defence staff met quietly with his Danish counterpart to strengthen military co-operation in the Arctic just days after the Conservative government mounted a solo display of military prowess in the Far North. The unnanounced discussions between Gen. Walter Natynczyk and Admiral Tim Sloth Jorgensen took place over several days last week and were only made public in a Danish news release."
It indicates two things:
1) Two NATO partners are already cooperating over the "defense" of our er, NATO's (or more specifically, the U.S.A.'s) resources in our the Arctic territory and waterway.
2) The secretive Nixonian way Harper 'does business'. - It's like he's afraid the Canadian public might find out about it and, like, that would be a bad thing, or something.
Defending and protecting the national interests you can believe in.
What would be wrong with a decentralized world federation if it could allow for increased economic efficiency,...
Hopefully, you're not thinking along the lines of a G20 and World Bank type of world federation. The move in this direction over the past 20 years is what has brought Great Depression II upon us.
Arctic being discussed here:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/national-news/quotthe-arctic-russianquot
Oh great, because of Canada's membership in NATO, Canada could become the U.S.A.'s Afghanistan over the Arctic's waters and resources?
Canada should withdraw from NATO and join the Non-Aligned Movement instead.
The NAM might lack the cohesion we find in NATO, but it would still be preferable to have a lack cohesion in a worthy organization than to have cohesion in a threatening one.
Sort of "involved if necessary, but not necessarily involved?
Sort of "involved if necessary, but not necessarily involved?
Perhaps. I'd say that at minimum we ought to at least respect international law and not provoke other countries unnecessarily.
Actually, I'd see even the Non-Aligned Movement to be but a temporary and partial solution. In the long-run, I'd like to see the gradual creation of aworld miltary force. It would save much money and would allow nations to share a common force thus reducing fears of other nations too.
LMAO
Actually, I'd see even the Non-Aligned Movement to be but a temporary and partial solution. In the long-run, I'd like to see the gradual creation of aworld miltary force. It would save much money and would allow nations to share a common force thus reducing fears of other nations too.
NATO is trying very hard to be that.
The arctic will Afghanistan all over again!
Actually, I'd see even the Non-Aligned Movement to be but a temporary and partial solution. In the long-run, I'd like to see the gradual creation of aworld miltary force. It would save much money and would allow nations to share a common force thus reducing fears of other nations too.
No doubt all of the money saved would be spent on esperanto lessons, eh?
Machjo, it would be easier to take you seriously if you would consider and occasionally try to map out for us how you would get from point A (current reality) to point B (your personal ideal).
Actually, I'd see even the Non-Aligned Movement to be but a temporary and partial solution. In the long-run, I'd like to see the gradual creation of aworld miltary force. It would save much money and would allow nations to share a common force thus reducing fears of other nations too.
NATO is trying very hard to be that.
But NATO doesn't represent the world, but only a few select nations.
Actually, I'd see even the Non-Aligned Movement to be but a temporary and partial solution. In the long-run, I'd like to see the gradual creation of aworld miltary force. It would save much money and would allow nations to share a common force thus reducing fears of other nations too.
No doubt all of the money saved would be spent on esperanto lessons, eh?
I could agree to some degree, but what you're proposing would go way too far. With the money saved from having an international force of a maximum of let's say 100,000 well trained and equipped, we'd save enough money for alot more than that, improved education for all in every field, etc.
1. Propose the idea to the UN, inviting any interested nation to participate.
2. Lay down the rules of engagement, when this force is to be used, and how it must fully abide by all applicable international laws, etc.
2. Start gradually to hire soldiers for the international force while reducing government spending for national forces.
If society is not ready for that, then let's just satisfy ourselves with a neutral alliance like the NAM.
LMAO
LMAO
So what's your recommendation? That we continue the redundancy of national military forces creating jobs for the sake of jobs?
It is a common fallacy of the right, in thinking that the left believes in 1 world order.
It is the right's over lords who want 1 world order.
The left, for the most part, just wants the environment saved, world peace, equality and mutal co-operation tha benefits ALL.
I think it would be in Canadians interests to let the Russians have it all. Because if Trans-Canada Pipeline was an example of what to expect. our stooges would have taxpayers finance 90% of the construction before handing it off to private enterprise jackals for a song and maybe a crate of whiskey. History repeats itself as a tragedy the first time and as farce the next.
It is a common fallacy of the right, in thinking that the left believes in 1 world order.
It is the right's over lords who want 1 world order.
The left, for the most part, just wants the environment saved, world peace, equality and mutal co-operation tha benefits ALL.
Whether I'm right or left is debatable (I have a streak of both) though I would generally consider cosmopolitanism to be more in line with progressive ideas than nationalism would. I do believe in efficiency however, and so don't see why I should support a multiplicity of redundant military bureaucracies when we could save money by sharing a common military force. Another example of eliminating make-work jobs. I'm all for the government ensuring full employment in the economy, but I'm not for militarism or militarizaiton for the sake of creating jobs or just as an expensive opportunity for chest-beating or muscle-flexing. I'd like to hink we could evolve beyond such neanderthal notions.
Good lord the UN is even worse than NATO.
I think it would be in Canadians interests to let the Russians have it all. Because if Trans-Canada Pipeline was an example of what to expect. our stooges would have taxpayers finance 90% of the construction before handing it off to private enterprise jackals for a song and maybe a crate of whiskey. History repeats itself as a tragedy the first time and as farce the next.
I would not be in favour of letting Russia have it all. Rather, I'd say let the locals choose by referendum (if it ever came down to locals asking to join Russia) and in full conformity with international law. As for Russo-Canadian borders, let's consult with Russia on it and come up with a mutually agreeable border. If we fail in that, then take it to international binding arbitration. No need for militarism and blind nationalism on the left too. We have enough of it on the right.
Good lord the UN is even worse than NATO.
How so?
The UN might not be perfect and certainly needs an overhaul, but it's still far more representative of mankind than NATO by a long shot.
No, I think NATO is worse than the UN.
And I do not believe in 1 world order either.
No, I think NATO is worse than the UN.
Any particular reason?
Even in those areas that could potentially make for more efficient use of resources that could then be redirected towards education, etc.?
What would be wrong with a decentralized world federation if it could allow for increased economic efficiency, not to mention breaking down barriers between the peoples of the world to promote justice, peace and brotherhood?