A Place to Stand

First of all, congratulations on achieving such a high ranking on the Google search engine with your article.

After acting as a terrorist organization against Serbian civilian targets for 3 months in the spring of 1999, NATO's mission changed from a purely defensive posture into an offensive one based on the right of "humanitarian intervention" to safeguard what Washington and Brussels bureaucrats refer to as the "New World Order"(which is really a nice way of saying that they can slaughter your people from the air en masse if you dare to defy NATO edicts and policy)

In Washington, during Clinton's two terms in office, the saying by Washington bureaucrats on Capitol Hill was:

"NATO has to go out of area or out of business"

NATO now says it has has the right to politically and militarily intervene anywhere, anytime it seees fit in order to "maintain global security and stability"(code words for New World Order Globalism).
 

Indee NATO's charter specifically disallows aggressive warfare & they got round this by saying that that war was carried out by the individual nations merely co-ordinated by NATO.

In turn the US Constitution disallows the President alone launching a war (or a "police action" taking longer than 3 months). They got round the Constitution by saying it was a NATO operation.
 

That's absolutely correct. Were you aware that Russian security officials in the GRU and FSB stated at the time of NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia (then Serbia and Montenegro) that all ICBMs operated by the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces (including the SLBMs in the Russian Navy)were placed on one of the highest levels of Russian military alert since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis - the equivalent of Def-Con 2 in the United States (Def Con 1 is the highest).

In fact at the time, Yeltsin's closest officials said that Russia was even closer to nuclear war with NATO and the US than during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

Two groundbreaking articles I think everybody should read for a refresher of what is happeneing today.

NATO - led by the US - is on a collision course with Russia.

NATO's Real Target is Russia

Did Mort Zuckerman let the cat out of the bag?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php/www.wr.org/index.php/index.php?pageId=2759

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=2739

In a column several weeks ago, we expressed the opinion that the real target of NATO is not puny Yugoslavia, but that huge continental expanse known as Russia. We pointed out that NATO had formed a string of political-military partnerships with nations bordering Russia -- from Lithuania and the Ukraine in Europe to Georgia and Azerbaijan in the Caucasus.


We quoted NATO's own publication as our source of information. Subsequent to that column, NATO had its 50th anniversary hoopla in Washington in which it proclaimed its new mandate as Globocop.

There wasn't much of an objection from Congress, which has yet to ratify this new NATO treaty that commits America's military forces to support NATO in its new aggressive geopolitical Strategic Concept.


As we all know, NATO is not a global charity. Humanitarianism is merely a convenient propaganda front created to gain popular support for its present war against Yugoslavia and its future humanitarian wars.

There is little doubt that NATO knew what the consequences of its bombing would be: retaliation against the Kosovars and their mass expulsion from Kosovo. NATO also knew that neither Milosevic, nor any other Serbian leader, could accept its blunt ultimatum, thus precipitating a war.

The war was needed to serve notice on future enemies that NATO had the military means to impose its will unconditionally, and that it was better to surrender than fight.

But let's get real. Behind all of the hypocritical rhetoric about human rights is a much more powerful motivation. What is really at stake is not ethnic harmony, but enormous economic wealth in the form of oil and other minerals.

NATO is the military front for the Council on Foreign Relations, which is supported by such corporate giants as Chase Manhattan, Exxon, United Technologies, Lucent, Xerox, AT&T, J.P. Morgan, Chevron, Texaco, Shell, Newsweek, Time Warner, Mobil, Pennzoil, and a hundred more companies. These corporate entities apparently approve of the CFR as an instrument of foreign policy. Its directors and members are the individuals who have made the decision to go to war. All of the major players in the Clinton administration are from the CFR. These are the policy makers who voted for war against Yugoslavia. The CFR and NATO share the same world vision and operate in concert.

Mortimer Zuckerman, owner of U.S. News and World Report, is a member of the CFR. He frequently writes editorials in his magazine. The May 10 editorial is entitled "The big game gets bigger. Russia will gain wealth and influence if it controls Caspian Sea oil." After taking note of Russia's present weakness in Europe, he writes, "But in southern Eurasia, off the political radar of the West, Russia is making much of its limited resources in a region of weaker states where it still retains influence and remains welcome. We had better wake up to the dangers or one day the certainties on which we base our prosperity will be certainties no more."

Apparently, the oil and gas reserves in that area of the world are valued up to $4 trillion, and that's why NATO is venturing so far off its North Atlantic base to form partnerships with those Eurasian nations that sit on that wealth. NATO and its CFR corporate sponsors want to be able to use American military assets to assure their ability to control that area should there be "ethnic disharmony" or "human rights violations." Who would be the enemy in that area?

Zuckerman writes, "The competition for dominance in the Caspian will be the 21st century version of the 19th century covert duel between the Russian and British empires for control of central Asia." Zuckerman asks, "What are we doing about it?" His solution: "The first and most critical strategic step is clearly for the United States to ensure that multiple pipelines will be built out of the Caspian region, including at least one main export pipeline that would go through Turkey, a crucial ally."

Aha, now we know why NATO is not concerned over how Turkey is treating its Kurdish dissidents. Forget about humanitarianism and ethnic cleansing. We need Turkey for NATO's Eurasian strategy.

Finally, Zuckerman writes, "There is anxiety that American opposition to Russia might play into the hands of the even more undemocratic and anti-Western nationalist politicians waiting for a crisis in Moscow. These are reasonable arguments -- but make no mistake about it, the risks pale by comparison with the risks we run if Russia wins the biggest game while we sit on the sidelines."

There you have it in a nutshell. We must risk nuclear World War III in order to gain political and military control of natural resources on Russia's borders. I wonder how we would feel if a group of foreign powers, armed with bombers and nuclear missiles, began surrounding the United States with its intention of gaining control over the natural resources in our backyard. I think we might begin to behave like the Russians who have good reason not to trust NATO. All they have to do is read Mortimer Zuckerman's editorial to know exactly what NATO is thinking and planning.
 

I wasn't aware the Russians had said that & must admit I think it must have been a little after-the-fact self justification unless the Soviets were much more willing to back down during the Cuba crisis than appeared.

However it did prove to the Russians & Chinese (particularly after bombing their embassy) & the world that the NATO powers respect military strength far more than right. Hence Russia improved their armed forces to be able to destroy Georgia's in 2 days.

The pointlessness of making enemies just because you can.
 

Well done. It is always particularly gratifying when you get ranked above the organisation, company or person you are slagging off.