NATO again fails to reach a deal

BRUSSELS, Belgium, Feb. 12 � NATO failed to reach agreement Wednesday on a U.S. request for support for Turkey in the event of a war in Iraq, a diplomatic standoff that underscored the inability of the United States to persuade key allies to rally behind its call for prompt action against Saddam Hussein....

www.msnbc.com...

So many agendas here: the Turks have their eyes on Kurd land and oil: not to mention the Yankee dollar.
NATO is bound up in so many clauses and memoranda that the dispute could take forever ( and it�s tied to Blix�s report, of course, and possibly the second Resolution issue)
The �defence of gallant little Turkey� approach is risible � they�re armed to the teeth, tough soldiers and an attack on their own territory would automatically involve NATO support anyway.
The Turks have also said they may not want British troops and that they won�t accept US command of their troops!
Nothing clear at all except a bit of Turkish self-seeking (who can blame them?). Their key NATO role in the soft underbelly went with the collapse of the USSR and their real aim � membership of the EU is still a long way off from being achieved.
And "failed to reach agreement" is putting it mildly.

People talk about the NWO and what potential threat exists. Let me present that the war on terrorism is setting a tone. Saddam Hussein committed acts of Genocide against several cultures including those who resided in Iraq. In relation to this matter, elements of the world governments presented a compromise. This being that if he had not WMD then he could no longer engage in Genocide using these weapons. So the idea is in theory to disarm him and keep him disarmed for as long as it takes. This meaning until he dies or the government he established is overthrown (which could go beyond his death).

Initially when these acts of genocide were reported and verified, the US was blamed for ignoring them. Ronald Regan was seen as the architect of a plan to treat this event as not having happened. When desert storm occured General Swartkoff was confident he could finish it (attacking Baghdad), but the decision was that this was not the time. Specifically, at the time one matter predominated, this was in relation to the recent formation of the Russian Republic. The fear was that Russia could reinstate itself as the Soviet Union. As a reuslt of concerns, over the US having control of territories so close to Russia. The decision was made to cease hostilities. Sanctions were imposed against Iraq whose purpose was to interfere with the production of WMD. But the fact of the matter is Iraq had access to the technology. They only needed recources to make the weapons, which had been disallowed.

The UN was created after WWII it was given a military force and the ability to wage war for a purpose. Simply stated and in relation to WWII, this purpose was to wage war with any country which engaged in acts of Genocide (Something Iraq has already done). The purpose of NATO was to protect Europe and the United States against the Warsaw Pact. It was formed in relation to two issues, one the fact the Soviet Union gained access to Nuclear weapons. And two, the acts of Genocide which were committed by Stalin against citizens of the Soviet Union.

There have been other acts of Genocide, one related to Vietnam in which French citizens. Which had lived in that country for generations were killed (men, women and children abet entire families). In Korea a similar event occured but in that case it was with native-born South Koreans, which were residents of North Korean Territories.

In Bosnia Ethnic cleansing meant more than just killing Moslems. It meant taking Moslem women and Raping/impregnating them, so that the offspring would be more Caucasian.

The War on Terrorism is presently focussed on Iraq this because of several reasons. Amongst them is the fact that if a country has the technology necessary to produce WMD, and only needs the raw materials. The only thing that stops that country from producing WMD is vigilance and the ability to (with complete confidence) to say that Iraq has no such weapons. This is not realistic it is simply a game, a game which could result in Nuclear War.

Iraq has used WMD against its own people this is clear and beyond any shadow of doubt, as a reuslt its government must be overthrown. Personally I could care less in relation to issues of economics. Quite frankly they made a bad investment (those who made arrangements for trade with Iraq). The current threat (today�s threat) is that in some way, what Saddam Hussein did to people in his own territory with WMD.
Is not justification for war against the current regime of Iraq.

If in some way this is justified it will set precedence in relation to acts of genocide in general. What is evil is clear, what is wrong is apparent. No government has the right to use WMD against populations residing in its territory. The use of such weapons is only justified when clear evidence exists that such weapons have been used against them (leaders).

So let it be written,
So let it be done.

PS: The Game is over