NWO announces its intentions...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I'm going to do a little "Andyism" here.

This is highly significant. This stuff is announcing, in no uncertain terms that NATO is no longer simply a Defensive Treaty, but rather it is taking the opportunity of its 50 year anniversay to "redefine" its mission to include, well, whatever it wants, I suppose. We certainly saw this coming, now it's official.

The questions I'm asking myself, which may or may not be relevant include -

Why is this being done during the 50th Anniversary summit? Were they planning it this way? Was the bombing in Serbia timed to justify this announcement at this time? How are the Russians and the Chinese going to respond to this? Notice in the Blair piece how he treats the European Union. Is this as much a signal of American-British hegemony to the E.U. as it is to rest of the world? What do the other members of NATO REALLY think about this? Do they have much of a choice? I have a feeling that the French and Italians in particular are probably pretty pissed. Will we EVER see any statements from them in the press? Was this timed to be the big news story on a Saturday, when people pay much less attention to the news? Will this story die off come Monday?

I know this may be considered off topic, but I think this is important, and I wanted to help justify all the energy Andy's been putting into this issue. There is other coverage on this, these are just the first two pieces that I read. I'm not reprinting entire articles here, just the relevant snips. If you're not interested in this, please hit the "Back" button in your browser...


With Eye On Kosovo, NATO Leaders Map New Mission

(Reuters) - "Keeping a wary eye on Kosovo, NATO leaders met Saturday to map out a 21st century mission for the alliance during the second day of their 50th anniversary summit.

The 19 leaders were spending the second day of their three-day summit adopting a new strategic framework that lays out NATO's broader job of intervening beyond its borders to halt regional crises or to meet other threats to its members' security.

"It is our task this morning to make the alliance fit for the 21st century,'' said NATO Secretary General Javier Solana in opening a plenary session of the summit.

But the conflict in Yugoslavia, rooted in trying to stop Serb forces from their crackdown on ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, was never far from their minds. Allied warplanes kept up the pressure there during the night.

"The crisis in Kosovo has underscored the importance of NATO and the imperative of modernizing our alliance for 21st century challenges,'" said President Clinton.

"Today we will embrace a comprehensive plan to do just that so that NATO can advance security and freedom for another 50 years, by enhancing our capacity to address conflicts beyond our borders," he said.

U.S. and NATO officials said the strategic concept to be adopted Saturday will reaffirm NATO's Cold War founding principle of mutual defense -- of members pledging to jointly defend any other member from attack.

But it will go beyond this to define a role for NATO outside of its borders when needed to contain new types of threats to the security of its members.

U.S. officials said the new framework would recognize, in addition to NATO's core mission, new challenges such as regional conflicts, weapons of mass destruction, nuclear proliferation and transnational threats such as terrorism.

Said a U.S. official, "We're not creating a global cop here ... there is a basic understanding that NATO will act in a greater European area."

Turning up the economic pressure on Yugoslavia, the leaders agreed Friday to impose an oil embargo on the Serbs and authorized allied naval forces in principle to board and search ships suspected of delivering oil and arms.

The move could set up a confrontation with Russia because Russian ships deliver much of Yugoslavia's oil. And the leaders are counting on Russia to help mediate a settlement with Yugoslavia and contribute troops to an international security force to protect the ethnic Albanians on their return to Kosovo..." (snip)

Tony Blair wrote a piece for toady's NYTimes Op/Ed page.


(He begins by discussing some of the specifics about Kosovo. Snip...)

"...It is important, too, that we plan for the long-term, cooperative security of Europe. This means redefining the core functions of the alliance as military planners prepare for the 21st century. Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which established the alliance in 1949, treats an attack on one as an attack on all.

It is the most remarkable mutual guarantee ever given among nations. We are extending that to three new partners -- Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic -- and preparing for the admission of new members in the future.

NATO comprises three crucial partnerships that we need to nurture and develop. Foremost is the partnership between Europe and North America. It extends beyond the security sphere. The shared values of democracy, the rule of law and human rights make NATO more than a military alliance. They are the practical and political embodiment of trans-Atlantic unity.

Americans seem to recognize that the developing European Union is in the best interests of NATO. While the United States may well be the only remaining superpower, the union packs a big punch in trade and economics. But we need to develop its political clout, too, so that America can look to its European allies to share more of the defense burden. As the European Union improves its ability to manage political crises, Europe will make a stronger contribution to NATO.

NATO will always be the bedrock of our collective defense. But Europeans also need to be able to take on security tasks where the alliance as a whole is not engaged.

This is a concept we will develop further at the summit, without duplicating NATO's impressive apparatus for planning and for mobilizing force, and in a way that will mean we can better carry out our military responsibilities whenever we need to act.

The wider Euro-Atlantic community of nations will be exemplified at the summit when we are joined by our partner countries in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. This will underline that NATO is not an inward-looking club of the secure West, but an alliance dedicated to fostering security and stability throughout Europe.

I also would like to see Russia become an active and successful member of this Euro-Atlantic community, as is now the case with Ukraine. Russia belongs to Europe spiritually and politically as well as geographically. We need to learn how to insure that Russia and the allies can work more effectively to pre-empt crises like Kosovo. A necessary first step is to resume the military cooperation and political dialogue that was developing well before the current crisis in Kosovo.

NATO's first task, of course, is to protect its own member countries. But we will be judged by our more general ability to deliver security and personal freedom. That means NATO must have a moral perspective and a conscience. We must be willing to right wrongs and prosecute just causes.

That is what we are doing over Kosovo, and why our pilots and crews will be operating over the Balkans again tonight. That is the clear message from NATO. And that is the lesson Slobodan Milosevic will learn."

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), April 24, 1999



Thanks for the heads up. This NATO information is very important.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), April 24, 1999.

flee the cities.you cannot fight N.W.O. you must avoid the military arm.flee the cities...


-- zoobie (zoob@aol.com), April 24, 1999.


Neither link works. Both stories seem to have been moved. I'll try to fix it...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), April 24, 1999.


Thank you for airing this info to the forum.....even tho it isn't exactly Y2K related, this war could mean we might need our storage food, even if Y2K should just be a bump in the road. We have two reasons to be prepared, now!

It's really getting scary, since NATO now really is becoming the NWO. As much as I want our young service men and women to be safe, I would like to see NATO fall apart. This is just a prelude to NATO forces being posted all over the U.S, I fear. Remembering the dream of King Nebuchadnezar and his ten toes of clay, I still have hope.

What can we do, other than write to our Congressmen, who were so spineless to let der Slickmeister off the hook! Americans need to wake up and smell the coffee- while they an still get it!!!!

Incidentally, one caller to a talk show I listen to said her son, who is a flier, who will be going to Kosovo shortly, said that the fellows were told that if their planes go down, the men will just have to go down with them- that the govt. can't afford to provide them with parachutes! Yet, our Commander in Grief can spend a big hunk of change to cover the costs of reapairing the Columbine school and provide the students with counseling. (I do mourn for the students who were killed or injured, but reportedly, the students in this school are from well to do families. Will this set a precedent for our tax dollars being used everytime there is a school shooting?) As much as I rue school incidents like this, given my druthers, let us protect our servicemen!)

-- Jo Ann (MaJo@Michiana.com), April 24, 1999.

Patrick: I don't understand the reasoning behind all your hoopla. What is the difference between the old NATO and the NWO? George Bush has been publicly talking about NWO since his days in office. Why is it now some sinister plot? I don't see any reason for anyone to embellish the significance of this topic, I think Andy has it pretty well covered.

-- a (a@a.a), April 24, 1999.

" the fellows were told that if their planes go down, the men will just have to go down with them- that the govt. can't afford to provide them with parachutes!"

What a crock. This is not WW1 with dashing young fellows trailing scarves out of open cockpits. Combat aircraft today are provided with ejection seats. Ejection seats are equipped with parachutes. The Apache helicopter for obvious reasons does not have ejection seats, but is designed to withstand the impact of a vertical landing at 42 feet per second.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), April 24, 1999.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair was also interviewed on PBSs News Hour yesterday.

Jim Lehrer talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair about NATO air strikes in Yugoslavia, the possible use of ground troops and the evolving role of the Alliance. ...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/jan-june99/blair_4- 23.htmlX


JIM LEHRER: And this, of course, is a new thing for NATO. NATO is a defensive organization set up to protect the West from the Soviet Union. This is an offensive move by NATO. You are at ease with that?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Yes, I am. But you are quite right in pointing out it is . . . it is an extension of NATO's role. It is a development of NATO. I said in the speech I gave in Chicago last night that at a later stage it is important that we reflect on the lessons of all this, but I think that NATO has changed since the end of the Cold War and a lot of the humanitarian missions that we have undertaken and the work that we've done is of a different nature from what people envisaged when after the war, people from Britain and the United States and elsewhere established NATO. That is how institutions evolve.

JIM LEHRER: I read your speech yesterday in Chicago as well. Are you essentially, is it correct to say what you're saying is that in this new world, this new generation that we are in, post Cold War that you and the other leaders of NATO or of the civilized world -- however you want to describe it -- are going to say 'that's not acceptable, Mr. Milosevic, that's not acceptable Mr. whoever or whatever,' and you will  you have the right to intervene in internal affairs of countries or whatever affairs of countries if you decide what they are doing doesn't meet your high standards?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: I'm saying that we shouldn't interfere in every conflict and the principal of non-interference in the affairs of another state is a very sound principal. But I'm saying there are circumstances - racial genocide, where our strategic interests are dramatically engaged, circumstances where we've exhausted every diplomatic solution, circumstances where we have the capability to act - that we do have to think of what I call a doctrine of international community where we are prepared to act, where we are prepared to take a lead and, I think I'm trying to say something more than that. I'm also saying that it is important both with the globalization of economics, of the environment, of issues like third world debt and of security and disarmament issues that we don't focus whenever there is a crisis, but lose focus when there isn't. And that we realize that there are certain issues that we have to remain focused and engaged with the whole time because this is world in which we live and our national interests are more dependent on international cooperation today than every before, certainly even at the time when NATO was established.

[snip -- to end]

You can either see this as NWO, a doctrine of international community, or just a natural evolution.

If its a council of democratic nations, it may be appropriate. We prefer to avoid the dictator types controlling the world.

The world will ONLY become more of an interdependent world economy, not less, IMHO. Its called progress. The question is, will we learn from mistakes, and become wise?

Could work. Might not.


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 24, 1999.

Shortly after the Berlin Wall came down and the USSR began breaking up, discussion of Nato's new role took place along with analyses of those startling events. It's not a sudden, coincidental thing and was being discussed when Reagan was President and Thatcher Prime Minister.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), April 24, 1999.

family > tribe > village > city-state > nation > planet

It's a tricky little evolution, but it is apparently what nature had intended...

-- a (a@a.a), April 24, 1999.


In search of liberty, a man can leave his family and journey from tribe to tribe, village to village, city-state to city-state, and nation to nation. But what will he do under the central governance of his planet? We need planetary alternatives if global government is ever to be.

-- Nathan (mospam@all.com), April 24, 1999.

Globalisation (domination)is only "progress" for tyrants. Wake Up. Do a little research Diane; And yes, enviromental issues are exploited by these same parasites. Look into who Al Gore is connected to.

-- KoFE (Your@town.USA), April 24, 1999.

the caller who made the claim concerning parachutes was obviously lying. For the record, you cannot fly a modern high performance fighter without being strapped into the ejection seat...no seat, no pilot. if there is a seat it does have parachutes attached.

sometimes I wonder if people who call in to those sorts of radio shows are intentionally trying to cause problems, or simply not well enough informed to understand how silly some of their rumors really are.



-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), April 24, 1999.


Here is the most important thing that Blair said... the key to the method in which the NWO will achieve domination:

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: "Well, as we said right from the very beginning, we always anticipated using ground forces in order to go in and police a settlement."

Politicians and leaders in government are owned by corporations. Some of them are actually naive enough to believe that this proposed New World Order is all in the name of peace and equality. Some are aware that the motivations are not all that sincere, but are willing to play the game for the huge financial rewards. A few, such as Henry Kissinger (and probably Bush), promote the NWO by choice because they are mentally twisted, and seek nothing more than ultimate power. But in any event it is the corporations that control the decisions made by politicians to begin these military interventions, what they refer to as "police actions", that will ultimately use NATO as a global police force. Sounds an awful lot like the Nazis doesn't it? And we already know that the equipment is in place, training is being conducted, and they are prepared to begin these "police actions" within the U.S. It is only a matter of time.

-- @ (@@@.@), April 24, 1999.

1) The money going to Columbine is NOT tax dollars but from the OKC Victim fund.

2)The non-interventionist doctrine looks to be on it's way out of intensive care and into the morgue. The comment suggests that if a group of leaders do not like something, for instance, an anti abortion stand, or a rigtht and priveledge to keep and bear arms, that the group has the authority to correct the perceived problem. Soveriegnty seems about to go along with the non-intervention doctrine. I can just see the european leaders looking at some of our laws and saying "You have to change that one, it's not the way you should be" and WEE WILLIE saying "Yas massa, jes keep the chick errr interns comin'. What evah yo sez, massa"


-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), April 24, 1999.

I need to find someone who dose cloisonne and would be willing to do a litle wooden shoe on a red white and blue bunting field or a 1776 American Flag background. For the symbol challenged, the wooden shoe is called a sabot, from which we get ........ The field represents the country we are willing to fight to protect. Anyone want to make em??


bet we'd sell a bundle of em.

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), April 24, 1999.

Here's a little song for the NWO (with a sort of reggae feel):

Bring on the Lucie (Freeda Peeple)

John Lennon, Mind Games, 1973

We don't care what flag you're waving
We don't even want to know your name
We don't care where you're from or where you're going
All we know is that you came

You're making all our desicions
We have just one request of you
That while you're thinking things over
Here's something you just better do

Free the people now
Do it do it do it now

Free the people now
Do it do it do it now

Well we were caught with our hands in the air
Don't desapir paranoia is everywhere
We can shake it with love when we're scared
So let's shout it aloud like a prayer

Free the people now
Do it do it do it now

Free the people now
Do it do it do it now

We understand your paranoia
But we don't want to play your game
You think you're cool and know what you are doing
666 is your name

So while you're jerking off each other
You better bear this thought in mind
Your time is up you better know it
But maybe you don't read the signs

Free the people now
Do it do it do it now

Free the people now
Do it do it do it now

Well you were caught with your hands in the kill
And you still got to swallow your pill
As you slip and you slide down the hill
On the blood of the people you killed

Stop the killing now
Do it do it do it now

Stop the killing now
Do it do it do it now

Stop the killing now
Do it do it do it now

Stop the killing now
Do it do it do it now

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), April 25, 1999.

Nathan I can see why they assassinated that great guy. Oh yeah, it was just a lone nut, wasn't it. Silly me.

-- humpty (no.6@thevillage.com), April 25, 1999.

And the Russians, Chinese, and the Islamic Nations are going to sit around doing nothing???

More likely they are responding in kind or have already formed a counter alliance.

The third unclean "spirit like unto a frog which gathers the whole world to war." Interesting to view them as frogs, slimy, and they do their work in the dark.

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), April 25, 1999.

Well, if my more mercenary half were a leader in China/Russia, and I could see Y2K putting us back decades while the USA went forward, and I could see the USA and other NATO countries essentially announcing their world supremacy (which is what it amounts to, if you think about it), I think I would take out my non-Y2K-compliant nukes and use the bloody things prior to the turnover. That way, my country might be in Y2K ruins, but damn straight if we were going down, the USA would go with us.

I hope that my dark side is darker than anybody in Russia or China is. Unfortunately I kind of doubt it.

PJ in TX

-- PJ Gaenir (fire@firedocs.com), April 25, 1999.

The world has a choice ... co-operation or a kind of domination. Which would you choose?

What does domination look like?

What does co-operation look like?


23 April 1999


(Outlines his Doctrine of the International Community) (5460)

Washington -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair has spelled out an international doctrine with political, economic and security components designed to bind the world community more tightly together.

"We live in a world where isolationism has ceased to have a reason to exist," Blair said in a speech to the Economic Club of Chicago April 22.

"Financial instability in Asia destroys jobs in Chicago and in my own constituency in County Durham. Poverty in the Caribbean means more drugs on the streets in Washington and London. Conflict in the Balkans causes more refugees in Germany and here in the US. These problems can only be addressed by international co-operation," Blair said.

Blair said the key reform of the global financial architecture needs to be increased transparency in order to avert repetition of the emerging market crisis that engulfed many Asian countries, Russia and Brazil. He said the impetus for improving international financial institutions should come from the Group of Seven industrial democracies, which meets for a summit in Cologne, Germany in late June.

The British Prime Minister said the industrial democracies must make a concerted effort to help Russia become a democratic, prosperous and outward looking nation.

With regard to global security, Blair said intervention is justified to prevent genocide.

"Acts of genocide can never be a purely internal matter. When oppression produces massive flows of refugees which unsettle neighbouring countries, then they can properly be described as 'threats to international peace and security'. When regimes are based on minority rule they lose legitimacy -- look at South Africa," Blair said.

Blair laid down five criteria for military intervention: 1) certitude that intervention is morally just, 2) diplomatic options have been exhausted, 3) intervention is sensible, 4) acceptance of long-term commitment, and 5) national interests are involved.

In the realm of politics, the British leader said the problems of competitiveness, changes in technology, crime, drugs and family breakdown are afflicting societies around the world. He said the leaders of the center and center-left governments realize that neither the old left nor the 1980's style right can properly deal with those problems.

He said education, small business entrepreneurship and more efficient government are the keys to dealing with today's problems.

Following is the UK transcript:

(begin transcript)

http://www.usia.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/ latest&f=99042315.tlt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 25, 1999.

I read many years ago that the new world order had a target date of year 2000. I thought at the time that it was odd that they would pick that date which was 20 years or more in the future at that time and many of the people promoting this concept would be dead by year 2000. Now I think we know why. After I read last week that the esteemed Department of Defense decided to go with a 2 digit year, it all starts to come together. Was this a long range plan to have the new world order take over when y2k problems surface and use that confusion as a basis for martial law, gun confiscation, overturn of 2nd amendment etc. etc. etc.? Does 2 + 2 + 4? Do elections even count anymore? With electronic elections, it is easy to steal elections. Remember Landslide Lyndon who won and Bob Dornan who lost under suspicious circumstances? Years ago we had Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton etc. Now we have Clinton, Gore, Johnson, Carter, and featherweight candidates like McGovern. It is no wonder the country is in trouble.

-- Tom (amazed@notstupid.gom), April 25, 1999.

Blair laid down five criteria for military intervention:

1) certitude that intervention is morally just,
2) diplomatic options have been exhausted,
3) intervention is sensible,
4) acceptance of long-term commitment, and
5) national interests are involved.
I defy anyone to solve the Kosovo intervention with this set of criteria .

He said the leaders of the center and center-left governments realize that neither the old left nor the 1980's style right can properly deal with those problems.
Has he told Bill and Hillary this yet?


-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), April 25, 1999.

Yeah but Chuck, you forgot to note that the list well could sum up a 'justifiable' reason for having "military intervention" HERE.

PJ in TX

-- PJ Gaenir (fire@firedocs.com), April 25, 1999.

I've been giving this Kosovo situation, NATO, the U.N., and the NWO movement a lot of thought lately, and the theory I'm arriving at is not pretty at all. There is no rational reason why NATO would commit itself to a civil war in a soverign nation, including so-called ethnic cleansing. There are no clear cut good and bad guys in this war, both sides are guilty of atrocities, the Serbs only being greater because of their superior firepower to the KLA. In effect the removal of the civilian population from Kosovo is not ethnic cleansing, but pure military tactics by the Serbs. The Kla is fighting a guerilla war, much akin to the VC in vietnam. the only effective way to fight guerillas is to remove their support base and the civilian population in which they hide. Moreover there have been and continue to be much more extreme cases of all out genocide and ethnic persecution in the world community, some of them among NATO members.

I have long held that Bill Clinton, and the NWO elite have forsaken any hope of introducing their one world government as long as the United States reamains a soverign superpower, and the strongest military force on the planet. On numerous threads I have pointed out the insane policy decisons and nuclear response protocals which guarntee the U.S. will be devastated in a nuclear war if it occurs. The only impediment to a Russian first strike against the United States is the preconcieved NATO response against an agressor nation, specifically the former Soviet Union, now known as Russia. Clinton's policies over the last eight years have in sum total actually invited an all out attack on this country, and I believe this attack on the former Yugoslavia is the final step in that process.

Consider if you will that the ultimate goal of this attack was not to help the Kosovos, but to fragment NATO while simuletaneously provoking a conflict with the Russians. Germany and Italy already are balking at just the bombing campaign, with the Germans actively seeking peace accords through Russia and trying to mend sino relations. The Italians are backpedaling rapidly as talk of ground troops and Naval blockades escalates, and will certasinly go into headlong retreat at the first sign of a confrontation with the Russians. A confrontation which is almost certain to occur over the oil embargo.

The greatest two warmongers in this operation are Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. Both are NWO lackeys and blair openly represents the major political and financial power base of the NWO. If Russia does challenge NATO over this situation the result is as predictable as the sunrise. NATO will fragment, leaving the United States and England to face the Russians alone. The English parliment will "panic" and throw Blair out of office, replacing him with a more moderate prime minister. A short shooting war between the U.S. and Russia will ensue, followed by an all out nuclear strike against the U.S. by the Russians as they are not able to scramble their mothballed Naval forces in a timely manner. Bill Clinton and the NWO will have suceeded in destroying the United States. If I were you I would pay close attention to any trips Clinton takes out of the country in late August or early September.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), April 26, 1999.


We have more reason to be afraid of the purple teletubbie than Bill Clinton. Swayed my elite-controlled media distractions like most people, you are looking in all the wrong places, which is exactly what they want.

-- @ (@@@.@), April 26, 1999.


you should never drop acid on an empty stomach.

-- Tim Leary (LSD-25@heaven.org), April 26, 1999.

Tim, if that's the best rebuttal you can come up with why even bother?

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), April 26, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ