Blair Whines that NATO Isn't 'Tough Enough' on Terrorism' Because They Won't His and Bush's Mess

Blair and Bush are currently P-Oed at NATO because it won't come in and clean up their mess in Iraq, nor will they allow the forces to be used as "free mercenaries" for the BushBlair push for global domination. So in what they imagine is a "clever" political strategy, Blair {reports the BBC) "says he worries Nato's efforts against international terrorism are still not strong enough" and that "he was concerned there was still not the right 'sense of urgency' in some quarters." As in not enough kowtowing to the BushBlair agenda. "Mr Blair said securing enduring peace in Iraq and Afghanistan was vital to deny terrorists propaganda." And even more vital to BushBlair's oily corporate pals. "Mr Blair said: "Even for those who passionately disagree with our decision to go to war, the issues are now clear, the side we should be on without doubt, the cause manifestly one worth winning." As if no one sees through you, Tony!

'A Dog's Dinner': Many in NATO Unhappy with Bush Iraq Deal

Spacewar.com: "On Saturday NATO ambassadors agreed on a basic deal, to be adopted by the summit in Istanbul, which would offer training to Iraqi security forces. But France... was unhappy about seeing the alliance 'planting its flag in Iraq', French diplomats said. NATO ambassadors had held lengthy talks on whether the proposed involvement would constitute a formal 'NATO mission' or a 'contribution by NATO through its member states', an alliance diplomat said. In particular, France and Germany made clear that they would not consent to the highly symbolic step of sending any of their own officers to Iraq itself to take part in the training of the country's post-Saddam armed forces." While NATO leader Jaap de Hoop Scheffer of the Netherlands - which currently has one of the most rightwing government in the EU, gushed with praise of the Bushie deal, "Other NATO sources were less impressed by the diplomatic accord. 'It's a bit of a dog's dinner,' said one."

NATO's Future: A History Lesson for the Allies

William Pfaff writes: "The deepest misunderstanding, however, was Washington's. People there do not realize that for the Western Europeans, 'everything has changed' since the Iraq war. This is not a matter of what the French, German and Benelux governments think. It is what the mass of governments think. It is what the mass of West Europeans think. The meeting was provoked because Britain appeared to be toying with the idea of rejoining the European project to create an EU military structure (and headquarters), capable of operating independently of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in matters in which the alliance itself (meaning the United States) does not want to become involved. That might seem harmless enough, but to Washington it is a European declaration of independence, and a major crisis."

Bush Policy Risks Terminal Strain in NATO

William Pfaff writes: "George Robertson says NATO will provide no further help to the United States in Iraq... NATO might survive the present crisis, but only as a structure providing U.S. bases in ex-Communist Europe. The United States is going in one direction, and NATO's European Union members in another, a rival direction. This is a reluctant choice by the Europeans, but their perception of Washington has in the last two years changed dramatically. The United States is now seen in Europe as a threat to Europe's independence. The American side does not understand this. During the last few weeks, I have been at a half dozen European conferences bringing together political specialists and policy analysts... In every case, wherever it started, discussion quickly turned into a debate about how to cope with the Bush administration's new America, seen as a disturber of world peace and a risk to the security even of its allies."

NATO Mulls Compromise on Iraq

"In an attempt to break the deadlock currently in NATO, the United States has offered a new proposal. The new proposal singles out support for Turkey in the event of war with Iraq and eliminates the United States' request for beefed up security at US military bases abroad and the movement of troops out of the Balkans. The decision is being mulled at the moment, but there is doubt any immediate action will take place. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said that Turkey's needs would be met, but any precipitous action at this time would send the wrong message to the UN Security Council which meets on Friday by saying 'the move would send a signal that NATO is engaged on an irreversible path of war and would undermine UN efforts to end the Iraq crisis peacefully.' Colin Powell's reaction was the generic response which has been used to describe opposition in the United Nations: 'The alliance is breaking up because it will not meet its responsibilities.'"

To The Bush Administration, Read This Posting To Get A Clue About NATO.

Enough of the criticism of NATO now regarding the issue with protecting Turkey. Here is the reality: Iraq is violating the UN resolutions. The US, though led by the UN, is at some point going to enforce the UN resolutions. Why is the issue with Turkey being brought up now? If the US attacks Iraq tomorrow, it is because Iraq has violated the UN resolution and we are enforcing it, or the US is just being an aggressor. Turkey is not in danger right now, and if Iraq is dumb enough to attack Turkey, the world will surely rally around Turkey and come to the defenses. We are sick of your strategy of trying to undermine the UN, disregard all previous treaties that were signed and now NATO. George, when you said you are a "uniter, not divider", YOU LIED. Where is the impeachment hearings? Any by the way, if you don't really have a clue, that vote was to let you know that the world does not support your war mongering!