Time For Canada

[CHIMO]

To withdraw from NATO!

Policy OKs First Strike to Protect US
Pentagon strategic plan codifies unilateral, preemptive attacks. The doctrine marks a shift from coalitions such as NATO, analysts say

WASHINGTON - Two years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon has formally included in key strategic plans provisions for launching preemptive strikes against nations thought to pose a threat to the United States.

The doctrine also now stipulates that the U.S. will use "active deterrence" in concert with its allies "if we can" but could act unilaterally otherwise, Defense officials said.

The changes codify the more assertive defense policy adopted by the Bush administration since the Sept. 11 attacks and are included in a "National Military Strategy" and "National Defense Strategy," reports that are part of a comprehensive review of military strategy conducted every four years.

"The president has the obligation to protect the country," said Douglas J. Feith, the Defense Department's undersecretary for policy. "And I don't think that there's anything in our Constitution that says that the president should not protect the country unless he gets some non-American's participation or approval of that."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0319-01.htm

Otherwise get all the nukes that we can.

[enigma000]

1. Were they not a founding member?

Would this not set a bad precedent?

[CHIMO]

6. I Think

The rule is self preservation.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. My take on the title was that it was time to move to Canada....

[justinsb]

3. I don't think we need to withdraw

It doesn't say that NATO has to go along with the US, NATO certainly didn't go along with Iraq. Overall I trust Europe more than the US, Europe is actually fighting a war on terror (using *gasp* intelligence and law enforcement) instead of just throwing gasoline on the fire.

[CHIMO]

5. NATO

Was set up to respond to an attack on anyone of its members. It still has those rules.

Making new rules that nukes will be used as a first strike by the US for their own definition as a threat, sets the US up to be the target before they act. As such Canada becomes involved in the new rules that are established by the US.

If they wish to set the rules then they have to live with their allies that wish to live with those rules.

As they are declaring the first use of nuclear weapons then they can expect that the first strike against them, and any and all of their allies, will be the same.

We either accept this policy and adopt nuclear weapons to defend ourselves or withdraw from any and all organizations that use these rules.

[rawtribe]

4. N.A.T.O.

should expel the U.S.A. Now that would send a message.

[CHIMO]

7. The Head

Of NATO is and always has been the US.

[achtung_circus]

8. OK, I'll disagree.

Even if the US is putative "head" of NATO Canada's leaving the organization does us no good. If anything, it makes us more vulnerable to American pressure, and we know what that is like.

NATO provides an alternative, demonstrates that we are thinking past our own shoreline and may help lessen our over-integration with the Yanks, economically, politically and militarily.

[Spazito]

9. No, it is time for NATO and the UN to sanction the U.S. and if that

doesn't work, expel them, it is as simple as that. Withdrawing from NATO serves no purpose, imo. Martin should take a leading role, fat chance of that tho, to call the U.S. to account in upholding the tenets of both NATO and the UN. Canada has influence and respect within both organizations and it's time for us to utilize both.

[CHIMO]

10. Except

That NATO is headed by the US. Would be a little bit hard to sanction your boss.

NATO(North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is in the middle east. Is this a new type of geography.

No country attacked a NATO member. Why has NATO become an enforcer of empire?

[Spazito]

11. True, but the US does not have a veto to rule changes if the NATO

body, as a whole, chose to change the structure and dominance of NATO into more Euro-centric as opposed to U.S. dominated. The designation of who will head NATO could change from the U.S. owning it to a revolving head from each of the member nations, each serving, say, a two year or three year term.

The U.S. is focused on killing both bodies, NATO and the U.N. and the rest of the world must either change the dynamics or allow them to die. I prefer changing the dynamics to better serve all the member nations instead of being the servant of one.

Like the UN, NATO is also in the process of redefining itself so there isn't a better time to redraw the dynamics, imo.

[CHIMO]

12. NATO

Has to be under US rule because the US will not allow their soldiers to be under the command of any foreign nation.

It is a hard question at this point. I always thought little of Diefenbaker because of the Avro Arrow demolition and thought that his biggest problem was management. However, in hindsight, it may have made it much easier for Pearson to take a Canadian stand on Nam.

It is hard now to walk a tight rope with both US parties agreeing on the US as an Empire but only dithering on the approach.

As most empires crumble one must consider how long and how one can hold on, as there are no "Holly Alliances" yet to join.

[Spazito]

13. It was interesting when the EU was making noises of setting up

a purely European version of NATO the U.S. certainly sat up and took notice so a version different than the present NATO has been and may still be under consideration. What the U.S. demands is becoming less relevant to the world recently within individual countries yet, I agree, there has not been a concerted effort to circumvent them, at least in any overt way.

Interestingly, I just watched a show where divers went in search of the Arrow off Nova Scotia and then off Maine, I believe it was, where some testing was also done, it was fascinating but it also brought back my outrage at that sorry episode in our history.

[CHIMO]

14. Yes

But if one considers it, it might mean going headlong into a conflict. It might be wiser to hold one's powder until things settle down.

It seems to me that others are biding their time.

I had seen something awhile ago on divers searching for remains of the planes in the great lakes.

It really demolished the leading edge technology that the country had developed. Many, many, had to move to the US to continue the work.

[Spazito]

15. Yes, it totally destroyed our fledgling aerospace industry

which never recovered even taking into consideration the 'Canadarm'. Some of those Canadians that had to leave and go to the U.S. went to NASA and contributed to the space program which lead to, as we all know, the landing on the moon. It certainly added to the 'brain drain' sadly.