Saturday, January 16, 2010


World Stability Based Upon [UN] Mandate and [NATO] Enforcement.


Now Simon Koschut teaches at the JFK Institute for North American Studies at Berlin's Free University, Social Networks, on the site (www.Spiegel.DE), in a column, entitled (How to Get out without Forsaking Afghanistan's Stability), highly recommended reading, which ties into the [Impetus Meetings]


[Impetus Meetings]


German representative completed its [1st] of [3] Three Impetus meetings with member states of the [EU] European Union, and [NATO] the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which was held upon the [1st] Tuesday, 12th, Jan., in Abu Dhabi, a [2nd] meeting has been scheduled for next week Tuesday, 19th, Jan. and the [3rd] and most important what is called a Town Hall Meeting in Cologne, Germany on Jan. 25th, just [3] Three days prior to the London [Confab] meeting. The time has come for Germany to take charge of its own destiny, it is time to make a decision is Germany a Sovereign State of the [21st] Century, and the outcome of the meeting [Will] well determine the future of Germany in the [21st] Century, demonstrated by its support or nonsupport of the American-Israeli Empires Wars of Economic Stimulus, Resources and Markets, Blood for Oil rampages on the Islamic Crescent/Arabian Crescent/Hindu Cush.


[The list of seven]


The list of [7] Seven bench marks that are required to get of the Islamic Crescent/Arabian Peninsula/Hindu Cush Mandated by the [UN] United Nations and Enforced by [NATO] the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are;


1. Afghanistan Ownership = the [2nd] Surge now in progress on the Islamic Crescent/Arabian Peninsula/Hindu Cush, the [UN/NATO] would take a country into receiver ship, after a vote by the [UN].


2. Appoint a Coordinator = each member of the coalition of the willing would have a [UN] appoint a Czar with ultimate authority with over-riding authority, and would answer to [NATO] the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which in turn would set the levy upon that nation for troops and support.


3. In Together, Out Together = Each member of the coalition is locked into, married to [NATO] until death do them part, and there will be no firm, hard withdrawal date, and would remain in effect until another [UN] vote to remove receivership status once a state so taken into receiver ship status or will forever remain in receiver ship status.


4. Regional Ownership = The Russian Federation and the Peoples Republic of China in this case the Spheres of Influence within the region, will be required to go along with whatever [UN/NATO] voted mandate has been made, as them to go along with.


5. Carrots and Sticks = A World Police Force paid for by the international Law and Order Trust Fund under [UN] control, paid for by a tax levied upon [UN] member nations.


6. Remain Engaged = A combined military, paramilitary, civilian structure again under [UN/NATO] mandate and enforcement authority, would remain until a vote by the [UN] to remove the intervention for rehabilitation forces, the [ISAF] International Security Assistance Force.


7. Decentralize Governance = Under the [UN] Mandate, Governments would be established within the receivership governments in of the Switzerland type government or after Bosnia's [1993]-proposed Vance-Owen Plan.


[Simon Says]


Basically its , [UN/NATO] intervention, is a group/coalition of nations providing force for the crafting of appropriate solutions of intervention, for the rehabilitation of governments which no longer are considered responsible and therefore no longer legitimate governments as decided by [UN] vote. This is nothing new, this was the basic idea of the [UN] in the [1950's], and one which we of the generation of that era had great hopes for. There are some twists the [Czar] idea, but the rest is pretty much the founding ideas behind the creation of the [UN], and like many ideas it looked good on paper, but what we got instead was the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and war after, war, after war. But, at least you have got to give Simon credit for putting something on the table for the [Impetus and Comfab] meetings, the alternative is just more of the same, but sometimes the game of Simon Says, isn't for everyone.



No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.