Nato Protests: The World Says No To Nato

*

(Nato Protests - Oslo, Norway)

Nato is an "alliance" (or "conspiracy" as some would say) of twenty-eight countries, as follows: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/nato_countries.htm

Or, in other words, Nato is the U.S., Canada, Germany, France, England, and a few eastern European and otherwise tiny and/or bankrupt countries who presumably were given money in exchange for pretending to be part of the conspiracy.

(Nato protests Pakistan)

Nato was formed in 1949, after World War II and after the post-war anti-communist hysteria had taken hold in the U.S. Its stated goal is to promote peace but also provide for the "collective defense" of member nations. So if somebody attacks California, in other words, Slovenia will rush to our defense. Makes it easier to sleep nights knowing we have the mighty empire of Slovenia on our side. And, as a back-up, Slovakia is right there behind them. http://www.rferl.org/content/NATO_At_60_Alliances_Article_Of_Faith/1600763.html

(Nato protests Chicago)

The obvious truth is that Nato simply is a shell entity which gives the U.S. an excuse to intervene in Europe and other nations, to act as a roving military threat to Russia and China. We're everywhere. We have the open invitation of Europe to participate in their wars.

(Nato protests, Lisbon, Spain)

The organization of Nato is a great example of how democracy, and the right to have a voice in the nation, has been taken away from citizens and transferred to entities with silly names, which allegedly make the decisions. So the U.S. doesn't decide to attack Libya: Nato did. The citizens of the U.S. have no voice because our government did not make the decision -- Nato did. So they say. 

(Nato protests, Ukraine)

It's just like the citizens no longer have a voice in our economy, because the World Trade Organization makes all the decisions. Our government shrugs it shoulders and says: we can't do anything about it. That's what the WTO ruled. All of these groups need to be disbanded, and our involvement rescinded as nothing more than a fraud on the people.

What we do not have is the consent of the U.S. people to have our government voluntarily agree in advance to use our money and military in other nation's wars. The government has agreed that if any one of the member nations is attacked, the U.S. will "pretend" that we were attacked. But our constitution does not authorize war in response to pretend attacks. If we were not attacked, then any waging of war by the U.S. is a war of aggression, which is unconstitutional, illegal, and a war crime.

There is nothing in the constitution which authorizes our government to be the world's military, simply choosing to involve ourselves in any war, anywhere, if the president feels like it. If the government wants to involve the U.S. in somebody's else's war, since the constitution does not authorize the government to do that, they would have to hold a special election, and let the citizens decide whether to do so or not. Any war, or war activity carried out by the U.S. government pursuant to any alleged authority under Nato or other similar schemes, is unconstitutional and unlawful.

(Nato protest, Naples, Italy)

The supposed justification for the Nato attack on Libya was Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, below. It provides for mutual defense in the event of an "armed attack" against a member nation. And yes, you will be wondering: "what armed attack on a Nato country?" because there wasn't one, but let's not get tied down in trivia.  

Article 5   The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm

(Nato protests, Afghanistan)

I know you're thinking the same thing I am: Where's Libya? Isn't Libya a part of Nato? Didn't Libya sign on to this conspiracy of nations? No, it's not a part. So exactly why was Nato attacking Libya? Which European nation did Libya attack? Or even threaten? The answer is none. Yet Article 5 clearly required an "armed attack" against a member nation in order for Nato to start dropping bombs.

Libya had an internal conflict between the existing government and a group of its own citizens who were trying to overthrow the government. Nobody attacked Europe, nobody did anything that would justify a Nato armed attack on Libya. Why is the U.S. invading Libya using this phony European "common defense" conspiracy and claiming that makes it legitimate?

(Nato protest, Strasbourg, France)

We need to get out of Nato, and start enforcing our own constitutional limits which prohibit wars of aggression. The military spending by Nato members represents 70% of the military spending in the world. It's not just a conspiracy, it's a well-armed one.