NATO’s Missile Defense Backfires
New in the Website
Certain issues are so indefensible, that elected governments prefer to delegate them to unelected institutions rather than confront voters in a fair process. That’s the case with most of the issues Nato deals with. Moreover, often the issues treated by these undemocratic bodies are intentionally complicated with a myriad of details so that most voters would find following their development very difficult. Yesterday, October 5, 2011, we saw such an example when Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced at NATO headquarters in Brussels that Spain will provide a base for U.S. ships in support of NATO's missile defense system.
The item looks irrelevant. A month before the upcoming elections in Spain, Prime Minister Zapatero cheated the Spaniard people by deciding to allow four additional American ships and another 1200 American soldiers to be stationed at Naval Station Rota, a naval base located halfway between Gibraltar and Portugal. Just imagine President Obama allowing Bolivian troops to be stationed in California on his own, without consulting the Congress or the Senate!
Naval Station Rota is in use by America since 1953, when it was given by Dictator Franco in exchange for improving the relations between the USA and Spain (and I thought America promoted democracy!). This is a strategic base commanding the Straits of Gibraltar and the first port of call for U.S. naval vessels before entering the Mediterranean Sea. Because of this location, the base provides support to both US Sixth Fleet units in the Mediterranean and to USAF Air Mobility Command units transiting to Germany and Southwest Asia. The Sixth Fleet would be responsible for evacuating Israel when this country is defeated. However the base is more than that, providing a hub for American military operations including NASA missions and the North African theatre. Prime Minister Zapatero allowed himself to steal from the Spanish people in such a way because he is not a candidate in the November 2011 elections. Viva la Democracia!
The first to protest this decision was Russia, which classified the declaration as unacceptable. That’s because Russia is the first target of NATO's missile defense system; its government is already worried by additional additions to NATO’s system involving Poland, Romania and Turkey. Last month, Romania signed a deal for 24 interceptor missiles to be based there by 2015, and Turkey agreed to have in its territory an American radar, which is to be deployed there by the end of this year. Moreover, 24 interceptors are planned for Poland by 2018. Russia is being increasingly suffocated by NATO.
However, this is done not only against the Russian Federation. The NATO’s bases in Turkey, Romania and Spain would be of importance also against possible NATO attacks against Iran and Syria. The bases in Turkey are already important in the attack of Libya. Few are aware than Turkey – a Muslim state – had shamelessly provided the Izmir Base as one of the two NATO headquarters for monitoring the no-fly zone in Libya. Even the NATO-promoted term “no-fly zone” is an inconsistent lie: NATO planes are free to fly and hit civilians in this “no-fly” zone. Turkey emphasizes the base would be under the command of NATO and not the USA, the differences between these options can’t be discerned even with the help of the best microscopes.
NATO behaves as a loose alliance of energy-pirates and slavers; if what is formally claimed it is was true, then NATO would have been dissolved on July 2, 1991, the day after the Warsaw Pact – NATO’s Nemesis - was dismantled. As such, NATO displays an unusual amount of inner inconsistencies, as all so called “Western Democracies” do. These inconsistencies are a testimony of its belonging to the forces of evil. NATO doesn’t defend democracies; it doesn’t represent God; it just defends cheap oil and slave labor in developing economies. The same is valid for the USA, which has even defined by Noam Chomsky as a leading terrorist state.
Apparently, this inconsistencies are soon to be tested.
On September 5, 2011, Lebanese Foreign Minister Adnan Mansor, sent a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, rejecting Israeli claims on the maritime border between the two countries. Those became important because since 2009 four major fields of natural gas have been found between Israel and Lebanon, in the Mediterranean Sea. Their names are Leviathan, Tamar, Sarah and Myra. Worldwide, they form one of the largest gas reserves found in the last decade. Moreover, Norway-based Petroleum Geo-Services recently announced promising results on the Lebanese side of the border. The map above shows the reason for the controversy. For some reason, the Israeli-proposed border doesn’t run perpendicular to the shoreline border between the countries, but runs northwards, forcing thus some of the new gas fields into Israel. This is a pretty non-standard procedure, and a testimony of Israel’s expansionistic goals. Then, the recently leaked UN report on Gaza’s Freedom Flotilla led to the expulsion of all senior staff from the Israeli embassy in Turkey, downgrading the relations to third-secretary level. Turkey announced that it would stop immediately the military cooperation between the countries. On September 12, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmed Davutoglu condemned the plan proposed by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman in which Israel should support the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) against Turkey. “No one will be able to blackmail us,” the Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu said. The former allies are rapidly turning into bitter rivals. Accordingly, Turkey is strengthening its relations with Egypt, in another beautiful example of “the next-neighbor to the next-neighbor” alliance; Turkey just went to the next country after Israel as an alternative ally. Days later a Turkish ship was chased by Israeli fighter planes nearby the gas fields. Violence is in the air.
The gas fields are proving to be larger than expected and may become the cause of a future war; Turkey and Northern Cyprus had recently set their maritime borders, allowing to begin the search for gas and oil in that part of the Mediterranean Sea. If a war over the findings in the whole area begins, most probably it would be a war of coalitions rather of single countries. In such an event, Israel and Turkey may find looking at each other through the crosshairs of American weapons. What would America do then? Support its NATO ally Turkey? Support Israel, which control the votes of many congressmen and senate members? What would NATO do? Would it support the Turkish Democracy or the Israeli one (the last is a discriminating democracy, and thus not democracy at all)?
Allow me to be more specific. If Israel fires nuclear missiles at Ankara, would these be stopped by America’s – sorry, I mean NATO’s - missile defense system? And what would happen if a NATO general decides to invert the role of the missile defense system creating a false flag attack? Could Turkey be destroyed under the pretext of defending it against a foreign attack? Turks do not matter to Washington, after all they are Muslim. Is Turkey the Pentagon’s next target? If Turkey is obliterated, the Pentagon would then get direct access to the strategic Black Sea and to all the potential oil and gas fields next to Turkey. Mmm, yummy.
We are watching evil in action here, and as always it comes disguised as an angel of light and democracy; yet, it is just the body of the anti-Christ. God bless America!
My articles on the web are my main income these days; please donate or buy The Cross of Bethlehem or Back in Bethlehem.