Dear Excellencies and Dignitaries of Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, and Thailand
This is a slight political recommendation now, that is, to be acted upon shortly "for opening up the World" (NATO 2 or not) for You to join NATO as soon as You like. Therefore, I hope You bother to consider this suggestion, in common or not, in joining NATO, that is, practically speaking, sending in the application "readily" together with or not, either or all of Your 4 countries of Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, and Thailand. These countries are nominated carefully, not that I am from King's College of War in London.
Still, I hope You like my suggestion and that this, of course, entirely up to You, all 4 or not. There should be, in this, very fine consequences and that Earth society actually gains two steps or more in decency by it. As we, together, now know, the promises should be clear, diplomatically put!
Good luck with Your further affairs!
Sincerely Yours,
Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea
PS: I have lately seen new signals from Japan in terms of military equipment and that the new type of agreement under UN Security Council, usually, has redefined World security considerably. Not only for the nuclear weapons powers, but also the UN Security Council members, NATO itself, and the other (more general) members of the UN in total as they have very little military engagement to speak of, even potentially.
I would also reject steep demands as to allocation of resources for having this military capacity or other. Only that the World is able to look after itself and that Kantianism for countries is well kept into place so that continued growth in terms of humanity (not necessarily people, but rather knowledge and art and so on) and networking. Fx. this could have indirect consequences for intelligence networks (not only in Asia, but also elsewhere in the World) and also for secured growth in fx. Vietnam, the end of North Korea spitting on South Korea, Cambodia could get a whole new "fine day" too! So what say you?
ReplyDeleteSo I would careful with one primary issue: the demanded resources into the military (to be negotiated). Usually, during the Cold War this recommendation stood at 3% annual increase (state budget) for NATO members. I see only positive sides for You. Well, well, sure, time is plentiful! Enjoy!
ReplyDeleteWithout bothering to set up a new blog post, I suggest this (fetch it if you want): A suggested peace-maker sentence for Iran. Can it work?
ReplyDeleteHere it is: We respect the South African model and we are ready to comply with it! That is, by pharmaceutical standards, Iran gets to mine its radioactive resources (according to World market standards for this) and to enrich this, by these same standards, and use it too, still monitored. If this doesn't work, there is something wrong in the communication somewhere. And finally, if they want to be bombed (or even nuked, tactically or not), well then, so be it! There is no chance for something else (IAEA respect-wise)!
But given Hans Blix training, by suspicion, and an Iraq war built on lies, USA isn't the Security Council best friend anymore, so I want other countries in to "share the discussion and come out with something sensible" or else, we, the World, will have to use the words of Chamberlain "he [they] can only be stopped by force"! Consequently, /it/ happens! War!
Journalists: Can you set up a kind of time-line, please, to see how it develops? You know, Ahmedinejad makes this and that statement, IAEA makes this and that statement and so on. It should provide some value to provide a coherent time-line of what the Iran-aggression-nuclear-weapons-Israel-USA is! What do you think?
(Or have they done it already? You know, are we to have those words of the Americans again? "We perceive Iran to be such a big threat and once again they have WMDs in a country where we can use our military of hate against the World (that is, a part of it, but know this...")
ReplyDeleteBesides, can we ever get to hear what standards the IAEA have been using when they inspect/"inspect"? How many are they? What are their impressions? Are relations polite or are people "raped"? Have they ever entered "more than verbal fights"? Does the IAEA have some kind of time schedule given the emergency nature of it all? Can they imagine to set one up if they haven't already given some stronger signals "from USA and others"? Let's see what happens!
ReplyDeleteExtra to the message over "Peace Maker": Besides, can we ever get to hear what standards the IAEA have been using when they inspect/"inspect"? How many are they? What are their impressions? Are relations polite or are people "raped"? Have they ever entered "more than verbal fights"? Does the IAEA have some kind of time schedule given the emergency nature of it all? Can they imagine to set one up if they haven't already given some stronger signals "from USA and others"? Let's see what happens!
ReplyDeleteUpon attacking Iraq and killing 120 000 Iraqis and committing the biggest bank robbery in history, AND finding nothing of that hideous WMD program they suspected and /pleaded/ for so emphatically to the UN Security Council (and also subjecting this country to war for 9 years), aren't we supposed to have the RIGHT to hear from some other people before they start to blow things up?!!!
That USA can help create (by *not* using awful/disgusting CIA "tricks") because the B2 bombers are ready in Miami or something...
Signals ("from beer or other"): "Supposedly, IBM declares. "New news from IBM Public Relations: There have been rumours and in order to show affection, care for /all/ customers, we want to make it perfectly clear (hence Feng Shui and other). We, in China, have bought a company and *not* WorldWar II crimes (you know, the punchcards to the Nazis) and that we intend to continue business as usual, all welcome!"
ReplyDelete"Notice, "all else", for "these other matters", please turn to the nearest US Embassy or the US Justice Department if in USA. Thank you!"
- Over and out from us in IBM, 2012-09-30, China time-zone.
(Actually from me, *believe it or not!*, That if I, Olsnes-Lea, was to ..., but no, wrongfully ended up with the Daily Show instead!)