(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
"Norway is not a nation of peace, but has become a nation of war. It is just gossip to call Norway a nation of peace, "says Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, Jon Hellesnes, to Ny Tid.
He is up to date with the lecture "NATO: An increasingly dangerous alliance", which takes place at the Literature House in Bergen on 5. October. According to Hellesnes, Norway ceased to be a peace nation in 1999, when Norway supported the war in Kosovo: "It was a war without a UN mandate," he says.
"'The arms industry wants a permanent war. That's what they live on. ''
Hellesnes tells Ny Tid that the size of the Trident Juncture exercise in Norway indicates that Norway is an aggressive participant in what he describes as "the new Cold War". He points out that there is a limitless willingness to comply with everything the United States or NATO invents:
"After all, it is not in Norway's interest to be involved in the Syrian civil war or bomb a African country like Libya."
This is what Hellesnes will talk about in Bergen this month.
“It is always risky for a small country to be allied to a great power. It has been known from ancient times and was already the theme of the great work on the Peloponnese War [431 – 404 BC] by Thukydides. This knowledge is also supported in recent strategic analyzes. ”
The heroes emphasize that a great power and a small allied country can have very different security interests.
“A small allied country can be sacrificed in the strategic game. It's like a smart peasant sacrifice in chess, where you sacrifice a small allied land and unexpectedly strike from another team. "
The United States – an oligarchy. The United States' efforts to dominate the world also face strong criticism within the United States. Hellesnes draws four very different American critics, but where the analyzes of US aggressiveness coincide. One of them is Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson – a Republican who is serving in the U.S. Army, but who has also served as Chief of Staff of the State Department under Colin Powell. Hellesnes calls Wilkerson "a disappointed right-hand man":
"Following Powell's UN speech on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, he turned and became a harsh critic of the United States – in terms of both their attempts to dominate the world and the weapons lobby's impact on American politics."
Hellesnes also draws criticism from Noam Chomsky, Richard D. Wolff (economist) and Ray McGovern (former CIA interim leader):
"It is always risky for a small country to be allied to a great power."
“They all believe that the big multinational companies have bought the political system, where it has become possible for the super-rich to fund election campaigns in the United States. These get the support of senators, congressional representatives and presidents who retaliate for services and get amply paid for it. On the other hand, we find the poor American working class, with no representatives. ”
Hellesnes points out that political corruption has in practice been decriminalized in the United States, and again refers to Wilkerson, who answered the following question "who decides foreign policy in the United States?":
"It's like in Russia, it's the oligarchs, of course."
According to Wikipedia, the US defense costs 5000 – 6000 billion annually.
"It is expensive for the state, but it is terribly lucrative for the weapons and war industries. As much as possible, the war provides immense wealth to Lockheed Martin and the other major arms suppliers. "
Again, Hellesnes refers to Wilkerson:
"Since not all the oligarchs are interested in war, there is a certain leeway for politics. But the weapons industry wants permanent war. That's what they live for. "
See mobilizes…
