Posted by DipNote Bloggers on Aug 29, 2008 - 02:55 PM
![Missile launched from U.S. cruiser during Missile Defense Agency-U.S. Navy test, 2006. [AP]](http://blogs.state.gov/images/UNGA/field/2008_0829_missile_def_bh_m.jpg)
What rights should a country have when another country is trying to defend itself and its allies?
|
Home Videos Photos Welcome About Legal Search Archive |
Share This Post
Recent Posts
Young Europeans React to Secretary Clinton’s VisitWhat Actions Should the International Community Take To Resolve the Situation in Darfur?
Spring Break: Have Fun, Stay Safe
Secretary Clinton Responds to Your Text Messages
Secretary’s 2009 International Women of Courage Awards
Question of the Week: What Rights Should a Country Have When Another Country is Trying To Defend Itself and its Allies?
Posted by DipNote Bloggers on Aug 29, 2008 - 02:55 PM
The United States and Poland agreed to station a U.S. missile defense shield in Poland. Russia is vehemently opposed to this action. The United States has said the missile defense system is not targeted at Russia but is designed to protect itself and Europe against missile launches from the Middle East.
What rights should a country have when another country is trying to defend itself and its allies?
Posted by DipNote Bloggers on Aug 29, 2008 - 02:55 PM
What rights should a country have when another country is trying to defend itself and its allies?
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS
Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments
Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS
Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments
Anna in Washington, DC writes:
I tend to agree with Eric in NM on this one. The United States and others have consistently made efforts to integrate Russia into the international system and to include Russia in discussions on issues at the G-8 and the Six Party Talks. In the last two decades, the United States has consistently offered cooperation to Russia.
I can see why Russians might want to believe otherwise; it is always easy to blame the United States. I can understand why Russians might perceive, whether rightly or wrongly, the expansion of NATO as a threat to their interests. I'd certainly prefer to see discussion among the United States, Europe and Russia than saber-rattling on this issue. It might even be in the Russian's own interest to talk. If their actions continue, they are only going (to continue) to push their neighbors westward.
Russia can only weaken itself by the choices it makes. The end of the Cold War afforded Russians with an opportunity for a brighter future: religious freedom, open markets, political voice, a free press, and freedom of fear from a secret police. When I hear about the rollback of freedoms in Russia, I am disheartened. Doing away with these freedoms is how Russia will truly weaken itself.
After the Cold War, the United States may have pushed Russia to privatize too fast, without providing sufficient safeguards against corruption. Perhaps we did not know the Russians players as well as we should have, too. But, what we saw in Russia was the law of unintended consequences. We did not see the United States -- maybe individuals, but not the United States, not official policy -- intentionally weakening Russia.
Posted on Fri Sep 05, 2008
I tend to agree with Eric in NM on this one. The United States and others have consistently made efforts to integrate Russia into the international system and to include Russia in discussions on issues at the G-8 and the Six Party Talks. In the last two decades, the United States has consistently offered cooperation to Russia.
I can see why Russians might want to believe otherwise; it is always easy to blame the United States. I can understand why Russians might perceive, whether rightly or wrongly, the expansion of NATO as a threat to their interests. I'd certainly prefer to see discussion among the United States, Europe and Russia than saber-rattling on this issue. It might even be in the Russian's own interest to talk. If their actions continue, they are only going (to continue) to push their neighbors westward.
Russia can only weaken itself by the choices it makes. The end of the Cold War afforded Russians with an opportunity for a brighter future: religious freedom, open markets, political voice, a free press, and freedom of fear from a secret police. When I hear about the rollback of freedoms in Russia, I am disheartened. Doing away with these freedoms is how Russia will truly weaken itself.
After the Cold War, the United States may have pushed Russia to privatize too fast, without providing sufficient safeguards against corruption. Perhaps we did not know the Russians players as well as we should have, too. But, what we saw in Russia was the law of unintended consequences. We did not see the United States -- maybe individuals, but not the United States, not official policy -- intentionally weakening Russia.
Posted on Fri Sep 05, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ Jason, nothing could be further from the truth than your "opinion".
If the US wanted a "weak" Russia, why bother to help them integrate with the international system, partner with them to resolve proliferation issues in North Korea, Iran, the Nunn-Lugar process, or offer them a role in conflict resolution via the "quartet" , US economic investment in Russia that has helped build their economic base, inclusion in the G8, WTO membership, and engagement on human rights and democracy building. ???
Your statement flies in the face of reality.
Sorry, but that's a fact, not my opinion.
Posted on Fri Sep 05, 2008
@ Jason, nothing could be further from the truth than your "opinion".
If the US wanted a "weak" Russia, why bother to help them integrate with the international system, partner with them to resolve proliferation issues in North Korea, Iran, the Nunn-Lugar process, or offer them a role in conflict resolution via the "quartet" , US economic investment in Russia that has helped build their economic base, inclusion in the G8, WTO membership, and engagement on human rights and democracy building. ???
Your statement flies in the face of reality.
Sorry, but that's a fact, not my opinion.
Posted on Fri Sep 05, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Well Kirk, on this particular issue I stand not just with US policy, but the majority of nations who find Russian agression unacceptable.
I suppose you could ask the Dipnote editors for their opinion, and they'd probably tell you I tend to challenge US Foreign Policy in a constructive manner with creative political solutions to "impossible" obstacles, and a few solutions to create a safe and pleasant living environment, globally.
Whoever said, "There are no Philosophers in Foreign Affairs.", I'd like to thank, for inspiring me to become one....(chuckle).
Why? Because there's always room for improvement.
That's a lot different than parroting baseless accusations of nations that don't have an excuse for their actions, try to affect political process in US elections, and are questionable partners in the international community.
That's a pretty clear difference between my style of participation, and Zharkov's.
And if you need to see further proof, there's always the archives.
Having been in the construction industry much of my life, I can assure you all that we are in fact a nation of "nation builders" on many levels. Politically speaking, since WW2, it has been through "on the job training". The mistakes made in the past, and the correctness of present, or future policy must share one thing, a willingness to look at truth over viewpoint (or party affiliation).
The world community needs from us a comprehensive national foreign policy that is not subject to a lobbyist's lunch or the whim of elected officials, in my opinion, nothing short of a declaration of international policy and conduct in affairs associated will serve to replace the mistrust for consistency, and intentions, something that will endure through time as well as the Constitution.
And that is every nation's task if we are to see peace on Earth and good will among peoples.
The UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights is insufficiant, violated by many nations, and needs to be enforced among member states for starters.
Unlike a lot of people who simply offer complaint with no solution attached, I have a few ideas that might just make a difference.
Doesn't suprise me that those who think America is the root of all the world's ills thinks ill of me as a result.
But I do make them think about it.
And now I got to get a cup of coffee, because I'm writing this with a toothpick propping up an eyelid a long night's worth of research, in addition to my day job. So if you'll excuse me....
P.S. The dicipline to have the ability to look at all aspects of an issue and discern and sift the facts from spin is an objective process that comes partly from having Buddhism as practice in my life for over 20 years.
When you learn to quiet the internal conversation within you, things become extrodinarily clear. It isn't easy, but it can be done. It takes grinding dicipline and exhaustive investigation. It works for me.
Posted on Fri Sep 05, 2008
Well Kirk, on this particular issue I stand not just with US policy, but the majority of nations who find Russian agression unacceptable.
I suppose you could ask the Dipnote editors for their opinion, and they'd probably tell you I tend to challenge US Foreign Policy in a constructive manner with creative political solutions to "impossible" obstacles, and a few solutions to create a safe and pleasant living environment, globally.
Whoever said, "There are no Philosophers in Foreign Affairs.", I'd like to thank, for inspiring me to become one....(chuckle).
Why? Because there's always room for improvement.
That's a lot different than parroting baseless accusations of nations that don't have an excuse for their actions, try to affect political process in US elections, and are questionable partners in the international community.
That's a pretty clear difference between my style of participation, and Zharkov's.
And if you need to see further proof, there's always the archives.
Having been in the construction industry much of my life, I can assure you all that we are in fact a nation of "nation builders" on many levels. Politically speaking, since WW2, it has been through "on the job training". The mistakes made in the past, and the correctness of present, or future policy must share one thing, a willingness to look at truth over viewpoint (or party affiliation).
The world community needs from us a comprehensive national foreign policy that is not subject to a lobbyist's lunch or the whim of elected officials, in my opinion, nothing short of a declaration of international policy and conduct in affairs associated will serve to replace the mistrust for consistency, and intentions, something that will endure through time as well as the Constitution.
And that is every nation's task if we are to see peace on Earth and good will among peoples.
The UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights is insufficiant, violated by many nations, and needs to be enforced among member states for starters.
Unlike a lot of people who simply offer complaint with no solution attached, I have a few ideas that might just make a difference.
Doesn't suprise me that those who think America is the root of all the world's ills thinks ill of me as a result.
But I do make them think about it.
And now I got to get a cup of coffee, because I'm writing this with a toothpick propping up an eyelid a long night's worth of research, in addition to my day job. So if you'll excuse me....
P.S. The dicipline to have the ability to look at all aspects of an issue and discern and sift the facts from spin is an objective process that comes partly from having Buddhism as practice in my life for over 20 years.
When you learn to quiet the internal conversation within you, things become extrodinarily clear. It isn't easy, but it can be done. It takes grinding dicipline and exhaustive investigation. It works for me.
Posted on Fri Sep 05, 2008
Jason in U.S.A. writes:
The west wants one thing, to disable Russia and exploit her resources, the same as we did with Africa.
The best approach is to divide the Slavs and Orthodox Christians along nationalist lines, this will ensure that Russia will have no allies at all. The way to do this is to funnel huge sums of money to western leaning regimes, whether the popualtion likes the regime or not, and to sponsor overthrows of Russian leaning regimes.
We leave Central Asia alone because they are autocratic governments and their leaders are very easy to pay off, plus they are not in the sphere of European Russia. Kyrgyzstan had a Russian leaning president who was overthrown of course, and seems the new one is not western leaning enough so soon we will see the same thing.
Any overthrow or election that oust a western backed government will be immediatly reported as a Russian sponsored event or election fraud, no matter what. This is the only way the West can ever justify itself and the popualtion in the west are so brainwashed, they could never comprehend that other people would not want to live or think like us.
So I will say it again, my opinion is that the west wants Russia weak to exploit its resources. Of course the question is; why work against Russia and not with Russia? The answer is simple, Russia is more then an ethnicity, its a way of life, a culture, and most importantly, it is considered to be the heir to the Byzantines. The Vatican has historically hated the Eastern orthodox and have through the centuries sought to destroy it.
Since 2000, record numbers of Orthodox christians have fled the middle east, a direct result of western propoganda and war mongering that resulting in inciting hatred for any and all Christians. This has followed a constant tred by the Vatican and the nations that follow the vaticans ideaology, whether knowingly or not.
The disection of the Orthodox religion and way of life is the goal of the Vatican and its western followers. It has merged into political lines now, but, one must ask; why still, with all the nations in the world, does the west constantly harp on Russia about every little thing it does all the while all but ignoring every other nation?
Posted on Thu Sep 04, 2008
The west wants one thing, to disable Russia and exploit her resources, the same as we did with Africa.
The best approach is to divide the Slavs and Orthodox Christians along nationalist lines, this will ensure that Russia will have no allies at all. The way to do this is to funnel huge sums of money to western leaning regimes, whether the popualtion likes the regime or not, and to sponsor overthrows of Russian leaning regimes.
We leave Central Asia alone because they are autocratic governments and their leaders are very easy to pay off, plus they are not in the sphere of European Russia. Kyrgyzstan had a Russian leaning president who was overthrown of course, and seems the new one is not western leaning enough so soon we will see the same thing.
Any overthrow or election that oust a western backed government will be immediatly reported as a Russian sponsored event or election fraud, no matter what. This is the only way the West can ever justify itself and the popualtion in the west are so brainwashed, they could never comprehend that other people would not want to live or think like us.
So I will say it again, my opinion is that the west wants Russia weak to exploit its resources. Of course the question is; why work against Russia and not with Russia? The answer is simple, Russia is more then an ethnicity, its a way of life, a culture, and most importantly, it is considered to be the heir to the Byzantines. The Vatican has historically hated the Eastern orthodox and have through the centuries sought to destroy it.
Since 2000, record numbers of Orthodox christians have fled the middle east, a direct result of western propoganda and war mongering that resulting in inciting hatred for any and all Christians. This has followed a constant tred by the Vatican and the nations that follow the vaticans ideaology, whether knowingly or not.
The disection of the Orthodox religion and way of life is the goal of the Vatican and its western followers. It has merged into political lines now, but, one must ask; why still, with all the nations in the world, does the west constantly harp on Russia about every little thing it does all the while all but ignoring every other nation?
Posted on Thu Sep 04, 2008
Kirk in Kentucky writes:
"Russian nationalist advocates Eurasian alliance against the U.S."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-dugin4-2008sep04,0,2871108.story
Intelligence without wisdom should be called cunning. Cunningness is the what smart animals have but is the low form of human strategy. It's also the American strategy. To be cunning one has many tools in the box, deception, misdirection, power plays, turning the enemies allies against them, ect. It is short term and myopic, grabbing immediate gains or securing a short term advantage that is only a few steps ahead rather than eyeing the end game.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
The US long-term plan, judging from it's current actions, is really only a series of short term tactics, regardless of how varied they might be, rather than a conceptual long term strategy. We have moved our pieces on the board to a more advantageous position (maybe) but we have failed to see (or more foolish -- didn't care) how the others would move in relation to them. The US has put many things into effect, two pre-emptive wars, imposed US authority over the UN, an aggressive foreign trade program, expanded NATO, and increased our spending in the military. All of which have obvious, immediate, and short term gains. Our policy makers' strengths are putting things into effect, but their weakness is their lack foresight into the resulting counter-effects (plus the inability to alter their plans to fit the changing circumstances). It is the classic wishful-thinking trap; to want something so bad that they blind themselves to, or at least underestimate, the consequences. In the beginning the current administration had a plan, expanding US might- laudable enough, but they persisted in implementing it at every opportunity no matter the cost or repercussions, when a more deft player would use a more interactive method, and a wise player would drop a plan, no matter how precious, and create new ones when it becomes apparent that the original plans had become a liability. We may be quickly scaling the ladder but is it propped against the right wall?
Whether intentional or not (and I suppose a lot of it is considering how we have traditionally used wars to bolster our economy) we are the ones escalating our own problems. We are creating our own enemies, no one else. When we drop a bomb to kill one enemy, we create five more from the grieving relatives of the victims of the collateral damage. If we are supposed to be eliminating our enemies, we are running a deficit.
Russia's increasingly hardening stance against the US is a perfect example of our lack of foresight. We court and arm Georgia to gain control of the pipeline, and, of course, to "spread democracy," Georgia immediately shells and takes S. Ossetia, Russia counter attacks, and our knee-jerk response is to condemn Russia for attacking our "ally" (or, more accurately, our buying partner), as a result Russia's resolve is hardened and is now actively seeking to create a union against us. Had we suspected the results of the last several months, would we still have followed the path we did?
In one's struggle to retain their freedoms, and help friends gain theirs, you are lucky if you come away having only stepped on a few toes, because sometimes you have to break necks, and sometimes you have to take the unpopular stance, BUT, why create more enemies when you don't have to? When I consider the actions of our current government and see how we have soured the sentiments of the world against us, I wonder how rational it is to follow a policy that consistently creates enemies from neutrals and turns allies away. However, and I don't know much but I do know this, when another person or state is doing something that seems irrational, it only means that they are working from a view point different from my own- that there are variables in effect that are not being considered.
States, like people, may act in many ways, stubbornly, greedily, impulsively, hysterically, but never irrationally. And so here is one of the factors that was previously missing from my assessment of the government but now seems pertinent:
"When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies
by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing more
to fear from them, then he is always stirring up
some war or other, in order that the people may
require a leader." (and gain profit)
~ Plato
Posted on Thu Sep 04, 2008
"Russian nationalist advocates Eurasian alliance against the U.S."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-dugin4-2008sep04,0,2871108.story
Intelligence without wisdom should be called cunning. Cunningness is the what smart animals have but is the low form of human strategy. It's also the American strategy. To be cunning one has many tools in the box, deception, misdirection, power plays, turning the enemies allies against them, ect. It is short term and myopic, grabbing immediate gains or securing a short term advantage that is only a few steps ahead rather than eyeing the end game.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
The US long-term plan, judging from it's current actions, is really only a series of short term tactics, regardless of how varied they might be, rather than a conceptual long term strategy. We have moved our pieces on the board to a more advantageous position (maybe) but we have failed to see (or more foolish -- didn't care) how the others would move in relation to them. The US has put many things into effect, two pre-emptive wars, imposed US authority over the UN, an aggressive foreign trade program, expanded NATO, and increased our spending in the military. All of which have obvious, immediate, and short term gains. Our policy makers' strengths are putting things into effect, but their weakness is their lack foresight into the resulting counter-effects (plus the inability to alter their plans to fit the changing circumstances). It is the classic wishful-thinking trap; to want something so bad that they blind themselves to, or at least underestimate, the consequences. In the beginning the current administration had a plan, expanding US might- laudable enough, but they persisted in implementing it at every opportunity no matter the cost or repercussions, when a more deft player would use a more interactive method, and a wise player would drop a plan, no matter how precious, and create new ones when it becomes apparent that the original plans had become a liability. We may be quickly scaling the ladder but is it propped against the right wall?
Whether intentional or not (and I suppose a lot of it is considering how we have traditionally used wars to bolster our economy) we are the ones escalating our own problems. We are creating our own enemies, no one else. When we drop a bomb to kill one enemy, we create five more from the grieving relatives of the victims of the collateral damage. If we are supposed to be eliminating our enemies, we are running a deficit.
Russia's increasingly hardening stance against the US is a perfect example of our lack of foresight. We court and arm Georgia to gain control of the pipeline, and, of course, to "spread democracy," Georgia immediately shells and takes S. Ossetia, Russia counter attacks, and our knee-jerk response is to condemn Russia for attacking our "ally" (or, more accurately, our buying partner), as a result Russia's resolve is hardened and is now actively seeking to create a union against us. Had we suspected the results of the last several months, would we still have followed the path we did?
In one's struggle to retain their freedoms, and help friends gain theirs, you are lucky if you come away having only stepped on a few toes, because sometimes you have to break necks, and sometimes you have to take the unpopular stance, BUT, why create more enemies when you don't have to? When I consider the actions of our current government and see how we have soured the sentiments of the world against us, I wonder how rational it is to follow a policy that consistently creates enemies from neutrals and turns allies away. However, and I don't know much but I do know this, when another person or state is doing something that seems irrational, it only means that they are working from a view point different from my own- that there are variables in effect that are not being considered.
States, like people, may act in many ways, stubbornly, greedily, impulsively, hysterically, but never irrationally. And so here is one of the factors that was previously missing from my assessment of the government but now seems pertinent:
"When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies
by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing more
to fear from them, then he is always stirring up
some war or other, in order that the people may
require a leader." (and gain profit)
~ Plato
Posted on Thu Sep 04, 2008
Kirk in Kentucky writes:
@ Zharkov in U.S.A,
Promises to Russia? When you have a cold-war mentality, promises are meant to be broken. Their only use is to deter action and lower guards. Like you, I believe that ethics play an important part in our personal and governmental affairs, when one is in "the right," however that is defined, it works as an exponentiation factor, as Napoleon said "The moral is to the material as 3 is to 1."
But the opposite side of that coin is the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. Why let a musty old promise stand in the way of ambition?
---
@ Eric in New Mexico
"Basicly I just do research and analysis Jason, and to get emotionally attached to a position on any issue is to throw objectivity out the window."
That is an admirable goal, and your commitment to refrain from emotional attachment does you well. However, I must point out that thinking we can reach a conclusion, even by using logic, without taking into account our inherent human inability to be objective is akin to chasing a will-o-wisp into the swamp thinking we can catch it, and it threatens the very process of analysis. No matter how skilled one is in the analytical process, no matter how many points of view we entertain, everything we see, read, and hear, is filtered through the matrix of our own internal codes and mores. Our own values shape the information, casts its relevancy, and is inescapable. It even dictates what information catches our attention and what passes by. Which is why you and, say, Zharkov, who are both obviously intelligent and posses an astonishing encyclopedic knowledge of world events, can read the same passage and come out with two entirely different opinions. The fact that every one of your posts are in staunch favor of US policy, and if you've ever had a dissenting opinion, you've never posted it here, shows your inherent bias. But that's not a bad thing, it's just a part our human nature we have to consider when drawing conclusions.
Posted on Thu Sep 04, 2008
@ Zharkov in U.S.A,
Promises to Russia? When you have a cold-war mentality, promises are meant to be broken. Their only use is to deter action and lower guards. Like you, I believe that ethics play an important part in our personal and governmental affairs, when one is in "the right," however that is defined, it works as an exponentiation factor, as Napoleon said "The moral is to the material as 3 is to 1."
But the opposite side of that coin is the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. Why let a musty old promise stand in the way of ambition?
---
@ Eric in New Mexico
"Basicly I just do research and analysis Jason, and to get emotionally attached to a position on any issue is to throw objectivity out the window."
That is an admirable goal, and your commitment to refrain from emotional attachment does you well. However, I must point out that thinking we can reach a conclusion, even by using logic, without taking into account our inherent human inability to be objective is akin to chasing a will-o-wisp into the swamp thinking we can catch it, and it threatens the very process of analysis. No matter how skilled one is in the analytical process, no matter how many points of view we entertain, everything we see, read, and hear, is filtered through the matrix of our own internal codes and mores. Our own values shape the information, casts its relevancy, and is inescapable. It even dictates what information catches our attention and what passes by. Which is why you and, say, Zharkov, who are both obviously intelligent and posses an astonishing encyclopedic knowledge of world events, can read the same passage and come out with two entirely different opinions. The fact that every one of your posts are in staunch favor of US policy, and if you've ever had a dissenting opinion, you've never posted it here, shows your inherent bias. But that's not a bad thing, it's just a part our human nature we have to consider when drawing conclusions.
Posted on Thu Sep 04, 2008
Joe in Tennessee writes:
Russia has no choice but to extend its power. It is what countries do when re establishing themselves. They will act to see what reaction takes place. It is about power, not just Putin and it is definitely not the OLD RUSSIA. They are establishing a NEW RUSSIA...and the world goes on, not stops.
None of you know Russia or Putin...not one. History is gone, only the planned steps toward rebuilding Russia remain. History has nothing to do with today other than the Nuclear Umbrella.
Beating the drums of your educational knowledge of history is what gets us in trouble ... decisions need to be made on today and tommorow...Not yesterday. We lost yesterday and you can not bring it back with diplomacy or knowledge? Adjust or lose.
We were across a ravine from North Korea as well in the 80s, big whoop...and I was there along with a German NATO commander of the base at the time. Toe to toe hanging off walls, etc... So what? Forget about yesterday and move forward.
Russia has every right to use whatever force it deems necessary to protect its borders as any other Nation. If they can gain more by provocation, then why not? It is the way of the world ? we all play the same game to different ends.
Posted on Thu Sep 04, 2008
Russia has no choice but to extend its power. It is what countries do when re establishing themselves. They will act to see what reaction takes place. It is about power, not just Putin and it is definitely not the OLD RUSSIA. They are establishing a NEW RUSSIA...and the world goes on, not stops.
None of you know Russia or Putin...not one. History is gone, only the planned steps toward rebuilding Russia remain. History has nothing to do with today other than the Nuclear Umbrella.
Beating the drums of your educational knowledge of history is what gets us in trouble ... decisions need to be made on today and tommorow...Not yesterday. We lost yesterday and you can not bring it back with diplomacy or knowledge? Adjust or lose.
We were across a ravine from North Korea as well in the 80s, big whoop...and I was there along with a German NATO commander of the base at the time. Toe to toe hanging off walls, etc... So what? Forget about yesterday and move forward.
Russia has every right to use whatever force it deems necessary to protect its borders as any other Nation. If they can gain more by provocation, then why not? It is the way of the world ? we all play the same game to different ends.
Posted on Thu Sep 04, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
East Germany isn't Russia, and our promise to contain NATO at status quo was clear at the time. The exception is, that our promise was made not to bring NATO any closer to SOVIET BORDERS, not Russian borders.
The legally-inclined might point out that the Soviet Union no longer exists, and the promise was kept up to the point of Soviet dissolution, so no such promise was made directly to Russia. In a proper debate, that would be my response in arguing Bush's side of the issue. But I chose to argue the Russian side because, in Georgia at least, true morality is on the Russian side this time. Russian intervention stopped a genocide.
Legally, Russia has no case against NATO encroachment, but morally, the spirit of the promise was acknowledged by both sides and we breached it. Reagan and Bush both knew what Mr. Gorbachev meant when he asked for assurances about NATO and we should have kept our promise even though it was no longer legally binding on anyone.
So now we should offer Russia something to replace the promise we broke. Russian leaders need some assurance that NATO will be converted into a retirement home for old military officers rather than a strike force for the 4th Reich.
NATO was created to protect europe from the Soviet Union, not to encircle Russia alone, and we apparently lack any people who can see these issues through Russian eyes.
Gorbachev made a mistake in not obtaining a treaty dissolving NATO upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but I think if we want a peaceful Russia, we should not become overly aggressive in exploiting his error.
At the moment, Ms. Rice has announced that Georgia will receive over $1 billion dollars in aid to rebuild a country we did not destroy and refuses to even discuss our part in the murders over there. It is clear to me that someone needs to step in and begin diplomatic talks with Russian leaders to clarify our intentions before Russians become convinced we have become more hostile than usual.
Depite what President Medvedev said, I think Russians are afraid of our military power and are highly suspicious of us, with good reason considering what we did to Serbia and Iraq. An attack on Iran would be the last straw for them, I think, so we had better get busy talking to them and letting them participate in our decision process.
Posted on Thu Sep 04, 2008
East Germany isn't Russia, and our promise to contain NATO at status quo was clear at the time. The exception is, that our promise was made not to bring NATO any closer to SOVIET BORDERS, not Russian borders.
The legally-inclined might point out that the Soviet Union no longer exists, and the promise was kept up to the point of Soviet dissolution, so no such promise was made directly to Russia. In a proper debate, that would be my response in arguing Bush's side of the issue. But I chose to argue the Russian side because, in Georgia at least, true morality is on the Russian side this time. Russian intervention stopped a genocide.
Legally, Russia has no case against NATO encroachment, but morally, the spirit of the promise was acknowledged by both sides and we breached it. Reagan and Bush both knew what Mr. Gorbachev meant when he asked for assurances about NATO and we should have kept our promise even though it was no longer legally binding on anyone.
So now we should offer Russia something to replace the promise we broke. Russian leaders need some assurance that NATO will be converted into a retirement home for old military officers rather than a strike force for the 4th Reich.
NATO was created to protect europe from the Soviet Union, not to encircle Russia alone, and we apparently lack any people who can see these issues through Russian eyes.
Gorbachev made a mistake in not obtaining a treaty dissolving NATO upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but I think if we want a peaceful Russia, we should not become overly aggressive in exploiting his error.
At the moment, Ms. Rice has announced that Georgia will receive over $1 billion dollars in aid to rebuild a country we did not destroy and refuses to even discuss our part in the murders over there. It is clear to me that someone needs to step in and begin diplomatic talks with Russian leaders to clarify our intentions before Russians become convinced we have become more hostile than usual.
Depite what President Medvedev said, I think Russians are afraid of our military power and are highly suspicious of us, with good reason considering what we did to Serbia and Iraq. An attack on Iran would be the last straw for them, I think, so we had better get busy talking to them and letting them participate in our decision process.
Posted on Thu Sep 04, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
I've read Tom Pain's works, and I'd say I've just watched a real bad interpretation. Bad acting, and twisted meaning.
Let me tell you about a success story. Fellow I met in 86 starting work on my painting crew. A teacher from Mexico, spoke no Emglish. Carried a little spiral notebook around on the job and bugged me to death about the use of, and meaning of English words. Context, syntax, spelling, how to use sentance structure.
He brought his wife and kids to America, worked for Habitat for Humanity for years, became a licenced painting contractor, and then the Habitat for Humanity program built him a home in exchange for his work. 2 years ago he ran for the local school board, and missed election by 4 votes.
It's really not so much about the language, it's about working hard and building a life and being part of the community. Goes without saying that you can't get a high school diploma if you don't know the English language. That is incentive for any parent coming here to learn it.
The problems this country faces domesticly will not be solved or resolve by the pendulum of popular opinion swinging politically hard right or hard left.
America's center of gravity and its values lies somewhere in the middle. The pendulum swings but doesn't remain stuck on extremes in its motion. And that's why this nation is a democratic success. As well as a stable republic.
And that's about as much domestic policy as I care to get into before my morning coffee, thank you very much....(chuckle).
I think the foreign policy and values brought to the international stage by our leadership is also reflective of the same gravity which with the American people thrive in prosperity and freedom.
Naturally enough, we have the confidence in ourselves to attept to inspire others to be the best they can be, to create a more perfect union among the family Human.
How many times have I said that if Russia really wanted to become a player...that super power status is not in the force projected, but in the number of people fed by humanitarian ideals. And therein lies the secret of lasting influence, respect, and good will.
The billions we spend in foreign assistance are our biggest national security asset. Not a liability.
Posted on Thu Sep 04, 2008
I've read Tom Pain's works, and I'd say I've just watched a real bad interpretation. Bad acting, and twisted meaning.
Let me tell you about a success story. Fellow I met in 86 starting work on my painting crew. A teacher from Mexico, spoke no Emglish. Carried a little spiral notebook around on the job and bugged me to death about the use of, and meaning of English words. Context, syntax, spelling, how to use sentance structure.
He brought his wife and kids to America, worked for Habitat for Humanity for years, became a licenced painting contractor, and then the Habitat for Humanity program built him a home in exchange for his work. 2 years ago he ran for the local school board, and missed election by 4 votes.
It's really not so much about the language, it's about working hard and building a life and being part of the community. Goes without saying that you can't get a high school diploma if you don't know the English language. That is incentive for any parent coming here to learn it.
The problems this country faces domesticly will not be solved or resolve by the pendulum of popular opinion swinging politically hard right or hard left.
America's center of gravity and its values lies somewhere in the middle. The pendulum swings but doesn't remain stuck on extremes in its motion. And that's why this nation is a democratic success. As well as a stable republic.
And that's about as much domestic policy as I care to get into before my morning coffee, thank you very much....(chuckle).
I think the foreign policy and values brought to the international stage by our leadership is also reflective of the same gravity which with the American people thrive in prosperity and freedom.
Naturally enough, we have the confidence in ourselves to attept to inspire others to be the best they can be, to create a more perfect union among the family Human.
How many times have I said that if Russia really wanted to become a player...that super power status is not in the force projected, but in the number of people fed by humanitarian ideals. And therein lies the secret of lasting influence, respect, and good will.
The billions we spend in foreign assistance are our biggest national security asset. Not a liability.
Posted on Thu Sep 04, 2008
Joe in Tennessee writes:
Well, it accomplished a lot...one posting.
"Diversity equals disunity". He tried to premiss exactly what Thomas Payne stood for...and I know some of it came off in a manner which is not politically correct but:
I am not sure that is what was meant at all. We are all AMERICANS, with a Constitution and not separate. We should all be reaching for ONE AMERICA, not a separatist one with laws which support separation by race, religion or creed. Remember the snake flag? It is how we are controlled, even today. Polls for the Hispanic vote, polls for the Black vote, and polls for the Evangelical vote?
What I got out of it: We need to be proud of ONE HERITAGE we established here; with our differences secondary to what is best for All America. My grandfather was so ashamed he could not speak English, he used to purchase a newspaper every day and put it under his arm and when he sat would open it. HE WAS ASHAMED HE COULD NOT SPEAK THE LANGUE of the nation that gave him and his family Opportunity and Freedom from Fascist oppression. My father would not even permit another langue spoken in the house unless it was my Grandmother. We were proud to be AMERICANS?My father would say: If it's so good there then go back... to my Uncles when they would start to talk Italian. Why this sudden non intergration into an established society?
Zhukov:Still?? a photograph of Gorbachev getting of a personal private plane, you know, one of those box burgundy and white four seat Russian 1930 looking jobs...with his wife...she had a fur on... He had no choice in the matter; none whatsoever...the article is as much BS as anything else and is politically slanted.
Look, Russia has no choice but to extend its power. It is what countries do when re establishing themselves. They will act to see what reaction takes place. It is about power, not just Putin and it is definitely not the OLD RUSSIA. They are establishing a NEW RUSSIA...and the world goes on, not stops.
The shame is the wasted effort when there is so much good which can be done rather than the gamesmanship of political power? But given it exist; the game should be played with a purpose and not simple rhetoric. Imagine how far they are into OUR SYSTEM by now?How far are we into theirs?
That is the question which is being avoided in all this, regardless of which country we talk about defending itself. Where does our Intelligence network stand? On the outside looking in where Russia is concerned?why deny it?
These presentation questions are an avoidence of what exist and go around the actual problems....
I told you, I am back.....not perfect, but back... and well over a year Mr. N.....
Posted on Wed Sep 03, 2008
Well, it accomplished a lot...one posting.
"Diversity equals disunity". He tried to premiss exactly what Thomas Payne stood for...and I know some of it came off in a manner which is not politically correct but:
I am not sure that is what was meant at all. We are all AMERICANS, with a Constitution and not separate. We should all be reaching for ONE AMERICA, not a separatist one with laws which support separation by race, religion or creed. Remember the snake flag? It is how we are controlled, even today. Polls for the Hispanic vote, polls for the Black vote, and polls for the Evangelical vote?
What I got out of it: We need to be proud of ONE HERITAGE we established here; with our differences secondary to what is best for All America. My grandfather was so ashamed he could not speak English, he used to purchase a newspaper every day and put it under his arm and when he sat would open it. HE WAS ASHAMED HE COULD NOT SPEAK THE LANGUE of the nation that gave him and his family Opportunity and Freedom from Fascist oppression. My father would not even permit another langue spoken in the house unless it was my Grandmother. We were proud to be AMERICANS?My father would say: If it's so good there then go back... to my Uncles when they would start to talk Italian. Why this sudden non intergration into an established society?
Zhukov:Still?? a photograph of Gorbachev getting of a personal private plane, you know, one of those box burgundy and white four seat Russian 1930 looking jobs...with his wife...she had a fur on... He had no choice in the matter; none whatsoever...the article is as much BS as anything else and is politically slanted.
Look, Russia has no choice but to extend its power. It is what countries do when re establishing themselves. They will act to see what reaction takes place. It is about power, not just Putin and it is definitely not the OLD RUSSIA. They are establishing a NEW RUSSIA...and the world goes on, not stops.
The shame is the wasted effort when there is so much good which can be done rather than the gamesmanship of political power? But given it exist; the game should be played with a purpose and not simple rhetoric. Imagine how far they are into OUR SYSTEM by now?How far are we into theirs?
That is the question which is being avoided in all this, regardless of which country we talk about defending itself. Where does our Intelligence network stand? On the outside looking in where Russia is concerned?why deny it?
These presentation questions are an avoidence of what exist and go around the actual problems....
I told you, I am back.....not perfect, but back... and well over a year Mr. N.....
Posted on Wed Sep 03, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
At the time Zharkov, prior to reunification of Germany, NATO and Russian forces were aproximately 100 yards apart at various checkpoints.
Got your mesuring tape handy?
R.O.T.F.L.M.A.O.!!!!!!!!!!
You see, America has remained true to its word. And it's hard to say no to nations that think being a member of NATO is in their national interests.
All done in full communication through NATO/Russia cooperative dialogue and the proper mechanisms of diplomacy to address any and all concerns any party may have had over the years since.
So now the Russians have a problem with this? See it for what it is. A pitiful excuse to resolve political problems with Georgia through the use of force.
Posted on Wed Sep 03, 2008
At the time Zharkov, prior to reunification of Germany, NATO and Russian forces were aproximately 100 yards apart at various checkpoints.
Got your mesuring tape handy?
R.O.T.F.L.M.A.O.!!!!!!!!!!
You see, America has remained true to its word. And it's hard to say no to nations that think being a member of NATO is in their national interests.
All done in full communication through NATO/Russia cooperative dialogue and the proper mechanisms of diplomacy to address any and all concerns any party may have had over the years since.
So now the Russians have a problem with this? See it for what it is. A pitiful excuse to resolve political problems with Georgia through the use of force.
Posted on Wed Sep 03, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
by Valentin Zorin
Allow me to start off with a personal recollection. I accompanied Mikhail Gorbachev on his visit to the United States of America almost seventeen years ago, and attended, as another adviser, Gorbachev's meetings with George Bush Sr., and that gave me a rare chance to watch what historians of the future will surely be inclined to describe as the biggest breach of confidence and compare to the notoriously known Munich agreement between France and Britain, on the one hand, and Nazi Germany, on the other.
Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush Sr. focused on the reunification of divided Germany. President Bush saw the reunification of Germany as a fundamental factor of continental stability and global detente.
He repeatedly assured Soviet leader Gorbachev that the reunification of Germany would never take the North Atlantic Alliance closer to the Soviet border. I can still open my old notebook or play back an old tape to recall what he said: "The allied forces will not be inching closer to your border."
The above statement suggests that Russian leaders now believe they are in the position of having to defend their country against NATO because the GW's Administration broke his father's promise to Gorbachev. Reagan made the same promise. Russia is incurring great expense in military buildup to prepare for the possibility of NATO forces crossing its borders. Should Russia have the right to sue the Bush Administration for damages for deceit and breach of oral agreement?
Posted on Wed Sep 03, 2008
by Valentin Zorin
Allow me to start off with a personal recollection. I accompanied Mikhail Gorbachev on his visit to the United States of America almost seventeen years ago, and attended, as another adviser, Gorbachev's meetings with George Bush Sr., and that gave me a rare chance to watch what historians of the future will surely be inclined to describe as the biggest breach of confidence and compare to the notoriously known Munich agreement between France and Britain, on the one hand, and Nazi Germany, on the other.
Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush Sr. focused on the reunification of divided Germany. President Bush saw the reunification of Germany as a fundamental factor of continental stability and global detente.
He repeatedly assured Soviet leader Gorbachev that the reunification of Germany would never take the North Atlantic Alliance closer to the Soviet border. I can still open my old notebook or play back an old tape to recall what he said: "The allied forces will not be inching closer to your border."
The above statement suggests that Russian leaders now believe they are in the position of having to defend their country against NATO because the GW's Administration broke his father's promise to Gorbachev. Reagan made the same promise. Russia is incurring great expense in military buildup to prepare for the possibility of NATO forces crossing its borders. Should Russia have the right to sue the Bush Administration for damages for deceit and breach of oral agreement?
Posted on Wed Sep 03, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
I forgot to add one thing Joe, and that's that the U-tube video you posted gave me a real laugh...
It's a real good example of presenting truth based upon false premis. This false premis being that "diversity equals disunity".
The fellow must have forgotten that this nation was founded, by, for, and of immigrents. Built on the backs of immigrents, and defended by immigrents, some of whom serving today are yet to become citizens.
In fact, what he suggests as solution would ensure civil strife, not a more perfect union.
And this has been my basic fundemental objection to similar remarks you have made over time on this blog.
Well meant they may be, but not a perscription for the American dream as it was intended to be by our founding fathers and realized by subsequent generations and constitutional ammendment.
I find expousing the merits of intolerance to be self defeating instead. Flying in the face of words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.
If one were to take this philosophy litteraly as policy, you'd have to void the entire US government as illegitimate, and give the nation back to the American Indian and let them run the show from now on. Being the only true native Americans.
Which might not be a bad idea in some respects...(chuckle)...now that I think of it.
But that won't happen, and American Indians are soverign nations within nation as it is.
There's got to be a better way to do things, but this is not the way to take care of America first. Instead it is a perscription for disaster.
It would ensure instead that we become a nation divided by ethnicity and at each other's throats forevermore until there was nothing left that resembled America as it exists today.
So be careful what you wish for Joe. Time for a re-think, I think.
I did appreciate the way you presented the case though, as well as your thoughts on covert opps.
But remember one thing about "Dipnote" that goes beyond contacting one's Congressman directly on an issue.
You never really know who reads these posts, do you?
And that's the beauty of it.
Posted on Wed Sep 03, 2008
I forgot to add one thing Joe, and that's that the U-tube video you posted gave me a real laugh...
It's a real good example of presenting truth based upon false premis. This false premis being that "diversity equals disunity".
The fellow must have forgotten that this nation was founded, by, for, and of immigrents. Built on the backs of immigrents, and defended by immigrents, some of whom serving today are yet to become citizens.
In fact, what he suggests as solution would ensure civil strife, not a more perfect union.
And this has been my basic fundemental objection to similar remarks you have made over time on this blog.
Well meant they may be, but not a perscription for the American dream as it was intended to be by our founding fathers and realized by subsequent generations and constitutional ammendment.
I find expousing the merits of intolerance to be self defeating instead. Flying in the face of words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.
If one were to take this philosophy litteraly as policy, you'd have to void the entire US government as illegitimate, and give the nation back to the American Indian and let them run the show from now on. Being the only true native Americans.
Which might not be a bad idea in some respects...(chuckle)...now that I think of it.
But that won't happen, and American Indians are soverign nations within nation as it is.
There's got to be a better way to do things, but this is not the way to take care of America first. Instead it is a perscription for disaster.
It would ensure instead that we become a nation divided by ethnicity and at each other's throats forevermore until there was nothing left that resembled America as it exists today.
So be careful what you wish for Joe. Time for a re-think, I think.
I did appreciate the way you presented the case though, as well as your thoughts on covert opps.
But remember one thing about "Dipnote" that goes beyond contacting one's Congressman directly on an issue.
You never really know who reads these posts, do you?
And that's the beauty of it.
Posted on Wed Sep 03, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Nicely put Joe,
It seems there's a paradox between helping folks become partners in the "international system" as Sec. Rice refers to the efforts; "America has no permanent enemies."
When you wrote the following, (and I'm assuming from the context that "we" is a reference to humanity, as will I in my comment below), ...
"It seems we have leadership on all sides which are like a group of old time Crime boss's trying to gain territory or protect territory and not representatives of the best interest of their people or Nations."
...you point to an age old dillema that has plauged mankind for centuries, (correction), millenia to be exact.
200,000 years and running we've been building better tools for survival. Tools for peace as well as war. A hammer can be used to build shelter or crush a skull. Unfortunately our technological capacity has consistantly outstripped our social development and dicipline to use them in an ethical and peaceful manner.
To the point we've been able to exterminate the species for about 50 years now. Yet while no nation admits wanting this to happen, they ensure MAD will be reality for years to come. So why does this unique period of human history pose such a problem to resolve?
Very simply, because it is far easier to destroy what is, than to build what might be, as a family of nations.
And unless that mindset changes through a concious choice made by those with the burden of responsibility for the future of mankind who find this status quo unacceptable to future generation's very existance, then like lemmings will we be over oblivion's cliff....eventually.
I think the laws of motion apply in that it may take some outside force to redirect dysfunctional nationalism toward the premis of pride in one's humanity, and its diversity.
Whether that be through tragic circumstance, or the discovery of intelligent life in the universe.
Be nice to finally discover some on this planet...(chuckle).
Maybe then historians centuries from now will refer to this period of human history as "the age of insanity".
Because it is all of that, and then some.
Just maybe, and I hope I'm correct in this, but I see a possibility now that these issues between Russia and the western world have come to the fore of human awareness, raising it's ugly head as it were once again; that the resolution will involve the concious choice among all nations as to what we wish to create for ourselves as MAD obviosly no longer serves the people's interests, if it ever did.
Some would say MAD kept the peace, but it also poses a real threat to all life on a constant basis, and the peace has since been elusive at best.
Real partnership among nations has been sabotaged by it, and the people continue to live in fear of the results.
That being the case... true freedom , from fear, from want, from religious persecution, and from those who would seek to silence voices of good will with overwhelming force is not fully obtainable untill these matters are resolved for the good of all, once and for all.
Can't uninvent something, but we can decide to put these tools on the ash heap of history, rather than create an ash heap out of a living planet.
That is the choice humanity faces in the 21st century, if we are to see the 22nd.
Posted on Wed Sep 03, 2008
Nicely put Joe,
It seems there's a paradox between helping folks become partners in the "international system" as Sec. Rice refers to the efforts; "America has no permanent enemies."
When you wrote the following, (and I'm assuming from the context that "we" is a reference to humanity, as will I in my comment below), ...
"It seems we have leadership on all sides which are like a group of old time Crime boss's trying to gain territory or protect territory and not representatives of the best interest of their people or Nations."
...you point to an age old dillema that has plauged mankind for centuries, (correction), millenia to be exact.
200,000 years and running we've been building better tools for survival. Tools for peace as well as war. A hammer can be used to build shelter or crush a skull. Unfortunately our technological capacity has consistantly outstripped our social development and dicipline to use them in an ethical and peaceful manner.
To the point we've been able to exterminate the species for about 50 years now. Yet while no nation admits wanting this to happen, they ensure MAD will be reality for years to come. So why does this unique period of human history pose such a problem to resolve?
Very simply, because it is far easier to destroy what is, than to build what might be, as a family of nations.
And unless that mindset changes through a concious choice made by those with the burden of responsibility for the future of mankind who find this status quo unacceptable to future generation's very existance, then like lemmings will we be over oblivion's cliff....eventually.
I think the laws of motion apply in that it may take some outside force to redirect dysfunctional nationalism toward the premis of pride in one's humanity, and its diversity.
Whether that be through tragic circumstance, or the discovery of intelligent life in the universe.
Be nice to finally discover some on this planet...(chuckle).
Maybe then historians centuries from now will refer to this period of human history as "the age of insanity".
Because it is all of that, and then some.
Just maybe, and I hope I'm correct in this, but I see a possibility now that these issues between Russia and the western world have come to the fore of human awareness, raising it's ugly head as it were once again; that the resolution will involve the concious choice among all nations as to what we wish to create for ourselves as MAD obviosly no longer serves the people's interests, if it ever did.
Some would say MAD kept the peace, but it also poses a real threat to all life on a constant basis, and the peace has since been elusive at best.
Real partnership among nations has been sabotaged by it, and the people continue to live in fear of the results.
That being the case... true freedom , from fear, from want, from religious persecution, and from those who would seek to silence voices of good will with overwhelming force is not fully obtainable untill these matters are resolved for the good of all, once and for all.
Can't uninvent something, but we can decide to put these tools on the ash heap of history, rather than create an ash heap out of a living planet.
That is the choice humanity faces in the 21st century, if we are to see the 22nd.
Posted on Wed Sep 03, 2008
Jason in U.S.A. writes:
The problem I see is why is it that the US is always constantly proclaiming an enemy or competition status with nations who do not bow down to us?
The absurdity of it all is how hypocritical our foreign policy is.
I read the other day that Russia's attack on Georgia broke the longest time the world has gone without a war in so many years, a streak that started in 2003 (Iraq invasion).
I guess everyone likes to forget about israel invading southern Lebanon, an independent nation last time I checked, but the US was quire mute on the Israeli Army violating the borders of another nation.
But the US is quick to condem anything, I mean anything Russia does to the point of making up things or spinning facts. The Chechen conflict is an excellent example of this.
Taiwan gets no recognition has a country, but yet the US recognizes Kosovo. The US criticizes Russia, but yet is silent on the recent Tibetan crackdown by China.
Last Novemeber Georgian forces crushed protest in the capital and have been silencing opposition from the Armenian minority as well, but yet nothing is said about this.
The US criticizes Russia's human rights, electoral process and speech rights, but yet the US calls Musharraff, a person who over threw a democratically elected government, an ally. The US makes no critism of Saudi Arabia though they have one of the most oppressive regimes in the world.
But yet Russia does one little thing, the US is quick to spin the story and critize it.
Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008
The problem I see is why is it that the US is always constantly proclaiming an enemy or competition status with nations who do not bow down to us?
The absurdity of it all is how hypocritical our foreign policy is.
I read the other day that Russia's attack on Georgia broke the longest time the world has gone without a war in so many years, a streak that started in 2003 (Iraq invasion).
I guess everyone likes to forget about israel invading southern Lebanon, an independent nation last time I checked, but the US was quire mute on the Israeli Army violating the borders of another nation.
But the US is quick to condem anything, I mean anything Russia does to the point of making up things or spinning facts. The Chechen conflict is an excellent example of this.
Taiwan gets no recognition has a country, but yet the US recognizes Kosovo. The US criticizes Russia, but yet is silent on the recent Tibetan crackdown by China.
Last Novemeber Georgian forces crushed protest in the capital and have been silencing opposition from the Armenian minority as well, but yet nothing is said about this.
The US criticizes Russia's human rights, electoral process and speech rights, but yet the US calls Musharraff, a person who over threw a democratically elected government, an ally. The US makes no critism of Saudi Arabia though they have one of the most oppressive regimes in the world.
But yet Russia does one little thing, the US is quick to spin the story and critize it.
Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ Jason, you sort of arrived in the middle of things, so I'd encorage you hit the archives awhile.
Time is the great judge of all thought.....
http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/q_georgia/
---and---
http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entries/q_olympic_games/
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Lot of folks killed on both sides Zharkov, needlessly.
Today the Russians have called a halt to their opps, but when the smoke clears, both sides will have to answer to the people for the results of nationalistic pride.
Russia would do well to offer humanitarian aid to those civilians caught up in the fighting, regardless of nationality. And so would Georgia.
To say to the people that military action was not directed at them, but their government's military.
To accept that responsibility to rebuild civilian infrastructure as a result of both parties actions, including Georgia, may be a starting point for both nations to work together in a more positive method to restore people's trust, hopes, and lives in the region.
Both nations should accept that that they have been part of the problem, and are now faced with a choice to become parties to a long term solution in favor of peace.
Atrocities against civilians were committed by both sides, and the forensic evidence will tell the tale.
These issues will require international scrutiny amd investigation in a fair and just manner to reach any conclusive determination placing blame on individuals responsible, regardless of their official capacity in the respective governments.
I believe it was made clear to Russia that they risked much by continuing to attack Georgian soverign territory outside the two separatist regions. Risking their role in the G8, their status in WTO, and risked direct military confrontation with NATO if regime change in Georgia was in fact the Russian intent of their actions.
The Russians themselves created this legitimate concern among those in the security council, France, the US...and others because of the poor use of words used by Russia in that the Georgian President "must go."
Obviously some clarification was in order, and has now been given by Russia to refute that intent.
An "Olympic truce"??? We'll see.
Posted on Tue Aug 12, 2008
------
You asked for my thoughts on Iraq?
(excerpt)
>Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 14:14:12 -0600
>To: Senator John Kerry, Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Joseph Biden, Senator Christopher Dodd, Senator Mike Enzi, Senator Bill Frist, Senator Jesse Helms, Senator Sam Brownback
>From: Eric (personal info deleted for posting)
>Subject: Lessons from history
>
> To whom it may concern,
In regards to Sen. Helm's 20/20 hindsight on Iraq(CNN-9/23), I believe he is correct in stating that we should have removed Saddam Hussein from power.
Sanctions do not work, history has proved that economic sanctions hurt the average citizens, and promotes a climate ideal for the incubation of terrorism.
If you look at the National-Socialist(and Hitler's)rise to power in Germany, the treaty of Versais, and the sanctions that were imposed at the time, were a major contributing factor.
When WW2 ended, Germany and Japan were rebuilt politically and economically under the Marshall plan, and there have been no terrorist attacks instigated by these countries. In light of the present situation, I hope you will consider this:
A.The Afghan people are victims of terrorism, and a religious government that may be compared in thought and deed to the Spanish inquisition. Millions of refugees are the result.
B.The only way these people will return home to rebuild is when it is safe to do so, this will not happen if the Taliban are allowed to remain.
C.World support will hinge (in the long term) on whether we are perceived as liberators or "Satan". This will depend on our commitment to restore Afghanistan to sanity, and will require an internationally backed "Marshall" type plan to succeed.
D.Russian and American involvement there in years past has been instrumental in creating the current situation, as such, It may be our responsibility to correct it.
---end excerpt---
(cont)......And time proves a thought's worth, or not.
Basicly I just do research and analysis Jason, and to get emotionally attached to a position on any issue is to throw objectivity out the window.
I've had my personal experiences that have tested my faith in the American government in the past. But I don't let them color my whole world. And that's what some people seem to validate their existance with, but that's not my problem.
Invariably I'll call it like I see it, to anyone, anyplace, at anytime.
To be stuck in the past is to forgo one's future. Only in the "now" can change occur.
Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008
@ Jason, you sort of arrived in the middle of things, so I'd encorage you hit the archives awhile.
Time is the great judge of all thought.....
http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/q_georgia/
---and---
http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entries/q_olympic_games/
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Lot of folks killed on both sides Zharkov, needlessly.
Today the Russians have called a halt to their opps, but when the smoke clears, both sides will have to answer to the people for the results of nationalistic pride.
Russia would do well to offer humanitarian aid to those civilians caught up in the fighting, regardless of nationality. And so would Georgia.
To say to the people that military action was not directed at them, but their government's military.
To accept that responsibility to rebuild civilian infrastructure as a result of both parties actions, including Georgia, may be a starting point for both nations to work together in a more positive method to restore people's trust, hopes, and lives in the region.
Both nations should accept that that they have been part of the problem, and are now faced with a choice to become parties to a long term solution in favor of peace.
Atrocities against civilians were committed by both sides, and the forensic evidence will tell the tale.
These issues will require international scrutiny amd investigation in a fair and just manner to reach any conclusive determination placing blame on individuals responsible, regardless of their official capacity in the respective governments.
I believe it was made clear to Russia that they risked much by continuing to attack Georgian soverign territory outside the two separatist regions. Risking their role in the G8, their status in WTO, and risked direct military confrontation with NATO if regime change in Georgia was in fact the Russian intent of their actions.
The Russians themselves created this legitimate concern among those in the security council, France, the US...and others because of the poor use of words used by Russia in that the Georgian President "must go."
Obviously some clarification was in order, and has now been given by Russia to refute that intent.
An "Olympic truce"??? We'll see.
Posted on Tue Aug 12, 2008
------
You asked for my thoughts on Iraq?
(excerpt)
>Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 14:14:12 -0600
>To: Senator John Kerry, Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Joseph Biden, Senator Christopher Dodd, Senator Mike Enzi, Senator Bill Frist, Senator Jesse Helms, Senator Sam Brownback
>From: Eric (personal info deleted for posting)
>Subject: Lessons from history
>
> To whom it may concern,
In regards to Sen. Helm's 20/20 hindsight on Iraq(CNN-9/23), I believe he is correct in stating that we should have removed Saddam Hussein from power.
Sanctions do not work, history has proved that economic sanctions hurt the average citizens, and promotes a climate ideal for the incubation of terrorism.
If you look at the National-Socialist(and Hitler's)rise to power in Germany, the treaty of Versais, and the sanctions that were imposed at the time, were a major contributing factor.
When WW2 ended, Germany and Japan were rebuilt politically and economically under the Marshall plan, and there have been no terrorist attacks instigated by these countries. In light of the present situation, I hope you will consider this:
A.The Afghan people are victims of terrorism, and a religious government that may be compared in thought and deed to the Spanish inquisition. Millions of refugees are the result.
B.The only way these people will return home to rebuild is when it is safe to do so, this will not happen if the Taliban are allowed to remain.
C.World support will hinge (in the long term) on whether we are perceived as liberators or "Satan". This will depend on our commitment to restore Afghanistan to sanity, and will require an internationally backed "Marshall" type plan to succeed.
D.Russian and American involvement there in years past has been instrumental in creating the current situation, as such, It may be our responsibility to correct it.
---end excerpt---
(cont)......And time proves a thought's worth, or not.
Basicly I just do research and analysis Jason, and to get emotionally attached to a position on any issue is to throw objectivity out the window.
I've had my personal experiences that have tested my faith in the American government in the past. But I don't let them color my whole world. And that's what some people seem to validate their existance with, but that's not my problem.
Invariably I'll call it like I see it, to anyone, anyplace, at anytime.
To be stuck in the past is to forgo one's future. Only in the "now" can change occur.
Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008
Joe in Tennessee writes:
When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen.
George Washington (1732-1799) First President of the USA.
A military defense system is no more than an extension of the above.
What needs to be answered is: Who, what, where and why in order of relativity to the extension of arms.
Is it our Business that involves our Citizens. That is the only question on protecting and that is a complicated issue when alliances are considered.
The presumption of everyone that we are all knowing is what got us to this point to begin with. Unfortunately, we as citizens of any country will NOT KNOW EVERYTHING. From the papers held in the Vatican relating to history and foretelling events specifically to actual intelligence of the WMD advances that Russia gave to Iran.
As we are a victim of our own trust, with GE providing China the gyro for the third stage missile in the Open Exchange for Space which provided them an ICBM to reach our shores; Russia is now a victim of the technology it gave to the Middle Eastern countries as it is a threat to our allies as Israel and Europe.
One view is: We have no choice if we are to defend the democracies built there.
Another view may be:
The US is trying to play catch up football with military might instead of smarts because we dropped the ball and took our eyes off Russia and now we are simply trying to make them look like the bad guys. If our Congress did its homework, we would not have to be pushing in this manner to begin with. WE, the USA is supposed to be the leading Economic leader in the world, so we gave it all away and now want to act like children and want it back by force?
That is another spin on this situation which is just pure common sense. We need to find common ground again, but we cannot step back and leave our allies and new democracies out on a limb. We are paying for Congressional non due diligence from Iraq to Russia to China. It is not the President or Intelligence who failed us or put us in this situation.
Want to complain then watch this and make a call instead of venting here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk
It seems we have leadership on all sides which are like a group of old time Crime boss's trying to gain territory or protect territory and not representatives of the best interest of their people or Nations. What has happened is very depressing to think that with the worlds overall problems we are still primal. Wasted educations, wasted constructs...just primal activity promoted by false leaderships...
Hey, anyone see the shot Putin made this week? As good a marksman as his Tae Kwon Do, unless you have a few pounds on him -- LOL!
PS: Give it a rest on what you know about covert activities. I say this, as these activities are often a cluster and not specific as any report may indicate. If there is a report on any covert activity, it has been screened for legal responsibilities or political purpose, so knowing this, why not leave these out of constructs here? They have no application beyond their purpose.
Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008
When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen.
George Washington (1732-1799) First President of the USA.
A military defense system is no more than an extension of the above.
What needs to be answered is: Who, what, where and why in order of relativity to the extension of arms.
Is it our Business that involves our Citizens. That is the only question on protecting and that is a complicated issue when alliances are considered.
The presumption of everyone that we are all knowing is what got us to this point to begin with. Unfortunately, we as citizens of any country will NOT KNOW EVERYTHING. From the papers held in the Vatican relating to history and foretelling events specifically to actual intelligence of the WMD advances that Russia gave to Iran.
As we are a victim of our own trust, with GE providing China the gyro for the third stage missile in the Open Exchange for Space which provided them an ICBM to reach our shores; Russia is now a victim of the technology it gave to the Middle Eastern countries as it is a threat to our allies as Israel and Europe.
One view is: We have no choice if we are to defend the democracies built there.
Another view may be:
The US is trying to play catch up football with military might instead of smarts because we dropped the ball and took our eyes off Russia and now we are simply trying to make them look like the bad guys. If our Congress did its homework, we would not have to be pushing in this manner to begin with. WE, the USA is supposed to be the leading Economic leader in the world, so we gave it all away and now want to act like children and want it back by force?
That is another spin on this situation which is just pure common sense. We need to find common ground again, but we cannot step back and leave our allies and new democracies out on a limb. We are paying for Congressional non due diligence from Iraq to Russia to China. It is not the President or Intelligence who failed us or put us in this situation.
Want to complain then watch this and make a call instead of venting here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk
It seems we have leadership on all sides which are like a group of old time Crime boss's trying to gain territory or protect territory and not representatives of the best interest of their people or Nations. What has happened is very depressing to think that with the worlds overall problems we are still primal. Wasted educations, wasted constructs...just primal activity promoted by false leaderships...
Hey, anyone see the shot Putin made this week? As good a marksman as his Tae Kwon Do, unless you have a few pounds on him -- LOL!
PS: Give it a rest on what you know about covert activities. I say this, as these activities are often a cluster and not specific as any report may indicate. If there is a report on any covert activity, it has been screened for legal responsibilities or political purpose, so knowing this, why not leave these out of constructs here? They have no application beyond their purpose.
Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
The black operations I cited are admitted on the CIA's own website (except for VP Cheney's plan), and what Eric says is absolutely nothing in reply. There can be no response to what our government has been doing except incredulity and outrage, and that is why I am here. I am outraged at the lies I read with my own eyes coming from the heart of our federal government.
If you're buying propaganda, that's your choice, but Eric's legal threats won't shut me up. It is legally impossible to libel a government with the truth. Frankly it is impossible to libel a politician even with lies or else every election would become a mass litigation disaster.
Only in the old Soviet Union did the crime of "Slander of the State" exist, and never in America. Every American would know this.
Let's talk a moment about Serbia and South Ossetia. A war based on lies could be prosecuted as a simple common law murder by the officials who ordered it. The "Acts of State" doctrine is merely a defense to the murder charge.
One definition of a criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful act, or a lawful act by unlawful means. Those who, with knowledge of the criminal intent of another, aid or assist in carrying out the criminal purposes thereby make themselves parties to the crime and are equally guilty with the original conspirators.
The conspiracy may exist over long periods of time. US vs. Kissel, 218 U.S. 601, 31 S.Ct. 124.
It is not necessary that any formal agreement be shown; it is enough if the partices tacitly come to an understanding in regard to the unlawful purpose. Braverman vs. U.S. 317 U.S. 49, 63 S.Ct. 99.
A conviction for the crime of conspiracy requires an overt act be shown to be in furtherance of the conspiracy. 18 USCA 371.
An overt act committed within a state gives it jurisdiction over a conspirator who was outside the state at the time, even if the conspiracy was formed outside the state. State vs. Hicks, 233 N.C. 511, 64 S.E.2nd 871.
An "aider and abettor" to a crime is one who, with criminal intent, either assists the perpetrator in the commission of a crime, stands by with intent to render aid if needed, or commands, counsels, or otherwise encourages the perpetrator to commit the crime.
An "inciter to a crime" is one who with criminal intent, counsels, aids, commands, procures or encourages another to commit a crime, or with criminal intent, supplies weapons, tools or information to assist the criminal purpose but is not necessarily present at the crime scene.
In common treason, perpetrators, abettors, inciters and criminal protectors are all principles to the crime and there are no different degrees to distinguish them.
An investigation has already begun into Mr. Cheney's false flag attack plan, and I think the Justice Department should begin an investigation into official US culpability for the murders in South Ossetia. The Russians are doing this, and our side should too.
Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008
The black operations I cited are admitted on the CIA's own website (except for VP Cheney's plan), and what Eric says is absolutely nothing in reply. There can be no response to what our government has been doing except incredulity and outrage, and that is why I am here. I am outraged at the lies I read with my own eyes coming from the heart of our federal government.
If you're buying propaganda, that's your choice, but Eric's legal threats won't shut me up. It is legally impossible to libel a government with the truth. Frankly it is impossible to libel a politician even with lies or else every election would become a mass litigation disaster.
Only in the old Soviet Union did the crime of "Slander of the State" exist, and never in America. Every American would know this.
Let's talk a moment about Serbia and South Ossetia. A war based on lies could be prosecuted as a simple common law murder by the officials who ordered it. The "Acts of State" doctrine is merely a defense to the murder charge.
One definition of a criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful act, or a lawful act by unlawful means. Those who, with knowledge of the criminal intent of another, aid or assist in carrying out the criminal purposes thereby make themselves parties to the crime and are equally guilty with the original conspirators.
The conspiracy may exist over long periods of time. US vs. Kissel, 218 U.S. 601, 31 S.Ct. 124.
It is not necessary that any formal agreement be shown; it is enough if the partices tacitly come to an understanding in regard to the unlawful purpose. Braverman vs. U.S. 317 U.S. 49, 63 S.Ct. 99.
A conviction for the crime of conspiracy requires an overt act be shown to be in furtherance of the conspiracy. 18 USCA 371.
An overt act committed within a state gives it jurisdiction over a conspirator who was outside the state at the time, even if the conspiracy was formed outside the state. State vs. Hicks, 233 N.C. 511, 64 S.E.2nd 871.
An "aider and abettor" to a crime is one who, with criminal intent, either assists the perpetrator in the commission of a crime, stands by with intent to render aid if needed, or commands, counsels, or otherwise encourages the perpetrator to commit the crime.
An "inciter to a crime" is one who with criminal intent, counsels, aids, commands, procures or encourages another to commit a crime, or with criminal intent, supplies weapons, tools or information to assist the criminal purpose but is not necessarily present at the crime scene.
In common treason, perpetrators, abettors, inciters and criminal protectors are all principles to the crime and there are no different degrees to distinguish them.
An investigation has already begun into Mr. Cheney's false flag attack plan, and I think the Justice Department should begin an investigation into official US culpability for the murders in South Ossetia. The Russians are doing this, and our side should too.
Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008
Jason in U.S.A. writes:
@ Eric in New Mexico --
You also failed to mention that researchers suggested both sides have committed war crimes and violated international law. But for you it will always be for whoever America is for and you and people like you will sheepishly alsways follow your leader without question.
My mark in life came after Serbia, were you there? I was, I was and I personally saw the hypocritical conduct of US and NATO forces and I saw the misinformation the western media was spreading about the conflict. To this day people in the west do not know what really occured in Serbia and to tel the truth just gets shuns and "you are wrong" remarks because most people could never comprehend what their government is really doing overseas.
I have lived in central Asia where I have personally worked with NGOs who are nothing more than props for the west and funnel money to disrupt and overthrow non-western leaning governments. This happened in Kyrgyzstan that I was a part of and again, poeple in America will never comprehend.
I can tell you of many atrocities America has carried out in their bombing raid in Serbia, the masses of civilians killed and the criminals America supports.
So Eric, since you think Russia violated international law, what is your stance on America's invasion of Iraq? Or you feel no law was violated because again, in your own little world, you feel everything you do is perfectly justified.
Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008
@ Eric in New Mexico --
You also failed to mention that researchers suggested both sides have committed war crimes and violated international law. But for you it will always be for whoever America is for and you and people like you will sheepishly alsways follow your leader without question.
My mark in life came after Serbia, were you there? I was, I was and I personally saw the hypocritical conduct of US and NATO forces and I saw the misinformation the western media was spreading about the conflict. To this day people in the west do not know what really occured in Serbia and to tel the truth just gets shuns and "you are wrong" remarks because most people could never comprehend what their government is really doing overseas.
I have lived in central Asia where I have personally worked with NGOs who are nothing more than props for the west and funnel money to disrupt and overthrow non-western leaning governments. This happened in Kyrgyzstan that I was a part of and again, poeple in America will never comprehend.
I can tell you of many atrocities America has carried out in their bombing raid in Serbia, the masses of civilians killed and the criminals America supports.
So Eric, since you think Russia violated international law, what is your stance on America's invasion of Iraq? Or you feel no law was violated because again, in your own little world, you feel everything you do is perfectly justified.
Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Precedent? Please Zharkov, I could simply refer you to any number of your previously archived posts which would prove beyond anyone's doubt that it would be a total waste of my time to bother with the type of "proof" you offer up on a consistant basis.
Like I said to SNP, I'm not here to try to change your mindset, as folks can only change themslves. I don't know why you are trying to do so with me, but you're wasting your time, and mine.
However, as with all truth, the facts go through three stages of acceptance. First they are ridiculed, then violently opposed, then become self evident.
Forensic evidence is hard to argue with.
As is the picture of ethnic Georgian villages being torched by S. Ossetian militias backed by Russian forces. (see link in my previous post)
You've been on the losing side of many a debate with me as the facts have become self evident.
I think you are becoming a little resentful and grasping at straws. Being brutally honest in telling you the truth about yourself obvously doesn't endear me to you, but I really don't care what you think about me. Got that?
Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008
Precedent? Please Zharkov, I could simply refer you to any number of your previously archived posts which would prove beyond anyone's doubt that it would be a total waste of my time to bother with the type of "proof" you offer up on a consistant basis.
Like I said to SNP, I'm not here to try to change your mindset, as folks can only change themslves. I don't know why you are trying to do so with me, but you're wasting your time, and mine.
However, as with all truth, the facts go through three stages of acceptance. First they are ridiculed, then violently opposed, then become self evident.
Forensic evidence is hard to argue with.
As is the picture of ethnic Georgian villages being torched by S. Ossetian militias backed by Russian forces. (see link in my previous post)
You've been on the losing side of many a debate with me as the facts have become self evident.
I think you are becoming a little resentful and grasping at straws. Being brutally honest in telling you the truth about yourself obvously doesn't endear me to you, but I really don't care what you think about me. Got that?
Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
Eric claims that we are justified in our condemnations of North Korea, China, Cuba, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Iran, Russia, among other countries, because Bush always acted for the "right" reasons (at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, S. Ossetia, etc.), while these other nations have acted for the "wrong" reasons.
The fundamental problem with this logic is that no nation is ever going to admit it is doing something for the "wrong" reasons, and governments are certainly not inclined to listen to hypocrites who commit the same acts they condemn.
Guess who said, "I try to reach a compromise in my own life; I try to help people and do good, relieve the oppressed and remove injustices wherever I can." -- Heinrich Himmler, Reichfuhrer SS.
Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008
Eric claims that we are justified in our condemnations of North Korea, China, Cuba, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Iran, Russia, among other countries, because Bush always acted for the "right" reasons (at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, S. Ossetia, etc.), while these other nations have acted for the "wrong" reasons.
The fundamental problem with this logic is that no nation is ever going to admit it is doing something for the "wrong" reasons, and governments are certainly not inclined to listen to hypocrites who commit the same acts they condemn.
Guess who said, "I try to reach a compromise in my own life; I try to help people and do good, relieve the oppressed and remove injustices wherever I can." -- Heinrich Himmler, Reichfuhrer SS.
Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
@ Eric, this isn't the old Soviet Union and you've got no case, particularly since you don't know what you are talking about.
If you want to learn what I am talking about, you might try Google search for "Operation Gladio", "Operation Northwoods", and "Cheney, False Flag Attack Plan".
If you still think it is legally possible to libel this administration after reading those references, please cite your precedent.
Posted on Mon Sep 01, 2008
@ Eric, this isn't the old Soviet Union and you've got no case, particularly since you don't know what you are talking about.
If you want to learn what I am talking about, you might try Google search for "Operation Gladio", "Operation Northwoods", and "Cheney, False Flag Attack Plan".
If you still think it is legally possible to libel this administration after reading those references, please cite your precedent.
Posted on Mon Sep 01, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ Jason, if folks want evidence.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7588473.stm
I'd hardly call Russia's actions "protecting people".
Call it protecting their so called "interests" perhaps, but in violation of international law no less.
A picture is worth a thousand words....
Posted on Mon Sep 01, 2008
@ Jason, if folks want evidence.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7588473.stm
I'd hardly call Russia's actions "protecting people".
Call it protecting their so called "interests" perhaps, but in violation of international law no less.
A picture is worth a thousand words....
Posted on Mon Sep 01, 2008
Jason in U.S.A. writes:
As usual, American leaders will have to keep their ego trip going to ensure whatever agenda they have while the common person will suffer.
Just as our support of israel in 1973 caused us a fuel crisis, our support of Georgia will cause us yet more financial pressure. Our leaders do not care as they will always be ensured of their living standards.
But the difference is at least with israel, there was a good reason, the US has picked the wrong side this time, Georgia is not our friend and all in all, they are vicious and committed atrocities to civilian popualtions that for some reason the west really wants to ignore.
As far as the missile shield goes, I do not recall anyone ever inviting us to defend them with it, hence why we had to go around and practically beg countires to let us install it. Why are we spending billions for a defense system that no one ever asked for and why are we spending billions for a defense system to put in a place that has a GDP almost as great as ours? (the EU).
The US needs to stop being the policeman and the US needs to stop being the world's biggest hypocrite.
We recognized Kosovo who which the people there have zero historical basis for their independence. We bombed Serbia for made up reasons and we attacked Iraq for made up reasons as well.
But yet we are swift to critize Russia for protecting people and we quickly ignore or spin the facts surrounding this.
I know it has been the west, and paticularly America's, goal to divide the Russian state as a whole, make it weak and exploit its resources as the west does with Africa now days.
I pray Russia will remain strong and become stronger to stop the imperialistic aggression of America and its supporters.
Colonialism dies hard and slow.
Posted on Mon Sep 01, 2008
As usual, American leaders will have to keep their ego trip going to ensure whatever agenda they have while the common person will suffer.
Just as our support of israel in 1973 caused us a fuel crisis, our support of Georgia will cause us yet more financial pressure. Our leaders do not care as they will always be ensured of their living standards.
But the difference is at least with israel, there was a good reason, the US has picked the wrong side this time, Georgia is not our friend and all in all, they are vicious and committed atrocities to civilian popualtions that for some reason the west really wants to ignore.
As far as the missile shield goes, I do not recall anyone ever inviting us to defend them with it, hence why we had to go around and practically beg countires to let us install it. Why are we spending billions for a defense system that no one ever asked for and why are we spending billions for a defense system to put in a place that has a GDP almost as great as ours? (the EU).
The US needs to stop being the policeman and the US needs to stop being the world's biggest hypocrite.
We recognized Kosovo who which the people there have zero historical basis for their independence. We bombed Serbia for made up reasons and we attacked Iraq for made up reasons as well.
But yet we are swift to critize Russia for protecting people and we quickly ignore or spin the facts surrounding this.
I know it has been the west, and paticularly America's, goal to divide the Russian state as a whole, make it weak and exploit its resources as the west does with Africa now days.
I pray Russia will remain strong and become stronger to stop the imperialistic aggression of America and its supporters.
Colonialism dies hard and slow.
Posted on Mon Sep 01, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Zharkov wrote, "Some in our government are determined to start a war with Russia."
As long as I've read your posts, you have had this propensity to utter baseless accusations against the US gov.
The above in quotes is just more of the same.
It's a serious charge you commit to print sir. And if you have no proof, then it would seem you are simply stirring the pot for the same purpose you accuse the US government of. Baseless libel it is. And if you have nothing to back it up with, you might be held to account for it since you state it as fact rather than qualify it as opinion.
Think long and hard about this, and don't believe everything the Russian media tells you.
At least I provide direct sourcing for you to check out any statement of others I might post.
Why should I believe your third or fourth hand interpretation of events?
If you really do believe your tripe, show me your plane ticket to New Zealand....'cause if you were going to act on your belief, that's exactly what you should do to survive...eh? So why are you still here?
Don't don't drown in paranoia in the meantime my friend, that's no way to enjoy life.
The only "Russian" attack on US soil is coming from a fellow by the name of Gustav packing winds at catagory 3 hurricane force.
Posted on Mon Sep 01, 2008
Zharkov wrote, "Some in our government are determined to start a war with Russia."
As long as I've read your posts, you have had this propensity to utter baseless accusations against the US gov.
The above in quotes is just more of the same.
It's a serious charge you commit to print sir. And if you have no proof, then it would seem you are simply stirring the pot for the same purpose you accuse the US government of. Baseless libel it is. And if you have nothing to back it up with, you might be held to account for it since you state it as fact rather than qualify it as opinion.
Think long and hard about this, and don't believe everything the Russian media tells you.
At least I provide direct sourcing for you to check out any statement of others I might post.
Why should I believe your third or fourth hand interpretation of events?
If you really do believe your tripe, show me your plane ticket to New Zealand....'cause if you were going to act on your belief, that's exactly what you should do to survive...eh? So why are you still here?
Don't don't drown in paranoia in the meantime my friend, that's no way to enjoy life.
The only "Russian" attack on US soil is coming from a fellow by the name of Gustav packing winds at catagory 3 hurricane force.
Posted on Mon Sep 01, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
@ Eric, a single Russian SS-18 missile with 24 H-bomb warheads can extinguish all life between Boston and Atlanta.
I think you are unaware of how serious Russia's military leaders take our missile bases near their country. They have already threatened nuclear war over this one issue alone and they are outraged over our actions in Georgia, and particularly angry about our treaty violations and broken promises to them regarding not expanding NATO to their borders.
You also assume the White House is acting rationally but you are clearly wrong. Forget MAD. It isn't working on our side. Some in our government are determined to start a war with Russia. Judging from the mess they created in Georgia, in my opinion our leaders are crazier than the ayatollahs in Iran.
The Russians were cooperating with us in every respect including helping us deal with Iran and North Korea. Our leaders apparently saw their cooperation as weakness and decided to take advantage of it. Provoking Russia was completely illogical and unnecessary -- they were trying to build friendship and now they feel humiliated.
As I write this, the US is reported by Russian news media to be sending troops and military supplies to Georgia to prepare for another attack on South Ossetia. Russian military leaders have declared this to be an act of war against Russia.
Eric, we are closer to nuclear war than we are to the November elections.
Posted on Mon Sep 01, 2008
@ Eric, a single Russian SS-18 missile with 24 H-bomb warheads can extinguish all life between Boston and Atlanta.
I think you are unaware of how serious Russia's military leaders take our missile bases near their country. They have already threatened nuclear war over this one issue alone and they are outraged over our actions in Georgia, and particularly angry about our treaty violations and broken promises to them regarding not expanding NATO to their borders.
You also assume the White House is acting rationally but you are clearly wrong. Forget MAD. It isn't working on our side. Some in our government are determined to start a war with Russia. Judging from the mess they created in Georgia, in my opinion our leaders are crazier than the ayatollahs in Iran.
The Russians were cooperating with us in every respect including helping us deal with Iran and North Korea. Our leaders apparently saw their cooperation as weakness and decided to take advantage of it. Provoking Russia was completely illogical and unnecessary -- they were trying to build friendship and now they feel humiliated.
As I write this, the US is reported by Russian news media to be sending troops and military supplies to Georgia to prepare for another attack on South Ossetia. Russian military leaders have declared this to be an act of war against Russia.
Eric, we are closer to nuclear war than we are to the November elections.
Posted on Mon Sep 01, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Interesting observation Zharkov, but the exclusion of land basing would leave holes in coverage.
You talk of "first strike" as if this is designed to defend against a full blown nuclear attack, which the system niether is designed to stop, nor capable of stopping.
That's why I said years ago that MAD will be reality for years to come.
Posted on Sun Aug 31, 2008
Interesting observation Zharkov, but the exclusion of land basing would leave holes in coverage.
You talk of "first strike" as if this is designed to defend against a full blown nuclear attack, which the system niether is designed to stop, nor capable of stopping.
That's why I said years ago that MAD will be reality for years to come.
Posted on Sun Aug 31, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
You totally missed the point SNP, and you're not making sense at all now.
In fact, I think you know you don't know what you're talking about.
Russia has no interest in nuking Europe, no Europe, no profits from oil and gas , eh? The hypothetical of a Russian general trying on his own has an extremely remote possibility attached to it, but the rhetoric involved does give one pause for thought.
Iranian religious nutcases (Amanutjob and Co.) on the other hand, would. If only to pave the way for their 12ver phrophesies of the return of the Mahdi to a burnt out cinder of a world.
Which gets back to something I said previously about blind faith not sealing humanity's fate.
----
@ Dennis in Wisconsin,
Tell this to the Afghans Dennis, if you dare.
"NATO is anachronistic; it does not belong in this day and age."
Nuetrality is also a soverign right, as was Afghanistan in both world wars.
The US has often been accused of being the world's policeman, now that NATO has taken on crisis "out of area" in a multilateral setting...it surely has a useful purpose in the 21st century.
Posted on Sun Aug 31, 2008
You totally missed the point SNP, and you're not making sense at all now.
In fact, I think you know you don't know what you're talking about.
Russia has no interest in nuking Europe, no Europe, no profits from oil and gas , eh? The hypothetical of a Russian general trying on his own has an extremely remote possibility attached to it, but the rhetoric involved does give one pause for thought.
Iranian religious nutcases (Amanutjob and Co.) on the other hand, would. If only to pave the way for their 12ver phrophesies of the return of the Mahdi to a burnt out cinder of a world.
Which gets back to something I said previously about blind faith not sealing humanity's fate.
----
@ Dennis in Wisconsin,
Tell this to the Afghans Dennis, if you dare.
"NATO is anachronistic; it does not belong in this day and age."
Nuetrality is also a soverign right, as was Afghanistan in both world wars.
The US has often been accused of being the world's policeman, now that NATO has taken on crisis "out of area" in a multilateral setting...it surely has a useful purpose in the 21st century.
Posted on Sun Aug 31, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
If missile interceptor technology can be land-based, it can be sea-based. A submarine-based missile shield would be mobile, quickly placed where needed, and adaptable, while land-based missile launchers are useless if attacked in a first strike.
So perhaps the Russians are doing us a favor by trying to block a land-based missile shield. It would be far less offensive to relocate the shield elsewhere.
Posted on Sun Aug 31, 2008
If missile interceptor technology can be land-based, it can be sea-based. A submarine-based missile shield would be mobile, quickly placed where needed, and adaptable, while land-based missile launchers are useless if attacked in a first strike.
So perhaps the Russians are doing us a favor by trying to block a land-based missile shield. It would be far less offensive to relocate the shield elsewhere.
Posted on Sun Aug 31, 2008
SNP in Syria writes:
@Eric, in NM
So I take it no one is willing to shell out what amount to be a lesser value than the missile transportation cost to Poland to prove that this kiddy will not MEAO nor PURRRR. Should this challenge offer go unanswered then we got stuffed Garfield and no more. You had proven my point that, it is not the missile but what the message the missile sends to the Russian that is most offending.
Posted on Sat Aug 30, 2008
@Eric, in NM
So I take it no one is willing to shell out what amount to be a lesser value than the missile transportation cost to Poland to prove that this kiddy will not MEAO nor PURRRR. Should this challenge offer go unanswered then we got stuffed Garfield and no more. You had proven my point that, it is not the missile but what the message the missile sends to the Russian that is most offending.
Posted on Sat Aug 30, 2008
Dennis in Wisconsin writes:
"What rights should a country have when another country is trying to defend itself and its allies? " This is a curious wording.
Could it mean: What rights should a country (perhaps Peru) have when another country (perhaps the United States) is trying to defend itself (as in Pearl Harbor) and its allies (like Singapore and Australia)? Well, Peru should have to right as a neutral country to transverse the high seas; it should have the right to commerce with either belligerent. It should have the right to demand that its citizens outside its boundaries be treated as not enemy aliens.
Obviously from the few comments registered so far the question pertains to US-Russian interests. If the commentators here see the question in terms of US policy toward Russia, then there is no wonder that the Russians too see it that way. The Russians are not hallucinating. The US missile "defense" is nothing more than a sucker shoot from NATO. NATO served its purpose in the cold war with the Soviet Union (not to be read: Russia). NATO is anachronistic; it does not belong in this day and age.
Posted on Sat Aug 30, 2008
"What rights should a country have when another country is trying to defend itself and its allies? " This is a curious wording.
Could it mean: What rights should a country (perhaps Peru) have when another country (perhaps the United States) is trying to defend itself (as in Pearl Harbor) and its allies (like Singapore and Australia)? Well, Peru should have to right as a neutral country to transverse the high seas; it should have the right to commerce with either belligerent. It should have the right to demand that its citizens outside its boundaries be treated as not enemy aliens.
Obviously from the few comments registered so far the question pertains to US-Russian interests. If the commentators here see the question in terms of US policy toward Russia, then there is no wonder that the Russians too see it that way. The Russians are not hallucinating. The US missile "defense" is nothing more than a sucker shoot from NATO. NATO served its purpose in the cold war with the Soviet Union (not to be read: Russia). NATO is anachronistic; it does not belong in this day and age.
Posted on Sat Aug 30, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Dead kitty huh? So What was it that vaporized a satilite in decaying orbit so it wouldn't come down in one piece then? Six years after I wrote what I did in my previous post, we now have at least the technical and practical application pretty well down.
But anyone that can can crunch numbers at the grade school level would see the obvious.
Not only would it take decades to field enough missiles over many more sites to make an appreciable dent in Russia's offensive nuclear strike capability.
It really is designed to deal with one and at most 3 incoming warheads at any one time.
I suppose in a hypothertical scenario where some Russian general decided to go off the reservation and carry out his own nuclear strike (assuming any and all Russian safeguards against this failed), that the system might just prevent an all out nuclear war.
And that being the case, rather than western missile defense, Russia should be much more concerned with that asinine general of their's who thinks nuking Poland is a good idea. That's their real threat, and it's home grown.
I'd be very pleased to see Amb. Rood or Assistant Secretary Freid test my logic on their Russian counterparts.
I trust they'll find a much more diplomaticly correct way to put it to them than I'm inclined to....(chuckle).
Posted on Sat Aug 30, 2008
Dead kitty huh? So What was it that vaporized a satilite in decaying orbit so it wouldn't come down in one piece then? Six years after I wrote what I did in my previous post, we now have at least the technical and practical application pretty well down.
But anyone that can can crunch numbers at the grade school level would see the obvious.
Not only would it take decades to field enough missiles over many more sites to make an appreciable dent in Russia's offensive nuclear strike capability.
It really is designed to deal with one and at most 3 incoming warheads at any one time.
I suppose in a hypothertical scenario where some Russian general decided to go off the reservation and carry out his own nuclear strike (assuming any and all Russian safeguards against this failed), that the system might just prevent an all out nuclear war.
And that being the case, rather than western missile defense, Russia should be much more concerned with that asinine general of their's who thinks nuking Poland is a good idea. That's their real threat, and it's home grown.
I'd be very pleased to see Amb. Rood or Assistant Secretary Freid test my logic on their Russian counterparts.
I trust they'll find a much more diplomaticly correct way to put it to them than I'm inclined to....(chuckle).
Posted on Sat Aug 30, 2008
Albert in Pennsylvania writes:
NATO is a military organization and it was created to defend Europe against the USSR. Today there is no USSR but NATO is expending around Russia. What is wrong with this picture?
When Moscow installed missiles in Cuba President Kennedy forced the USSR to take back it's missiles. Would the US not react if Russia installed missiles in Cuba again? If Russia made military alliances with Costa Rica, Mexico, Venezuela?
We started this crisis no matter how many explanations in bad faith we make.
Posted on Sat Aug 30, 2008
NATO is a military organization and it was created to defend Europe against the USSR. Today there is no USSR but NATO is expending around Russia. What is wrong with this picture?
When Moscow installed missiles in Cuba President Kennedy forced the USSR to take back it's missiles. Would the US not react if Russia installed missiles in Cuba again? If Russia made military alliances with Costa Rica, Mexico, Venezuela?
We started this crisis no matter how many explanations in bad faith we make.
Posted on Sat Aug 30, 2008
SNP in Syria writes:
LOL. You really are pushing this propaganda now. Why not tell the truth, why you never say the truth ever. Are you really deploying these anti missile shield in Poland to protect U.S. from incoming Iranian Missiles? OK. You heard it from the Russians your system is a dead cat. The Russian know exactly how and why it is such worthless crap. Therefore, they interpret this worthless defense system not on its merit, or the lack of it technically, but rather as a political statement from USA that says loud and clear at worst: we consider Russians an enemy, and at best, we are just cashing in extra bucks on another worthless defense system and that little cash is far more important to us than how Russian feels. They are astonished how little you value them, angry not at the system deployment, but the message it sends. Now, I give you the same offer SNP gave the Iranians who prided themselves with the all type of missiles, before spending few Billions on developing and deploying, spend 3 millions on SNP to show you that it is as the Russian said -- a dead cat.
Posted on Sat Aug 30, 2008
LOL. You really are pushing this propaganda now. Why not tell the truth, why you never say the truth ever. Are you really deploying these anti missile shield in Poland to protect U.S. from incoming Iranian Missiles? OK. You heard it from the Russians your system is a dead cat. The Russian know exactly how and why it is such worthless crap. Therefore, they interpret this worthless defense system not on its merit, or the lack of it technically, but rather as a political statement from USA that says loud and clear at worst: we consider Russians an enemy, and at best, we are just cashing in extra bucks on another worthless defense system and that little cash is far more important to us than how Russian feels. They are astonished how little you value them, angry not at the system deployment, but the message it sends. Now, I give you the same offer SNP gave the Iranians who prided themselves with the all type of missiles, before spending few Billions on developing and deploying, spend 3 millions on SNP to show you that it is as the Russian said -- a dead cat.
Posted on Sat Aug 30, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Since all nations have the right to self defense, when one defends, inherently one has reacted, ofended by offense. Whether that be from rhetoric, capability, or intent.
The perception of defense may be viewed as offensive in nature by those defended from. Or by percieving the nature of defense to be directed at them regardless of whether it is or not. Perception matters.
"Isotope Road" ( some food for thought given to my government in 2002 and published by the DOE) -- excerpts:
"We have an opportunity to create a very positive change in the void left in the wake of the ABM treaty. The cold war's fundamental precepts being Mutually Assured Destruction, now that this concept has been abandoned as not being in the public's interest, we must construct a solid international understanding to create a Mutually Assured Peace, literally, though stated with a grain of salt, as M. A. D. will be reality for many years to come."
"What reasonable explanation can anyone give for the combined total between the U.S. and the former USSR's nuclear stockpiles?
To be real blunt, reducing the active numbers to around 2000 apiece does nothing to change the fact that we could make this entire planet look like Mars in a few hours time."
{If only by accident....after all, we are only human.}
"In my granddad's day, some of his fellow scientists at Los Alamos had a "pool" going before the Trinity test as to how large the resulting explosion (in kilotons of TNT) would be. Anyone care to guess how many "Los Alamos's" there are today on the planet? How much Gross National Product is invested? To create weapons that cannot be used, and remain civilized. Some 300 billion a year for the last 50 yrs. on defense in this country alone, this is not for me to judge, as I haven't all the facts. I think it unfortunate, however, that it was deemed necessary, and I stress here the biggest "what if?" is what we might have accomplished as the Human species had we chosen to live in peace, instead of fear after WW2. We have lived so long with the reality of imminent destruction that we've become numb to it in ways that are as dysfunctional as the "Simpsons".
One cannot simultaneously plan for the American dream, and prepare for Armageddon."
"If there are to be trillions spent on the development of the missile defense system, rather than dealing with the reasons for its need in the first place, then we've missed the point that was so rudely made, that a terrorist will use whatever is conveniently available as a weapon. This technology may prove useful in one way however, to address a threat as deadly to the planet as nuclear war, pointed outward and equipped with the warheads that we no longer point at each other, some defense against asteroid impact is possible. With shared expense, a shared defense, for all nations, or scrap the plan, in my opinion. I shudder to consider the effects of unilateral deployment of an expensive, questionably practical system at the expense of the international good will and respect that we see today, resulting in a continued arms race."
"We have an opportunity to preserve this momentum of international cooperation as it is reflected in this country's long term security, and the world's.
Our commitment to this is only going to be fully manifest by the replacement of the ABM treaty with one that builds on the progress made, and prevents the militarizing of space. Without this as a goal, it's like quitting a job with none to go to."
-end excerpts-
I don't know if today any level of cooperation may be achieved with Russia given recent circumstance, but it seems to me that what I said above still holds true, esspecially now.
Curious indeed the Russians protest so much considering our offer to include them as partners in missile defense and their help with Iranian balistic missile production efforts.
Posted on Fri Aug 29, 2008
Since all nations have the right to self defense, when one defends, inherently one has reacted, ofended by offense. Whether that be from rhetoric, capability, or intent.
The perception of defense may be viewed as offensive in nature by those defended from. Or by percieving the nature of defense to be directed at them regardless of whether it is or not. Perception matters.
"Isotope Road" ( some food for thought given to my government in 2002 and published by the DOE) -- excerpts:
"We have an opportunity to create a very positive change in the void left in the wake of the ABM treaty. The cold war's fundamental precepts being Mutually Assured Destruction, now that this concept has been abandoned as not being in the public's interest, we must construct a solid international understanding to create a Mutually Assured Peace, literally, though stated with a grain of salt, as M. A. D. will be reality for many years to come."
"What reasonable explanation can anyone give for the combined total between the U.S. and the former USSR's nuclear stockpiles?
To be real blunt, reducing the active numbers to around 2000 apiece does nothing to change the fact that we could make this entire planet look like Mars in a few hours time."
{If only by accident....after all, we are only human.}
"In my granddad's day, some of his fellow scientists at Los Alamos had a "pool" going before the Trinity test as to how large the resulting explosion (in kilotons of TNT) would be. Anyone care to guess how many "Los Alamos's" there are today on the planet? How much Gross National Product is invested? To create weapons that cannot be used, and remain civilized. Some 300 billion a year for the last 50 yrs. on defense in this country alone, this is not for me to judge, as I haven't all the facts. I think it unfortunate, however, that it was deemed necessary, and I stress here the biggest "what if?" is what we might have accomplished as the Human species had we chosen to live in peace, instead of fear after WW2. We have lived so long with the reality of imminent destruction that we've become numb to it in ways that are as dysfunctional as the "Simpsons".
One cannot simultaneously plan for the American dream, and prepare for Armageddon."
"If there are to be trillions spent on the development of the missile defense system, rather than dealing with the reasons for its need in the first place, then we've missed the point that was so rudely made, that a terrorist will use whatever is conveniently available as a weapon. This technology may prove useful in one way however, to address a threat as deadly to the planet as nuclear war, pointed outward and equipped with the warheads that we no longer point at each other, some defense against asteroid impact is possible. With shared expense, a shared defense, for all nations, or scrap the plan, in my opinion. I shudder to consider the effects of unilateral deployment of an expensive, questionably practical system at the expense of the international good will and respect that we see today, resulting in a continued arms race."
"We have an opportunity to preserve this momentum of international cooperation as it is reflected in this country's long term security, and the world's.
Our commitment to this is only going to be fully manifest by the replacement of the ABM treaty with one that builds on the progress made, and prevents the militarizing of space. Without this as a goal, it's like quitting a job with none to go to."
-end excerpts-
I don't know if today any level of cooperation may be achieved with Russia given recent circumstance, but it seems to me that what I said above still holds true, esspecially now.
Curious indeed the Russians protest so much considering our offer to include them as partners in missile defense and their help with Iranian balistic missile production efforts.
Posted on Fri Aug 29, 2008
Page 1 of 1 pages