NATO: Discussion and News

As most of us probably are aware, Gorbachev claims that there was an agreement, not just an understanding between gentlemen, but an agreement, that NATO would not expand into nations that were formerly in the Warsaw Pact.

I believe Gorbachev when he speaks about such an agreement because it makes sense. If he is lying, then we must accept that he decided to unilaterally withdraw from Eastern Europe, allow Germany to reunify, and he did all of this knowing that the NATO would expand up to the very borders of the Soviet Union by incorporating all of the former Warsaw Pact members.

That doesn't make any sense to me because Gorbachev was not a traitor nor was he a fool. He wasn't going to roll out the red rug [no pun intended- not a reference to communism, "red rug" in the USA has to do with royal/regal/special treatment] to let NATO expand to the Polish/Soviet border. He would not have put the Soviet Union into such a weak position.



Anyway, if you agree with me and accept my thoughts that Gorbachev is telling the truth, and there was an agreement that the NATO would not expand into the former Warsaw Pact nations, then we do not need to debate that point back and forth and thus the discussion can proceed without interruption.



Has NATO betrayed the agreement? It seems obvious and one cannot help but respond with an immediate "yes" which gives rise to the next natural question. What can be done about this betrayal?

Also, why should Russia give any weight to promsies or guarantees made by Western leaders or leaders of the NATO alliance?

As an American it may seem odd that I would give advice against my own nation, but the objectives of the State Department do not correspond with my vision for the nation or what I believe the Founding Fathers would want for the nation.


Russia would do well to close all American embassies and consulates because America no longer uses embassies and consulates to practice diplomacy. America uses embassies and consulates to organize uprisings and to undermine the government.


Recently the US Ambassador to Syria was recalled after he was publicly inciting people to rise up against the government. This is beyond the pale. This is so contrary to what the Founders taught of "trade and friendship with all, alliances with none." This man, supposedly a representative of the United States tasked with working with the GOVERNMENT of Syria, went to a rebel held city and declared that the Syrian military would have to kill him if they wanted to retake the city because he decided to stand in solidarity with the rebels.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/low-key-us-diplomat-transforms-syria-policy/2011/07/12/gIQAc5kSBI_story.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stephen_Ford

Russia Today, former CIA intelligence officer Michael Scheuer alleged that prior to Ford's removal he was traveling across the country inciting groups to overthrow the government.[16]






It is a stain on the reputation of any nation when its ambassadors and diplomats are trying to incite people to rise against the government of their host country.

BTRfan wrote:As an American it may seem odd that I would give advice against my own nation, but the objectives of the State Department do not correspond with my vision for the nation or what I believe the Founding Fathers would want for the nation.


Russia would do well to close all American embassies and consulates because America no longer uses embassies and consulates to practice diplomacy. America uses embassies and consulates to organize uprisings and to undermine the government.


Recently the US Ambassador to Syria was recalled after he was publicly inciting people to rise up against the government. This is beyond the pale. This is so contrary to what the Founders taught of "trade and friendship with all, alliances with none." This man, supposedly a representative of the United States tasked with working with the GOVERNMENT of Syria, went to a rebel held city and declared that the Syrian military would have to kill him if they wanted to retake the city because he decided to stand in solidarity with the rebels.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/low-key-us-diplomat-transforms-syria-policy/2011/07/12/gIQAc5kSBI_story.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stephen_Ford

Russia Today, former CIA intelligence officer Michael Scheuer alleged that prior to Ford's removal he was traveling across the country inciting groups to overthrow the government.[16]






It is a stain on the reputation of any nation when its ambassadors and diplomats are trying to incite people to rise against the government of their host country.

Excellent post, if only the majority of Americans would feel the same, America wouldn't be in decline today.
I know it's a bit cliché, but I can't help but thinking 'How the hell did it come this far'?!

macedonian wrote:

BTRfan wrote:As an American it may seem odd that I would give advice against my own nation, but the objectives of the State Department do not correspond with my vision for the nation or what I believe the Founding Fathers would want for the nation.


Russia would do well to close all American embassies and consulates because America no longer uses embassies and consulates to practice diplomacy. America uses embassies and consulates to organize uprisings and to undermine the government.


Recently the US Ambassador to Syria was recalled after he was publicly inciting people to rise up against the government. This is beyond the pale. This is so contrary to what the Founders taught of "trade and friendship with all, alliances with none." This man, supposedly a representative of the United States tasked with working with the GOVERNMENT of Syria, went to a rebel held city and declared that the Syrian military would have to kill him if they wanted to retake the city because he decided to stand in solidarity with the rebels.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/low-key-us-diplomat-transforms-syria-policy/2011/07/12/gIQAc5kSBI_story.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stephen_Ford

Russia Today, former CIA intelligence officer Michael Scheuer alleged that prior to Ford's removal he was traveling across the country inciting groups to overthrow the government.[16]






It is a stain on the reputation of any nation when its ambassadors and diplomats are trying to incite people to rise against the government of their host country.

Excellent post, if only the majority of Americans would feel the same, America wouldn't be in decline today.
I know it's a bit cliché, but I can't help but thinking 'How the hell did it come this far'?!

Americans thought their nation was not just special and wonderful, but special to such an extent that it would be immune to all of the classic problems that have plagued other nations. No nation is immune to the consequences of uncontrolled government spending, fractional reserve banking, private central banks, and endless (as well as reckless) foreign military adventures.


Today most Americans believe that their mindless zombie style jingosim of shouting "USA! USA! USA!" when they hear about bombs being dropped on a country they could never find on a map, makes them super patriots, while those who want to debate whether we should even be bombing the nation in question are traitors.

BTRfan wrote:

Anyway, if you agree with me and accept my thoughts that Gorbachev is telling the truth, and there was an agreement that the NATO would not expand into the former Warsaw Pact nations, then we do not need to debate that point back and forth and thus the discussion can proceed without interruption.



Has NATO betrayed the agreement? It seems obvious and one cannot help but respond with an immediate "yes" which gives rise to the next natural question. What can be done about this betrayal?

Also, why should Russia give any weight to promsies or guarantees made by Western leaders or leaders of the NATO alliance?

At first, don't think about me what Iam not. My opinion, is not against US people, that will be in fine, the last victim, by the barbaric system that govern America, and intend to expand its diabolic domination in all the world.

Indeed, Gorbatchov was cheated by the US. The first goal for USA is the dismantling of Soviet Union, and Waswaw pact. In that point, US has overall won. In fact it is a mistake to see Gorbatchov as the only one responsible, if it was the case, he would have been ejected since the begining. The true responsible was the KGB, but this is another subject....

The project concerning Soviet Union, and consequently Russia, is wider a subject, because it implied US global domination.
If you want more informations precise, it is worth to read The grand chessboard from Zbigniew Brzezinski, where he detailled the US project of the new american century.

BTRfan wrote:As an American ..., but the objectives of the State Department do not correspond with my vision for the nation or what I believe the Founding Fathers would want for the nation.

As I said, I respect your beliefs, and your faith about your country, but the devils that hacked US' governement fed up with what you said Founding Fathers, as morallity, courage, solidarity, brotherhood, etc...

BTRfan wrote:
Russia would do well to close all American embassies and consulates because America no longer uses embassies and consulates to practice diplomacy. America uses embassies and consulates to organize uprisings and to undermine the government.

Iam neither russian, neither american, however I think it is not fair to close US embassies, however yes, the US governement with USAID, and all NGO, uses them in order to destibilize countries.

BTRfan wrote:
Recently the US Ambassador to Syria was recalled after he was publicly inciting people to rise up against the government. This is beyond the pale. This is so contrary to what the Founders taught of "trade and friendship with all, alliances with none." This man, supposedly a representative of the United States tasked with working with the GOVERNMENT of Syria, went to a rebel held city and declared that the Syrian military would have to kill him if they wanted to retake the city because he decided to stand in solidarity with the rebels.

Right now, US system is coherent with its goals, the ultimate purpose is the global dominance, without any concurrent. Indeed, if you take a map, with beforehand reading the grand chessboard, you will see the crisis are in fact a bow of crisis, -since 1991- from baltic countries, Ukraynia -important country, in the grand chessboard- Georgia, all middle east, all south Russia's countries, and Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Burma-friend to chinese governement- ,Xingjiang, Korea, yellow sea, Japan-Kurille islands-.
In fact this bow is surrounding Russia, India, and China. The first of this purpose as Zbig is to blow Eurasia, and decouple Russia, from China, and India.
The first target, was Russia's friends, blow Russia's territories, and in fine Orthodox world. The purpose is to controll at first all raw materials, energies, to strangle China and India.

Your question is not easy, as the subject is wide, but those who controll US governement are the worst anti-american, and this devil is Federal Reserve, this is the heart of the US system. Inform yourself by what is the Federal reserve and who are they, and you will find that they are nothing than the devil.

In order to terminate this infinite post, all who serve/ed/will the devil, will be cheated in the better case, but most of the time they will be killed. Let's quote for example the cases of Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussain-its horrible end-, Slobodan Milosevic, Ghedaffi-during its last decades-, Mubarak, Ben Ali -Tunisia-, back to the idiot of Gorbatchov who contribute to blow its country, Boris Yeltsin who dismantle and sold nearly all Russia.

None of them successfully won something, they all lost. This barbaric global domination have no feeling for those who served them. This system desserve to be fight untill the death, regarding Chavez and Castro for me they are heroes.

Do not forget that none countries as France, or Great Britain suffered suffered during the two world wars, finally the system turn around against them, and UK, France lost their colonial empire, in spite of their huge sacrifices. They got out from the wars completly ruined, as USA now.
See today the people of USA, how many US boys sacrified for the US system, finally, it is the people that will pay the hard price, for bastards like Blanksfein that said he is "doing God’s work".


PS: Do not understand what I said by any anti-american feeling, this is not the case. But Iam strongly opposed to the US system that hacked, and destroyed all Founding fathers legacies. The US system today is to simplify The Federal Reserve gangsters.
They are our ennemies.

BTRfan wrote:

macedonian wrote:

BTRfan wrote:As an American it may seem odd that I would give advice against my own nation, but the objectives of the State Department do not correspond with my vision for the nation or what I believe the Founding Fathers would want for the nation.


Russia would do well to close all American embassies and consulates because America no longer uses embassies and consulates to practice diplomacy. America uses embassies and consulates to organize uprisings and to undermine the government.


Recently the US Ambassador to Syria was recalled after he was publicly inciting people to rise up against the government. This is beyond the pale. This is so contrary to what the Founders taught of "trade and friendship with all, alliances with none." This man, supposedly a representative of the United States tasked with working with the GOVERNMENT of Syria, went to a rebel held city and declared that the Syrian military would have to kill him if they wanted to retake the city because he decided to stand in solidarity with the rebels.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/low-key-us-diplomat-transforms-syria-policy/2011/07/12/gIQAc5kSBI_story.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stephen_Ford

Russia Today, former CIA intelligence officer Michael Scheuer alleged that prior to Ford's removal he was traveling across the country inciting groups to overthrow the government.[16]






It is a stain on the reputation of any nation when its ambassadors and diplomats are trying to incite people to rise against the government of their host country.

Excellent post, if only the majority of Americans would feel the same, America wouldn't be in decline today.
I know it's a bit cliché, but I can't help but thinking 'How the hell did it come this far'?!

Americans thought their nation was not just special and wonderful, but special to such an extent that it would be immune to all of the classic problems that have plagued other nations. No nation is immune to the consequences of uncontrolled government spending, fractional reserve banking, private central banks, and endless (as well as reckless) foreign military adventures.


Today most Americans believe that their mindless zombie style jingosim of shouting "USA! USA! USA!" when they hear about bombs being dropped on a country they could never find on a map, makes them super patriots, while those who want to debate whether we should even be bombing the nation in question are traitors.

Re: the bolded part - happens a lot throughout history, not the first time and (I expect) not the last.
Many nations thought they were untouchable when powerful, only to discover that same weaknesses plague them as well when losing power. So really nothing new there. What's really mind-blowing is that America has changed pretty fast. In only a decade it became non-recognizable, going from a free society, to, well (no offense), a controlled one (sorry to say). The things that are happening today would've never happened only a decade and a half ago (that's when I've lived there). To me it's really tragic.

macedonian wrote:

BTRfan wrote:

macedonian wrote:

BTRfan wrote:As an American it may seem odd that I would give advice against my own nation, but the objectives of the State Department do not correspond with my vision for the nation or what I believe the Founding Fathers would want for the nation.


Russia would do well to close all American embassies and consulates because America no longer uses embassies and consulates to practice diplomacy. America uses embassies and consulates to organize uprisings and to undermine the government.


Recently the US Ambassador to Syria was recalled after he was publicly inciting people to rise up against the government. This is beyond the pale. This is so contrary to what the Founders taught of "trade and friendship with all, alliances with none." This man, supposedly a representative of the United States tasked with working with the GOVERNMENT of Syria, went to a rebel held city and declared that the Syrian military would have to kill him if they wanted to retake the city because he decided to stand in solidarity with the rebels.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/low-key-us-diplomat-transforms-syria-policy/2011/07/12/gIQAc5kSBI_story.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stephen_Ford

Russia Today, former CIA intelligence officer Michael Scheuer alleged that prior to Ford's removal he was traveling across the country inciting groups to overthrow the government.[16]






It is a stain on the reputation of any nation when its ambassadors and diplomats are trying to incite people to rise against the government of their host country.

Excellent post, if only the majority of Americans would feel the same, America wouldn't be in decline today.
I know it's a bit cliché, but I can't help but thinking 'How the hell did it come this far'?!

Americans thought their nation was not just special and wonderful, but special to such an extent that it would be immune to all of the classic problems that have plagued other nations. No nation is immune to the consequences of uncontrolled government spending, fractional reserve banking, private central banks, and endless (as well as reckless) foreign military adventures.


Today most Americans believe that their mindless zombie style jingosim of shouting "USA! USA! USA!" when they hear about bombs being dropped on a country they could never find on a map, makes them super patriots, while those who want to debate whether we should even be bombing the nation in question are traitors.

Re: the bolded part - happens a lot throughout history, not the first time and (I expect) not the last.
Many nations thought they were untouchable when powerful, only to discover that same weaknesses plague them as well when losing power. So really nothing new there. What's really mind-blowing is that America has changed pretty fast. In only a decade it became non-recognizable, going from a free society, to, well (no offense), a controlled one (sorry to say). The things that are happening today would've never happened only a decade and a half ago (that's when I've lived there). To me it's really tragic.

The people who rule (mis-rule) America are not stupid nor are they naive. They are simply malicious and evil.


They have turned a productive and largely peaceful nation into a miserable war-mongering nightmare.


America has been on a downward trend since 1860/1861 when Lincoln decided he could hold the Maryland state legislature at gunpoint and force them to vote to stay with the Union and that he could raise an army to crush other states that wanted to go their own way. He also suspended habeus corpus throughout the Union, declaring martial law in Baltimore. He also engaged in conscription [but you could buy your way out for $300 dollars in you were rich], and he established an income tax. After the war the Supreme Court ruled that the income tax was unconstitutional and that the government had neither the right nor the authority to take the wages of the citizens.


In 1913 the degeneration was given a great boost with the Federal Reserve.


In the 1930s the transformation went into full speed, with FDR and his dozens of pieces of "New Deal" legislation, most all of which were later declared unconstitutional.


Then in the 1960s LBJ began his "Great Society" which resulted in the development of 3rd generation welfare families who have lived via welfare and government programs since the 1960s.

macedonian wrote:

BTRfan wrote:

macedonian wrote:

BTRfan wrote:As an American it may seem odd that I would give advice against my own nation, but the objectives of the State Department do not correspond with my vision for the nation or what I believe the Founding Fathers would want for the nation.


Russia would do well to close all American embassies and consulates because America no longer uses embassies and consulates to practice diplomacy. America uses embassies and consulates to organize uprisings and to undermine the government.


Recently the US Ambassador to Syria was recalled after he was publicly inciting people to rise up against the government. This is beyond the pale. This is so contrary to what the Founders taught of "trade and friendship with all, alliances with none." This man, supposedly a representative of the United States tasked with working with the GOVERNMENT of Syria, went to a rebel held city and declared that the Syrian military would have to kill him if they wanted to retake the city because he decided to stand in solidarity with the rebels.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/low-key-us-diplomat-transforms-syria-policy/2011/07/12/gIQAc5kSBI_story.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stephen_Ford

Russia Today, former CIA intelligence officer Michael Scheuer alleged that prior to Ford's removal he was traveling across the country inciting groups to overthrow the government.[16]






It is a stain on the reputation of any nation when its ambassadors and diplomats are trying to incite people to rise against the government of their host country.

Excellent post, if only the majority of Americans would feel the same, America wouldn't be in decline today.
I know it's a bit cliché, but I can't help but thinking 'How the hell did it come this far'?!

Americans thought their nation was not just special and wonderful, but special to such an extent that it would be immune to all of the classic problems that have plagued other nations. No nation is immune to the consequences of uncontrolled government spending, fractional reserve banking, private central banks, and endless (as well as reckless) foreign military adventures.


Today most Americans believe that their mindless zombie style jingosim of shouting "USA! USA! USA!" when they hear about bombs being dropped on a country they could never find on a map, makes them super patriots, while those who want to debate whether we should even be bombing the nation in question are traitors.

Re: the bolded part - happens a lot throughout history, not the first time and (I expect) not the last.
Many nations thought they were untouchable when powerful, only to discover that same weaknesses plague them as well when losing power. So really nothing new there. What's really mind-blowing is that America has changed pretty fast. In only a decade it became non-recognizable, going from a free society, to, well (no offense), a controlled one (sorry to say). The things that are happening today would've never happened only a decade and a half ago (that's when I've lived there). To me it's really tragic.

In this modern era, neither British officials nor American officials are to be trusted.


The old idea of trusting a British officer because he gives you his word as "an officer and a gentleman" is just that, an old idea, and today a dangerous idea!

Plenty of Boers who gave full quarter to the British during the first few months of the war when the Boer commandos won spectacular early victories, wound up summarily executed by the British when they surrendered in the later years.

Kitchener even established a policy that any British soldier who took a Boer fighter as a prisoner would have his own rations reduced by 50% as part of the cost of feeding the Boer. Of course few soldiers can survive on half-rations during a war and if they take two prisoners they'd be on quarter rations, so that resulted in plenty of summary executions.

In a number of instances the British promised surrounded Boer units full quarter if they surrendered, only to massacre them once they had been disarmed.



There are very few governments in the world that are trustworthy. I have more faith in the validity and honesty of statements made by the leaders in Iran and Syria than I do Britain or the United States.

BTRfan wrote:

macedonian wrote:

BTRfan wrote:

macedonian wrote:

BTRfan wrote:As an American it may seem odd that I would give advice against my own nation, but the objectives of the State Department do not correspond with my vision for the nation or what I believe the Founding Fathers would want for the nation.


Russia would do well to close all American embassies and consulates because America no longer uses embassies and consulates to practice diplomacy. America uses embassies and consulates to organize uprisings and to undermine the government.


Recently the US Ambassador to Syria was recalled after he was publicly inciting people to rise up against the government. This is beyond the pale. This is so contrary to what the Founders taught of "trade and friendship with all, alliances with none." This man, supposedly a representative of the United States tasked with working with the GOVERNMENT of Syria, went to a rebel held city and declared that the Syrian military would have to kill him if they wanted to retake the city because he decided to stand in solidarity with the rebels.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/low-key-us-diplomat-transforms-syria-policy/2011/07/12/gIQAc5kSBI_story.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stephen_Ford

Russia Today, former CIA intelligence officer Michael Scheuer alleged that prior to Ford's removal he was traveling across the country inciting groups to overthrow the government.[16]






It is a stain on the reputation of any nation when its ambassadors and diplomats are trying to incite people to rise against the government of their host country.

Excellent post, if only the majority of Americans would feel the same, America wouldn't be in decline today.
I know it's a bit cliché, but I can't help but thinking 'How the hell did it come this far'?!

Americans thought their nation was not just special and wonderful, but special to such an extent that it would be immune to all of the classic problems that have plagued other nations. No nation is immune to the consequences of uncontrolled government spending, fractional reserve banking, private central banks, and endless (as well as reckless) foreign military adventures.


Today most Americans believe that their mindless zombie style jingosim of shouting "USA! USA! USA!" when they hear about bombs being dropped on a country they could never find on a map, makes them super patriots, while those who want to debate whether we should even be bombing the nation in question are traitors.

Re: the bolded part - happens a lot throughout history, not the first time and (I expect) not the last.
Many nations thought they were untouchable when powerful, only to discover that same weaknesses plague them as well when losing power. So really nothing new there. What's really mind-blowing is that America has changed pretty fast. In only a decade it became non-recognizable, going from a free society, to, well (no offense), a controlled one (sorry to say). The things that are happening today would've never happened only a decade and a half ago (that's when I've lived there). To me it's really tragic.

In this modern era, neither British officials nor American officials are to be trusted.


The old idea of trusting a British officer because he gives you his word as "an officer and a gentleman" is just that, an old idea, and today a dangerous idea!

Plenty of Boers who gave full quarter to the British during the first few months of the war when the Boer commandos won spectacular early victories, wound up summarily executed by the British when they surrendered in the later years.

Kitchener even established a policy that any British soldier who took a Boer fighter as a prisoner would have his own rations reduced by 50% as part of the cost of feeding the Boer. Of course few soldiers can survive on half-rations during a war and if they take two prisoners they'd be on quarter rations, so that resulted in plenty of summary executions.

In a number of instances the British promised surrounded Boer units full quarter if they surrendered, only to massacre them once they had been disarmed.



There are very few governments in the world that are trustworthy. I have more faith in the validity and honesty of statements made by the leaders in Iran and Syria than I do Britain or the United States.

Again, a great post and excellent analysis.
Yes, having lived in the US and Britain, and reading much history of those nations, I concur that those two countries lost a lot of their greatness (especially over the past century). A shame, really, given the circumstances...
Though, I actually wouldn't really trust any government today, especially in Europe where everybody bows to the almighty Brussels.

flamming_python wrote:To play Devil's advocate here; the fact is that regardless of whether it was a verbal understanding or a written agreement or whatever; it was all done with Gorbachev, the premier of the USSR, and it was that country that he represented and that the Americans were dealing with.

When Yeltsin usurped Gorby, declared independence along with Belarus and the Ukraine and pronounced the USSR null and void - then null and void also went the relevance of any agreement that Gorbachev reached with the US.

Just sayin'

Still going back on his word though.

flamming_python wrote:To play Devil's advocate here; the fact is that regardless of whether it was a verbal understanding or a written agreement or whatever; it was all done with Gorbachev, the premier of the USSR, and it was that country that he represented and that the Americans were dealing with.

When Yeltsin usurped Gorby, declared independence along with Belarus and the Ukraine and pronounced the USSR null and void - then null and void also went the relevance of any agreement that Gorbachev reached with the US.

Just sayin'

But the world, including the UN, accepted Russia as the successor to the Soviet Union, allowing Russia to have the same seat on the Security Council that the Soviet Union had.


Also, America regards Russia as being obligated to uphold all of the nuclear disarmament/strategic weapons limitations treaties signed between the USA and the Soviet Union.

If America wants to claim that the Soviet Union is dead and any promises made to the Soviet leaders are dead promises, then the Russians should reciprocate and withdraw from any and all agreements that were made during the Soviet era.


If we have a contract for the delivery of a collectible classic automobile, say some 1930s Italian racing car, and I have paid for it, but then I die an hour later from a heart attack, that doesn't mean you get to keep the money and the vehicle. You have to square up with my estate and uphold your end of the deal.

macedonian wrote:

flamming_python wrote:To play Devil's advocate here; the fact is that regardless of whether it was a verbal understanding or a written agreement or whatever; it was all done with Gorbachev, the premier of the USSR, and it was that country that he represented and that the Americans were dealing with.

When Yeltsin usurped Gorby, declared independence along with Belarus and the Ukraine and pronounced the USSR null and void - then null and void also went the relevance of any agreement that Gorbachev reached with the US.

Just sayin'

Still going back on his word though.

In American legal theory, even debts [with some exceptions] have to be settled by the estate. However, debts cannot be imposed/transferred to the heirs, but the debts might be so large that they eat up the entire estate.

Actually I remember Stepehn Cohen writing about this very topic and from memory he talked about a gentlemans agreement between Gorby and Bush Snr and I think a guy called Baker who was secretary of defence at the time... Basically the American side pretty much said that the cold war was over and that everyone won. If you think about it... it didn't really make sense for the US to claim it had won and the USSR had lost and that because it lost it had to have democracy imposed upon it.

According to Cohen the problems started at election time in the US where the different parties were making all sorts of claims about who did what to "win the cold war".
The problems with the gentlemans agreements with Gorby were that they were only gentlemans agreements between two groups that didn't end up staying in power long

As an aside I should mention that Gorbachev is vastly more popular in the west than he is in Russia... remember this is a guy that was never leader of Russia, he was the leader of a group of countries called the Soviet Union, and the primary purpose behind Perestroika and Glasnost was to make the Soviet Union more competitive and to retain the Soviet Union as a communist state. His problem was that the old powerful communists wanted to carve up the resources of the soviet union... they wanted to be rich... which is not something they could really be in a communist country.

In answer to your question... the west screwed Gorby and hung him out to dry because it was useful at the time to make promises and useful later on to break them. Ask Saddam... at different times he was very useful and a real threat to western interests and was treated accordingly.

It is a stain on the reputation of any nation when its ambassadors and diplomats are trying to incite people to rise against the government of their host country.

Just like the outburst from Hillary Clinton regarding Americas need to lie to its enemies and allies when Wikileaks revealed it was doing so.

Iam neither russian, neither american, however I think it is not fair to close US embassies, however yes, the US governement with USAID, and all NGO, uses them in order to destibilize countries.

That is the irony... America will say that to have real democracy you need a free press... the truth will set the people free... of course it is the media that are one of the tools of control in the US... how many stories are never aired because of big business control of TV, Radio, and Newspaper? Using foreign media to turn public opinion subverts and undermines their own claims of democracy and their own legitimacy.

The sad thing is that their ideals and morals are excellent and worthy goals, the problem is that they are a front... smoke and mirrors to take your eyes of the fact that they are a fat self centred little child that is quick to anger and can be very petty and spiteful... their high standards and morals are tools to try others and of course find wanting, but they never apply those high standards to themselves.

To play Devil's advocate here; the fact is that regardless of whether it was a verbal understanding or a written agreement or whatever; it was all done with Gorbachev, the premier of the USSR, and it was that country that he represented and that the Americans were dealing with.

When Yeltsin usurped Gorby, declared independence along with Belarus and the Ukraine and pronounced the USSR null and void - then null and void also went the relevance of any agreement that Gorbachev reached with the US.

Just sayin'

Easy to counter that argument... agreements with the Soviet Union continue to apply, Russia has taken on the rights and responsibilities of the Soviet Union... otherwise there would not be a Russia in the UNSC, etc.

Tell me one thing people, why Russia took all responsibilities from Soviet union?
Now You get nations asking for retributions for occupation or prosecution for certain people that did crimes in Soviet era.
Even I'm more Russian than- Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev.
But yeah let other nationals rule You but take full responsibility to it.
All countries in Soviet Union had to share responsibilities and work on our common issues. But happened what happened.

I'm afraid of even thinking of having Russians in NATO. Where NATO would expand then? Can You imagine disproportionate power of such alliance and what could stand against it? It would be not defensive alliance in any means. There should be balance everywhere. NATO needs Russia to be bad guy just to exist in a form it is now.

Regular wrote:NATO needs Russia to be bad guy just to exist in a form it is now.

You preaching to the quire.

Regular wrote:I'm afraid of even thinking of having Russians in NATO. Where NATO would expand then? Can You imagine disproportionate power of such alliance and what could stand against it? It would be not defensive alliance in any means. There should be balance everywhere. NATO needs Russia to be bad guy just to exist in a form it is now.

Do not underestimate the value of the elusive and perhaps imaginary "terrorist" boogeyman... NATO often talks about how they must be ready to oppose "terrorism" and to stop human rights violations.

If NATO wants to stop human rights violations then maybe they should organize a raid on Guantanamo Bay and free the people being held captive there.


The whole idea of a "war on terror" is absurd since terror is not an organization, it is not a nation, it is not a group, it is a tactic, a method of fighting... You might as well declare a "war on maneuver" or a "war on deep battle" or a "war on airmobile operations" if you're going to declare a "war on terror."



While he was US Attorney General [under Bush II], John Ashcroft said that the war on terror might last 100+ years and he even defined what a terrorist was and then told the world to fear the United States...


Ashcroft quote-

http://www.justice.gov/archive/ag/testimony/2001/1206transcriptsenatejudiciarycommittee.htm

Since 1983, the United States government has defined terrorists as those who perpetrate premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatant targets. My message to America this morning, then, is this: If you fit this definition of a terrorist, fear the United States, for you will lose your liberty.




So when the USA bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, when they bombed medicine plants in Sudan and Iraq, when they bombed a facility making infant milk formula in Iraq, does that count as politically motivated violence against non-combatant targets?

By Ashcroft's own definition, America is a terrorist nation and NATO is a coalition of terrorists.


America is the worst rogue state in the world because it is the most powerful. Yes Zimbabwe is a horrible nightmarish dictatorship run by a maniac, but it has no reach beyond its borders, it cannot terrorize the world or bully half of the world into submission. Yes the DPRK has labor camps and other detention centers for political dissidents, but beyond being able to poke South Korea or scare South Korea and Japan with wild and ridiculous threats it is not able to invade every nation in Africa, cause regime changes across the Middle East, provoke coups in Latin America...

There are many rogue states and tyrannical regimes in the world, but the United States of America is by far the most damaging and the most dangerous because it has a global impact and its wretched and rotten actions impact every nation in the world.


If the USA had the size and power of Costa Rica, it wouldn't be a threat to the world, even if it kept the same policies and behaved in a similar fashion, it wouldn't have any reach.



Check out this book-

http://www.amazon.com/Rogue-State-Guide-Worlds-Superpower/dp/1567513743


“Bill Blum came by his book title easily: He simply tested America by the same standards we use to judge other countries. The result is a bill of wrongs—an especially well-documented encyclopedia of malfeasance, mendacity and mayhem that has been hypocritically carried out in the name of democracy by those whose only true love was power.”—Sam Smith


Review
'This is not a book for anyone who wishes to maintain any cosy illusions about their own liberty... we find in these pages, meticulously detailed and annotated, all the instances of assassination, covert and overt destabilisation, election-rigging, sponsorship of terrorism, secret surveillance, brainwashing and provocation that the US has employed to further its burgeoning corporate empire... After reading Rogue State, it is impossible to hang fast to the comforting illusion that the 'American Way' is some kind of enlightenment' - Will Self in The New Statesman 'Rogue State is a book of charges to be tied to a paving stone and thrown at the men in Washington' - The Independent on Sunday 'William Blum, once of the US State Department, gives a chilling reminder that while there may be no justification for 11 September, there may be reasons' - Mavis Cheek in The Observer, Books of the Year 2001 --

We are consistently bombarded with the message that the United States military is the only hope for global peace and that the United States is the greatest force for peace, freedom, love, and happiness in a chaotic world filled with terrorists, rebels, insurgents, and drug cartels.

We are also told that Israel is the greatest force for peace in the Middle East and the only ally America has in the region.



I have come to conclude that the United States is the greatest threat to world peace and that its forces, be they intelligence agencies such as the CIA, or the United States military itself, are causing instability across the entire world.

The USA is the biggest destabilizing force across the world, while Israel is the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East and the greatest destabilizing force in that region.

I have chatted with plenty of people who were convinced that if the US Navy stopped patrolling the seas of the world that international commerce would cease and piracy would be everywhere.

Actually piracy is common in a lot of places anyway.

I agree with what you have said BTRFan, but also find it amusing when some Americans complain at the lack of support they get for being the worlds policeman... it seems they think the world should be more grateful.

I usually have to explain to them that a large powerful force that uses its force when it suits it, when it is in its own interests to do so, is not a police force... self appointed or otherwise... the correct definition is a lynch mob... and lynch mobs never seek justice... they seek revenge.

GarryB wrote:I have chatted with plenty of people who were convinced that if the US Navy stopped patrolling the seas of the world that international commerce would cease and piracy would be everywhere.

Actually piracy is common in a lot of places anyway.

I agree with what you have said BTRFan, but also find it amusing when some Americans complain at the lack of support they get for being the worlds policeman... it seems they think the world should be more grateful.

I usually have to explain to them that a large powerful force that uses its force when it suits it, when it is in its own interests to do so, is not a police force... self appointed or otherwise... the correct definition is a lynch mob... and lynch mobs never seek justice... they seek revenge.

Many ships are now hiring squad sized units of armed guards/mercenaries to protect the ship and the cargo.


Silly international agreements prevent the crews from being armed, because they are in international waters and they cross into the territorial waters of numerous nations when making deliveries.




A few Public Relations operations would result in a massive drop in piracy around the Horn of Africa...


The pirates have neither respect nor fear for the Western navies, they even attacked a Dutch frigate a while ago!


If several pirate ships are captured and they have 20-30 pirates in custody, they should go ashore to the nearest large city and then publicly behead the pirates, or burn them alive, or break them on the wheel, or impale them on stakes and leave their bodies on display with signs in the local languages, "this is what happens to those who attack ships."

http://original.antiwar.com/Craig_Murray/2014/09/05/nato-an-idea-whose-time-has-gone/

NATO – An Idea Whose Time Has Gone
by Craig Murray, September 06, 2014
Print This | Share This

In the past dozen years, the armed forces of NATO countries, whether operating under the NATO banner or in related ad-hoc coalitions, have killed many hundreds of thousands of people. Of those hundreds of thousands of people, only a few hundred at most ever had any connection to any attack on a NATO country.

Whatever modern NATO has become, a defensive alliance it is not; that fact is beyond rational dispute.

It is also the case that the situation in countries where NATO has been most active in killing people, including Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Pakistan, has deteriorated. It has deteriorated politically, economically, militarily and socially. The notion that NATO member states could bomb the world into good was only ever believed by crazed and fanatical people like Tony Blair and Jim Murphy of the Henry Jackson Society. It really should not have needed empirical investigation to prove it was wrong, but it has been tried, and has been proved wrong.

The NATO states as a group have also embarked on remarkably similar reductions in the civil liberties of their own populations during this period. NATO to me is symbolized by the fact that its Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, as Danish Prime Minister blatantly lied to the Danish parliament about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. When Major Frank Grevil released material that proved Rasmussen was lying, it was Grevil who was jailed for three years. In the United States, no CIA operative has been prosecuted for their widespread campaign of torture, but John Kiriakou is in jail for revealing it.

NATO’s attempt to be global arbiter and enforcer has been disastrous at all levels. Its plan to redeem itself by bombing the Caliphate in Iraq and Syria is a further sign of madness. Except of course that it will guarantee some blowback against Western targets, and that will “justify” further bombings, and yet more profit for the arms manufacturers. On that level, it is very clever and cynical. NATO provides power to the elite and money to the wealthy.

But what of Putin’s Russia, I hear you say? I am no fan of Putin – I think he is a nasty, dangerous little dictator. But little is the operative word.

Russia is not a great power. Its GDP is 10% of the GDP of the EU. Its economy is the same size as Italy’s. The capabilities of Russia’s armed forces are massively exaggerated by the security industry, including the security services, and by arms manufacturers. The entire area of Eastern Ukraine which Russia is disputing has a GDP smaller than the city of Dundee.

Russia is only any kind of “military threat” because of its nuclear arsenal. The way forward to peace is active international nuclear disarmament – and the existence of NATO is the greatest obstacle to that. The idea that almost the entire developed world needs to encircle and contain Russia with massive military threat, is as sensible as the idea that it needs to encircle the UK or France – both of which have substantially larger and more diversified economies than Russia and much larger and more technologically advanced arms industries.

NATO is by far the largest danger to world peace. It should be dissolved as a matter of urgency.

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster, human rights activist, and former diplomat. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. The article is reprinted with permission from his website :
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

NATO was done when the CCCP collapsed, if not earlier!