Yes I agree. NATO was always, from its creation a threat and challenge to a recovering Soviet Union. The USSR posed no threat to Europe at the end of WWII, as it had been battered by German bombing and the loss of tens of millions of troops. A world tired of war could have organized a world of peace but the US chose to switch to a worldhoped could be dominated by the US thanks to a monopoly on atomic weaons. As I document in my book "Spy for No Country," America, immediately after WWII ended, began working out how to construct its new atomic bombs industrially and was working as fast as possible to possess 400 of them by 1950, along with enough B-29 bombers to deliver them for a massivbe strike on the USSR. That nightmare plan only didn't take place because the Soviets got their own homb in Aug. 1949 and the awful planned holocaust was "deferred" but never cancelled. NATO since about 1992, with the asdvent of President Clinton and the Neoliberals in Washington, pushed membership eastward closer to post-Communist Russia, putting airbases with stealthy nuclear-capable F-35 fighter bombers minutes away from Moscow and Russia's industrial heartland. The plan was to add Ukraine to NATO too and the Russian deepwater naval port in Crimea. NATO has also become an extension of US global military power, with military forces from member states like Britain, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, etc. in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere as remote from the "north Atlantic' as one could get. It's a cold war relic and a continuing threat to world peace and should be scrapped, or at least acknowledged for what it is: an aggressive tip of the spear of US Empire.
Dave, take a couple of deep breaths, have another cup of coffee then focus on my comment. It was just an anguished sentiment meant to quell some of the overflow of angst coming out of my ears. Having read your reply several times, I couldn't make heads nor tails of it. Was what I said so disturbing?
Kris Kristofferson said it best: "When you're headed for the border lord, you're bound to cross the line."
Putin will be Putin, but that doesn't discount his rational concern for not wanting Russia surrounded by NATO and nuclear weapons. His position and warnings are no different from what would be our position were it the same as what we want to put his country in, but we're so goddamned stupid that we figure playing Russian Roulette will work out for us.
If only the worst president in United States history along with his cabal of hawks, Stinkin' Blinkin, Numbskull Nuland, et al. plus Zipshit Zelensky toddled off into the Amazonian Rain forest together, never to be heard from again.
Yes but there'e a kind of baby-with-the-bqthwater problem with Trump's administration: He is putting rabid foxes in charge of every henhouse-- every cabinet department, every agency, every bureau and every office of the federal government, including critically important ones like the EPA, NOAA, FDA, etc. Sure, a lot of the federal bureaucracy is already corroptly controlled by the corporations and industries that they are supposed to regulate, but fixing that revolving door is what is needed, not putting saboteurs in charge of everything. Also, needless to say, it isn't saboteurs who are being put in charge of major criminal departments like the War Department, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the DIA, the INS and the ATF, whidh are all going full fascist.
Being opposed to nuclear brinksmanship is not the same as being pro-Putin. JFK had the good sense to back down fom a nuclear war and do the right thing: remove the US's Jupiter missiles based in Turkey that were armed with nuclear warheads and wer just ten minutes flying time from Moscow. Was he pro-USSR and pro-Krushchev in your book for doing that to end the crisis?
Bertram Russell once famously said "Better Red than Dead" at the height of the Cold War. A lot of right-wingers called him cray or a commie but he was making a obvious point: :It wasn't necessary to make that choice or even rational. His point was that it was insane to even contemplate a global nuclear war as an option to resist Communism (or in the Soviet IUnion's case, to resist Capitalism). Anyone who disagrees with that statement is an idiot or a crazed fanatic. You don't solve anythin by committing mass suicide.
Do you have kids or grandkids?
Back around the time of the Ciban Missile Crisis, people were building bomb shelters, expecting anuclear holocaust. My dad, an electrical engineer, took my mom and us three kids to look at bomb shelters which were on sale and on display in a field owned by a septic and oil tank salesman, who had entrepreneurially capitalized on the crisis by welding conning-tpower style entryways onto big steel tanks, with a welded-in-place ladder inside, and an air pipe with filter, connected to a fan run by a stationary bike inside the tank. My father clambered up onto one of the larger tanks and, as we watched him, lowered himself inside. He climbed back out a few minutes later and said to my mom, "Dotty, we're going to have to hope they figure out how to avoid this war, because honestly, if I had to spend months cooped up in a tank like that along with three squabbling little kids, I'd rather just go out into the irradiated air and die."
The truth is that ever since it managed to end WWII with unconditional surrrender by both Nazi Germany and Japan, the US has refused to negotiat ends to wars, always demanding concessions before it will consider sitting down and talking. Tht my friend is nuts, and it's what we're doing noiw just endlessly supporting Ukraine's no-concessions position, the aim being to 'bleed Russia and weaken it' as much as possible, using Ukrainian lives, Lovely
US has now attacked Russia - we all might not have a Thanksgiving anymore thanks to that criminal corpse in White House.
In best case this now is the end of NATO.
Yes I agree. NATO was always, from its creation a threat and challenge to a recovering Soviet Union. The USSR posed no threat to Europe at the end of WWII, as it had been battered by German bombing and the loss of tens of millions of troops. A world tired of war could have organized a world of peace but the US chose to switch to a worldhoped could be dominated by the US thanks to a monopoly on atomic weaons. As I document in my book "Spy for No Country," America, immediately after WWII ended, began working out how to construct its new atomic bombs industrially and was working as fast as possible to possess 400 of them by 1950, along with enough B-29 bombers to deliver them for a massivbe strike on the USSR. That nightmare plan only didn't take place because the Soviets got their own homb in Aug. 1949 and the awful planned holocaust was "deferred" but never cancelled. NATO since about 1992, with the asdvent of President Clinton and the Neoliberals in Washington, pushed membership eastward closer to post-Communist Russia, putting airbases with stealthy nuclear-capable F-35 fighter bombers minutes away from Moscow and Russia's industrial heartland. The plan was to add Ukraine to NATO too and the Russian deepwater naval port in Crimea. NATO has also become an extension of US global military power, with military forces from member states like Britain, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, etc. in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere as remote from the "north Atlantic' as one could get. It's a cold war relic and a continuing threat to world peace and should be scrapped, or at least acknowledged for what it is: an aggressive tip of the spear of US Empire.
Dave, take a couple of deep breaths, have another cup of coffee then focus on my comment. It was just an anguished sentiment meant to quell some of the overflow of angst coming out of my ears. Having read your reply several times, I couldn't make heads nor tails of it. Was what I said so disturbing?
The above was reply to Boris's comment, not yours Tori.
;-)
"This Can't Be Happening" has never been more appropriate!
Trying to go out with a bang?
Kris Kristofferson said it best: "When you're headed for the border lord, you're bound to cross the line."
Putin will be Putin, but that doesn't discount his rational concern for not wanting Russia surrounded by NATO and nuclear weapons. His position and warnings are no different from what would be our position were it the same as what we want to put his country in, but we're so goddamned stupid that we figure playing Russian Roulette will work out for us.
If only the worst president in United States history along with his cabal of hawks, Stinkin' Blinkin, Numbskull Nuland, et al. plus Zipshit Zelensky toddled off into the Amazonian Rain forest together, never to be heard from again.
By the way, Brandon, thanks for Trump!
Yes but there'e a kind of baby-with-the-bqthwater problem with Trump's administration: He is putting rabid foxes in charge of every henhouse-- every cabinet department, every agency, every bureau and every office of the federal government, including critically important ones like the EPA, NOAA, FDA, etc. Sure, a lot of the federal bureaucracy is already corroptly controlled by the corporations and industries that they are supposed to regulate, but fixing that revolving door is what is needed, not putting saboteurs in charge of everything. Also, needless to say, it isn't saboteurs who are being put in charge of major criminal departments like the War Department, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the DIA, the INS and the ATF, whidh are all going full fascist.
I'm not sure there is a great market for subscription based model for Republicans. Another poor article unless you're a supporter of Putin.
Being opposed to nuclear brinksmanship is not the same as being pro-Putin. JFK had the good sense to back down fom a nuclear war and do the right thing: remove the US's Jupiter missiles based in Turkey that were armed with nuclear warheads and wer just ten minutes flying time from Moscow. Was he pro-USSR and pro-Krushchev in your book for doing that to end the crisis?
Bertram Russell once famously said "Better Red than Dead" at the height of the Cold War. A lot of right-wingers called him cray or a commie but he was making a obvious point: :It wasn't necessary to make that choice or even rational. His point was that it was insane to even contemplate a global nuclear war as an option to resist Communism (or in the Soviet IUnion's case, to resist Capitalism). Anyone who disagrees with that statement is an idiot or a crazed fanatic. You don't solve anythin by committing mass suicide.
Do you have kids or grandkids?
Back around the time of the Ciban Missile Crisis, people were building bomb shelters, expecting anuclear holocaust. My dad, an electrical engineer, took my mom and us three kids to look at bomb shelters which were on sale and on display in a field owned by a septic and oil tank salesman, who had entrepreneurially capitalized on the crisis by welding conning-tpower style entryways onto big steel tanks, with a welded-in-place ladder inside, and an air pipe with filter, connected to a fan run by a stationary bike inside the tank. My father clambered up onto one of the larger tanks and, as we watched him, lowered himself inside. He climbed back out a few minutes later and said to my mom, "Dotty, we're going to have to hope they figure out how to avoid this war, because honestly, if I had to spend months cooped up in a tank like that along with three squabbling little kids, I'd rather just go out into the irradiated air and die."
The truth is that ever since it managed to end WWII with unconditional surrrender by both Nazi Germany and Japan, the US has refused to negotiat ends to wars, always demanding concessions before it will consider sitting down and talking. Tht my friend is nuts, and it's what we're doing noiw just endlessly supporting Ukraine's no-concessions position, the aim being to 'bleed Russia and weaken it' as much as possible, using Ukrainian lives, Lovely