Russia threatens to use 'nuclear force' over Crimea and the Baltic states
Source: Independent UK
Russia has threatened to use “nuclear force” to defend its annexation of Crimea and warned that the “same conditions” that prompted it to take military action in Ukraine exist in the three Baltic states, all members of Nato.
According to notes made by an American at a meeting between Russian generals and US officials – and seen by The Times newspaper - Moscow threatened a “spectrum of responses from nuclear to non-military” if Nato moved more forces into Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.
>
>
They added that “the same conditions that existed in Ukraine and caused Russia to take action there” existed in the three Baltic states, which like Ukraine have significant numbers of people who regard themselves as ethnically Russian.
Russia was considering taking steps in the Baltics, according to the notes, but this would most likely be “destabilising actions that would be even harder to trace back to Russia than those of eastern Ukraine”.
Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-threatens-to-use-nuclear-force-over-crimea-and-the-baltic-states-10150565.html
Now to hear from those who slammed me & others here when I said Putin was eyeing the Baltics next after no one stopped his Ukrainian invasion........
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)How does thar help Russia?
sakabatou
(42,146 posts)
murielm99
(30,733 posts)The whole world will come down on him. Let him bluster.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)first, the report is secondhand and anonymous and we've seen a lot of sketchy claims made under those terms especially where international conflict is involved and very especially in this particular one
second, presuming the claim is true, it shouldn't be terribly surprising given NATO's deliberately provocative stunts repeatedly parading military units just a few hundred yards of the Russian border in multiple locations - WTF does anyone expect, that they can poke the bear and it won't wake up?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
It's never Putin's fault.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)We have become so tone deaf in finding enemies that we can't even recognize an escalation that we ourselves are one party to.
We would act no differently if Russia were to threaten to surround the US with military troops.
This is simply another confirmation that we are *both* pushing each other's buttons. There is *nothing* aggressive about this posture (if it is accurate)..
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 2, 2015, 10:33 PM - Edit history (1)
We had a president who invaded a far off land which we now know and agree was a crime and no one is being held accountable.
Now we have a senator who was almost elected POTUS who goes around talking about bombing other people in far off lands. The US is not exactly a fine example, but pro-nuke-dems seem to think they can call the kettle black and not be derided?
Telcontar
(660 posts)Poorly implemented, bit all legal forms were obeyed.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Really, killing a million people for no good reason is no crime?
That isn't a good DU view you have there.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)"Nothing wrong with executing an innocent person if all the legal i's are dotted and the t's are crossed" 
Telcontar
(660 posts)I won't march in lockstep just because it's the belief of many here. I think they are wrong. Is heresy now a TOS violation?
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Any Russian leader who failed to respond to the series of provocations to which they have been subjected since they stepped in to stop an Iraq-style war against Syria would be ousted in no time for dereliction of duty.
The only way the Russian moves seem out of place is if you are completely unable to put yourself in the other guy's shoes. I myself do not have the character flaw of a complete lack of empathy, so I fully understand why they're pissed and ready to go to the mat to defend themselves.
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)Why should what Russia wants in its neighboring countries be considered more valid than what those countries want to happen in their country? The US government is hypocritical with regards to interfering with other countries, but that doesn't mean that we as individuals need to hypocritical too. If you're like me and you oppose the US interfering with its neighbors because they wish to form close relations with countries the US has poor relations with, then you should oppose it when all countries do it. What is your opinion of US action against communist or socialist movements in the Caribbean, Central America, and South America? Was the US justified (or still justified) in meddling because those countries are in its so-called sphere of influence? I suspect I'm not alone when I say they are not. I apply the same line of thinking to any other country too.
Again, assuming this article is accurate and Russia believes it has the right to break up it's neighbors in a similar way as what is going on with Ukraine, then that is simply unacceptable by any standard. Of course I'm always skeptical of any such reports when they first come out.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Russia's clearly stated "red line" is a hostile military alliance setting up shop on its borders, not what any of its neighbors decide to do on their own as individual countries. The military alliance is directed from Washington DC mostly, and to some extent London and Berlin, none of which border Russia and none of which have the kind of skin in the game that Russia's neighbors have.
Every last action by the Russians has been preceded by a hostile action by NATO. They have been totally reactive.
The real problem here is that NATO, an organization which should have been shut down at the end of the Cold War, is on autopilot and needs hostility with Russia in order to justify its existence. In the absence of conflict in eastern Europe, NATO had to create it.
The whole situation is Strangelovian and it's not Russia that created the situation. They are doing exactly what we would do if the positions were reversed.
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)these countries to form closer ties with NATO? NATO isn't going to go anywhere any time soon. Russian actions are only ensuring that NATO continues to stay relevant, because many of those countries view Russia as more of a threat to their sovereignty than they view NATO as a threat. Even if you look at NATO as the evil empire, the way Russia is handling is not a productive strategy and can't be considered anything but reckless. In fact, if Russia is in fact the good guy in this situation, then we really should be expecting them to behave in a more rational manner. Instead I see far too many people making excuses and justifying every little thing Russia does. Much like it's not a bad thing to be critical of the US or Europe, it's not bad to be critical of Russia too.
If the roles were reversed and the US was doing the same thing, I would be against it. Is it safe to say you would not be opposed to it? To me it seems similar to how invading Iraq only helped certain terrorist organizations justify their acts against the US and other western nations. It's stupid. It seems like Russia is doing the same thing with NATO.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)The order in which things have actually happened:
US/EU/NATO action (cause) -> Russian reaction (effect)
Not the other way around. You can't invert cause and effect and expect to make sense of what is going on, you have to get things in the right order.
Actual timeline in broad terms:
US push for war in Syria
Russia prevents war
US/EU initiate coup in Ukraine
Eastern provinces revolt against coup government
IMF pays coup government to wage war on eastern regions (as condition of lifeline loan)
Coup government initiates military action against eastern regions
Crimea votes to join Russia, Russian takeover of Crimea
Various NATO escalations in Ukraine and other countries neighboring Russia
Russian reactions to NATO escalations
There's no way you can both get the order of events correct and call Russia the aggressor.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 2, 2015, 06:11 AM - Edit history (1)
That's a bit of a stretch. Yanukovych promised greater ties with Europe after the Orange Revolution in 2004. But he betrayed his people and instead signed a loan agreement with Russia. There were charges of corruption. A second uprising occurred from a lot of the population including many students, artists, liberals, who wanted a more western open democracy. They had a quick election. Probably too quick. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and other observers gave the election process high democratic marks. Poroshenko won the votes. Sure he's a billionaire who is eager to join the new pro-austerity right wing coalition in Europe but that's who won. That's what the IMF is up to there....bribing him with loans if he promises all in for austerity measures. The war waging is not the IMF's real concern.
It was a high turnout except for the south eastern provinces, of ethnic Russian families, most of which just stayed home in protest knowing their influence in the country would be less with the plans for new connections with Western Europe in the works that the front runners were pushing.
Sorry but I just can't justify Putin's reaction to this outcome in the Ukraine. A part of his sphere of influence was being threatened and he reacted by just snatching the Crimea away. And that was just the beginning. Sending in troops and vehicles and ammunition into eastern Ukraine and then having the gall to lie about doing it? Classless.
I don't like the Ukraine's new President, though he's probably no more corrupt than the one he replaced, but Putin thinks he's still working for the KGB and the Soviet Union, and the Baltics and Ukraine and the others are merely satellite countries and are really Russia's. If the majority of people, especially the peaceful portion which includes all the young and liberal people that did not get their ideal leader, but want to look west instead of east...I think they should be allowed to carve out that destiny.
And maybe NATO is being somewhat aggressive itself in response. But Putin needs to let go. He should be satisfied with the Crimea and let it end there IMO
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Did you miss the Nuland "Fuck the EU" tape where she and Pyatt were discussing who would be the hand-picked puppet leader of the new government?
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)So i googled that and read up.
Its not much of a surprise that the US was and is involved in the internal affairs of a nation especially one positioned where it is. The whole just of that conversation was that a peaceful resolution with Russia would be better served with candidate A working together with candidate B. And the EU was not contributing much to the conversation to make this happen. But the UN would be a better broker for the US...so fuck the EU.
Look I have no doubt opposition parties were funded and helped by the State Department, or whoever handles that, but to me it looks like Poroshenko won despite the USA's preference for some kind of coalition with former government officials and the opposition leader.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/06/state-dept-official-caught-on-tape-fuck-the-eu.html
“I think we’re in play,” Pyatt tells Nuland about a plan to join the opposition and government into one unit, apparently being attempted by the U.S. government behind the scenes. The tape may have been referring to a late January power sharing deal that has since been rejected by opposition leaders."
So that never happened and Ukrainians voted in the billionaire Willy Wonka instead. So the "fuck the EU" ends up just being a rude comment and doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things.
Like I said its not a shock to me that the US is right in there trying to influence a foreign election.
But all of that does not in any way excuse Putin's over-reaction and invasion of a sovereign state....not with back room private meetings where the word "fuck" is thrown around...but actual boots on the ground, guns, tanks, even passenger airlines blown out of the sky.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Russia prevents war
Actually, US exhausts diplomatic means to deal with Syrian government, which prove useless due to Russian government's need for an ally in the Middle East.
Russia risks losing its only friend in the Middle East and its Mediterranean port when the US threatens military action, convinces Syria to give up chemical weapons.
Eastern provinces revolt against coup government
Still not a coup, no matter how many times you guys try to make it so.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Russian invasion of Crimea well preceded the sham referendum.
Russian reactions to NATO escalations
Russia invades Crimea, destabilizes Eastern Ukraine, and begins threatening the Baltics, NATO steps in to reassure its members.
Response to NuclearDem (Reply #34)
Post removed
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I was opposed to military intervention in Syria, but Russia's reluctance to pressure Assad into disarming its chemical weapons made a threat of military action the only recourse available.
Only when the Mediterranean fleet was on its way did Putin finally convince Assad to give up his weapons.
So, no, I was never in favor of military intervention in Syria. I was in favor of a diplomatic solution, one that Putin made damn near impossible until the last minute.
Cha
(297,140 posts)personal insults.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)on Ukraine and Russia.
Unfortunately, it seems that you actually believe it.
Joe Chi Minh
(15,229 posts)I expect it's always been a very popular product line. When one gets tatty, they buy another. Though did all look newly minted.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Because it's your guy Putin doing it.
Of course, if Obama threatened to nuke someone, you'd be frothing at the mouth in outrage.
But, Obama is a sane, decent leader, unlike the fascist thug in Moscow.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)every nuclear power makes nuclear threats
every one
So give me a reason why the US, China, India, Israel, Pakistan, etc. can all make nuclear threats and that's A-OK while Russia is uniquely barred from doing so.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)The only thing that makes Russia unique in this situation is that they're using a nuclear deterrent to cover its landgrabs in its various neighbors.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Mutual saber-rattling does not draw an end to crises. it escalates them, in nearly every case.
The only way out is diplomacy.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Putin's been making not-so-subtle threats against the Baltics ever since the Ukraine crisis began. NATO was entirely justified in holding those drills.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Latvia did indeed get worried after the events in Ukraine. There had been no threats against the Baltics from Russia, however. But Latvia called in NATO to bulk up anyway - I guess I can't blame them for worry, as a 'just in case" scenario. Russia, meanwhile, sees an explicitly anti-Russian nuclear-powered military alliance massing on its border in a state that NATO had promised some years before to not seek the membership of.
So you've got a situation basically with two kids shouting over a line on a playground. neither really has any intent of crossing the line to really get in the others' face, but they keep shouting about how much they'll fuck the other up if it happens. And with every exchange of threats the situation escalates. Eventually one of them is going to feel so threatened that they attack, or is going to be so sensitive that they interpret a gesture as a swing.
And then there's all the people who are right there, circled around shouting for blood. They want more escalation because they think a fight would be fun to watch.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)There's been an excessive number of incidents of Russian military aircraft testing the airspace around the Baltics, the Russian Baltic Fleet has been holding massive exercises, and Russia has been threatening to go after former Soviet Army deserters in Lithuania.
And on top of all that, this isn't the first time Russia has made mention of the Russian minorities the Baltics, and since the last two former Soviet republics to be carved up saw it happen after sudden revolts of their Russian minorities, the Baltics have every right to be worried.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And can you explain how massive naval exercises in the Baltic are threatening but massive military exercises agaisnt Russia's border aren't? Either both are, or neither is.
You're operating on black hat / white hat logic.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)other than to intimidate?
I never said the NATO exercises weren't threatening. They are, and that was in fact the point, but they were threatening in a defensive nature. Russia's behavior with regards to their own military drills over the last ten years has been aggressive: along the Georgian border, followed by an invasion, then along the Ukrainian border, followed by an invasion.
Doesn't take much to see what Russian military exercises near yet more former Soviet republics means.
There is no equivalence here, no matter how badly some want there to be. Russia has acted aggressively towards its neighbors, in fact invading two of them, and the Baltic members of NATO asked for reassurance against the same thing happening to them.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Some of you people are unbelievable.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)Well, this isn't different from the US, that always says, all options are on the table unless we get our way.
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)
msongs
(67,395 posts)newthinking
(3,982 posts)Emotional response is the way the tabloid media brings in revenue and this story is a godsend in terms of web hits with our Pavlovian cold war based training.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"It is easy to notice the persistant (sic) pattern of these stories in our media.."
Much as it's easy to notice the obvious patterns coming from Russian state-owned media so often posted on DU...
(six of one, half a dozen of the other)
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Putin has a one track mind, and he is thinking of starting a war.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)
Warpy
(111,245 posts)They can capture territory. Whether or not they can keep it is much more dubious.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)we should have done?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Because the only options are either leave Putin alone or WWIII.
Cha
(297,140 posts)we're not in WWIII?" 
Jeeze
Leave Putin Alone or you want WWIII!
newthinking
(3,982 posts)It is not an "aggressive posture" and even if it were accurate and not hearsay it does not prove what the OP says. It proves that Russia feels threatened and is trying to define some lines. We would do the same. In fact, I am **sure** the US would send in troops without hesitation if Russia were to bring their tanks into countries on our borders.
As for the rest of the story about tactics that seems to be more speculative and tabloid journalism.
MattSh
(3,714 posts)CIA to Mr. Johnston - here, sign you name to this and print it.
And please, it's common knowledge that this happens.
Oh, and lookie here...
Alexander Lebedev – former KGB spy, billionaire businessman, funder of several British newspapers including the Independent and the London Evening Standard. Probably anti-Putin too.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)- A country bordering on Russia.
- With a huge russian minority.
- With closer ties to the West than to Russia.
One way to frame this is that Russia feels under siege by the NATO.
Another way to frame this is: WHY HAS RUSSIA FAILED TO CONVINCE THE BALTIC STATES TO STAY LOYAL TO RUSSIA?
I think, lots of of Ex-soviet nations don't count as real nations in the eyes of Russia: They were part of the Soviet-Union, which was essentially Russia, which means those nations are essentially lost russian territory. Which means, Russia regards it as an invasion when anybody but Russia meddles with Ex-soviet nations.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Russia left the Baltics alone until NATO started adding military forces into those countries.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)NATO has military outposts in NATO-countries. Just like every EU-member has offices of EU-institutions.
Why did the Baltic states join NATO at all? What was their relationship to Russia before they joined NATO?
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)I can't think of any... 
(Rhetorical question.)
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Sorry I can't help it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)an illegal invasion and occupation and the attempted eradication of Baltic culture.
And people wonder why the Baltics fled to NATO first chance they got.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)The Baltics then joined NATO so that Russia wouldn't try to take them back.
Had Ukraine joined there would be no annexation of Crimea or Donbas. There would be peace in the region.
(Same goes for Georgia.)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)They are sovereign states, not Soviet Republics.
raven mad
(4,940 posts)I grew up during the Missile Crisis at Cape Canaveral.
Putin can try to scare the shit out of me, but it won't work.
tavernier
(12,377 posts)and Putin definitely scares the shit out of them!! They warned me years ago that he had future "plans" for the Baltics.
NATO has nothing to do with it - he has been stirring the pot from day one. I was there a few years back and got to see the daily harassment for myself.
At this point I don't require any links or names etc. to prove to me that he will continue to push his aggression until someone stops him.
7962
(11,841 posts)"Stirring the pot from day one". So many people dont get that. Its always OUR fault. I cant believe how so many DUers continually excuse everything Putin says and does. Sounds like the right, who think Obama is a bigger threat to us than Putin.
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)and raised me on storiea of their war and refugee camp experiences.
I have relatives in Estonia, and I fear for them.
Putin is a madman and I dread what he's already done, and plans to do.
Any leader who is insane enough to threaten nuclear attack needs to be stopped. If possible.
tavernier
(12,377 posts)Let's keep this on the front burner, my friend.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)They barely escaped Berlin before the Red Army arrived. Considering my grandfather had participated in the anti-Soviet insurgency, that was extremely fortunate.
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)Heidelberg, I think.
Did the war and its aftereffects traumatize them too?
Losing one's homeland, being cut off from family, being worried sick about family and friends behind the Iron Curtain (what with deportations to Siberia), losing one's house and property and savings and possibly one's business or farm, having one's education cut short...was hard on them.
Life in the DP camps was extremely difficult too, with people trying to keep the Allies from sending them back to the countries they had recently fled in fear of their lives, trying to find a way to relocate to Sweden or the UK, U.S., Australia, Canada, someplace in a free country where they could try to start over, meanwhile coming close to starvation in the camps, living on little but potatoes and a monthly ration of horsemeat. My mother told me about stealing cabbages from the gardens of Germans just to survive.
And finally, if they were lucky, they got sponsors, and immigration papers, and made their way to a new country where, penniless, they had to find work and rebuild their lives from scratch, doing this all in a foreign language. My parents were fortunate to know English as well as Estonian, German and Russian, but they spoke with accents and struggled to increase their vocabularies. At least people from Eastern Europe had it easier in one sense: they were white and were able to blend in more easily than later refugees from Asian, Middle Eastern, African and Latin American countries.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Logically, of course, both of these propositions cannot be true simultaneously. If the West really is in a position to weaken Russia or topple the Putin regime, then the West must not be weak. And if the West is weak, then it cannot be in a position to weaken Russia, much less topple Putin. It does not appear, however, that Putin sees the contradiction in these two propositions.
Some might ask how Putin can possibly think that the West seeks to weaken Russia, much less overthrow him. U.S. President Barack Obama's administration, after all, tried soon after coming into office to "reset" U.S. relations with Russia. And many EU governments have welcomed cooperation with Russia in recent years, over natural gas in particular.
Putin, though, has on numerous occasions described the United States in particular as the author of the "color revolutions" in Georgia (2003) and Ukraine (2004), as well as the popular demonstrations against Putin inside Russia (2011-12), the Euromaidan demonstrations, and the downfall of Moscow's ally, former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, in Ukraine (2014). Putin apparently does not even acknowledge the possibility that these popular uprisings may actually have been popular; his statements indicate utter certainty that they were orchestrated by the West.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/inside-the-confused-mind-of-vladimir-putin/518425.html
Politicians everywhere love to blame 'outsiders' for any discontent about their own government that people show. I suppose, if you run the country, it is easier to think that the opposition to you is not genuine but motivated solely by evil outsiders. American politicians are as guilty of that as Russian ones.
fiddodiddo
(26 posts)Putin is a bully.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)MOSCOW, April 2 -- The Kremlin on Thursday denied allegations that Moscow has threatened to use nuclear weapons to deter NATO from intervening in Russia-Ukraine tense relations.
Commenting on reports of some Western media that Moscow has threatened to use weapons of mass destruction if attempts are made to return Crimea to Ukraine or if NATO steps up its presence in the Baltic states, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov described them as an example of demonizing Russia.
"This is a classic example of the ongoing hysteria to demonize our country. In fact ... they are not based on any particular information, and they themselves fear what they have written," the Interfax news agency quoted Peskov as saying.
These reports cannot be taken seriously, he added.
http://en.people.cn/n/2015/0402/c90777-8873289.html
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The pedagogical war thesis for Ukraine seems to be more salient than ever.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Merkel is going on about how this it going to be a long effort to bring Putin to his senses, and Putin and Lavrov going on in much the same vein in the other direction. Which is good, because it means no hot war. And bad, because it means they are both still not treating each other like adults.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It's not so much that they view one another as being children, but rather they have agendas that are in conflict.
After Putin pulled his infamous big dog stunt with Merkel at one of their meetings, it would seem that Merkel has realized that one has to deal with the Russians as they are, not as we would hope to persuade them to become.
And Putin understands that the Germans are pragmatic, and will eventually blink in a game of chicken, because they do not have as much skin in the game.
The loudest voices inside NATO for a more confrontational attitude towards Moscow are those who do have the most skin in the game--Poland and the Baltics.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Although I quite agree that they have conflicting agendas, one does not have to choose one or the other. The conflicting agendas are WHY they are trying to educate each other as to the errors in their ways.
The Germans are pragmatic BECAUSE they have skin in the game.
There is no better way to tear the Baltics apart than to exacerbate ethnic tensions in their populations. Is that really what we want to do? Even if Putin is doing it too, should we be helping him by amping the rhetoric? Did that work so well in Ukraine, that we need to repeat it?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)America a 'lesson' akin to warning shot. Perhaps I have misunderstood the pedagogical war thesis.
I don't see anyone tearing the Baltics apart by ethnic tensions. Russia isn't doing so now.
The concern is that Russia will attempt to do so.
Estonia, for example, would be wise to throw its ethnic Russian population a few bones before he gets the chance.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)The problem, the pedagogical aspect, comes in at the point that you think that you can and you should teach someone a lesson. That will get you in trouble all day long, unless they have already signed up for your class.
And the other aspect of that is that when you DO decide to teach someone a lesson, you had best be sure you are smarter and better informed than they are first. Because when people try to teach me a lesson I tend to make sure they get to eat their words, as a lesson.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Instead of quoting a price to the other side, they extract a cost.
It's how deterrence works.
President Obama is currently contemplating whether Prime Minister Netanyahu needs extra homework.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)As one can see now in the Middle East, "deterrence" does not work, unless you think producing hostile failed states is a good thing.
I don't think I have any idea how Obama thinks, though the subject is tempting.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)is deterring the US from war with Iran.
Despite the war pig cacophony being blasted from Jerusalem and the US Congress, voters very clearly have no appetite for war with Iran. (ironically, support for sending troops to fight Iran's enemies, ISIS, is much stronger, Thomas Friedman notwithstanding).
Lessons must be learned if they are to be taught. Saddam didn't learn his lessons, neither did Bush.
Of course, states decide which lessons to learn.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Or are the attractions of cash money, hubris, and jingo politics just too good to give up?
It's damn near destroyed the nation as it is. If you compare our state now with where we were in 1970 say, it's not a picture of competent and dedicated self-governance that one gets. I am sure Obama understands that. But so far he has only been able to nibble away at the edges, and that is already enough to get them frothing.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)and 80% of UK media is owned by six billionaires.
I don't take anything I read in the western government or corporate owned media (or any media for that matter) at face value.
I've altered Reagan's maxim and instead say: "Don't trust, verify".
Cha
(297,140 posts)trusted(imo) DUer..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1056435
7962
(11,841 posts)Cha
(297,140 posts)
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)
Monk06
(7,675 posts)Worst hearsay bullshit non story I have seen on any of these phoney RRS feed tabloid 'news' Sites.
Plus the site froze my browser loading scripts to run ads and RRS feeds. This is what net neutrality should be dealing with not people downloading music.
Oh and did I forget to say Not News so, not Latest Breaking News !!!!
7962
(11,841 posts)We get LBN posts ALL the time about subjects that aree days or weeks past, but only coming to light at that time.
You could look up the Norway stories referencing similar issues. Or maybe Putin threatening Denmark with nukes too from a week ago, since you dont believe the story and dont like the source. Independent is not a "tabloid" news site.
7962
(11,841 posts)
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)It is a back channel meeting of former military and foreign policy types from the U.S. and the RF. This was from the March meeting.
Kevin Ryan was the guy taking notes. He is a retired General who works/teaches at the Belfer Center at Harvard.