WW3 Please SAY NO!

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Ukraine was ostensibly "free" although it is a very corrupt country and neo-Nazis groups are a force to be reckoned within the country. By declaring neutrality, Ukraine may not have become a part of NATO, but it would have actually safeguarded it's security. They have brought on the very thing they had hoped to keep from happening. That's why elected leaders should be learned in history and politics, actually having a background for leading. Zelensky was a comedian. At any rate, Zelensky should have acknowledged the reality of the situation and avoided trouble with his nuclear power neighbor. His people are dying for his mistake. His calls for a no-fly zone show how delusional and out of touch with reality he is.

Hey, what do you know? We agree on something! We should learn from history.

Let's make up a hypothetical situation and see if we can use history to help us formulate a way to react.

Let's assume there's a country ... let's make one up and call it Deutschdirt. Let's say they were really down on their luck and agreed to a treaty. But then later on, they got a leader that didn't like that treaty. He didn't think it was fair. So he decided to annex a bordering country because, I don't know, he claimed Deutschdirters who lived there weren't being treated properly. Let's say that no other country objected. That leader then decided to take over another country and all the other countries said, "Neville mind him taking that country. If we let him have that country, he'll stop."

Is there anything in world history that you can think of that might give us a hint at how this might play out?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Hey, what do you know? We agree on something! We should learn from history.

Let's make up a hypothetical situation and see if we can use history to help us formulate a way to react.

Let's assume there's a country ... let's make one up and call it Deutschdirt. Let's say they were really down on their luck and agreed to a treaty. But then later on, they got a leader that didn't like that treaty. He didn't think it was fair. So he decided to annex a bordering country because, I don't know, he claimed Deutschdirters who lived there weren't being treated properly. Let's say that no other country objected. That leader then decided to take over another country and all the other countries said, "Neville mind him taking that country. If we let him have that country, he'll stop."

Is there anything in world history that you can think of that might give us a hint at how this might play out?

Gee Mike, careful there. Using logic, reason, history, and supposed intelligence doesn't always work with everyone. LOL

The real problem is we're all humans, and it doesn't matter if you're red, white, black, yellow, brown, or green with purple polka dots, there are going to be a--holes among each and every group. Always have been and always will be. We can all imagine and believe we are so intelligent, sophisticated, and developed that we can rise above our often petty, self-absorbed, insecure and instinctual natures and be something other than our true selves. But that will never happen because the human animal (and yes, we are mammals) are really no different than any other creature on this planet, except for the extremely lucky situation where our brains and intelligence have developed to an un-before known level. That still doesn't change the fact that human nature and instincts will always be part of us, no matter what we say, do, or think, and we truly are no better or different from the other creatures on this planet.

As such, there is likely no country or society on this planet that does not have some level of corruption or evil in it and controlling it to some extent, and that includes the US, which has it's more than fair share of abominable acts and treatment of others in our relatively short history, to yet live down. The vast majority of common, everyday people (regardless of race or society) really wish no one else harm, or are criminally racist, and just want to live their lives as peacefully and happily as possible. But then human nature gets in the way again, and you will always have some people that for whatever reasons will never be satisfied, and always want more. Doesn't matter what it is, they'll just want more of it, and will stop at nothing to get it. These are the kinds of people that often rise to positions or levels of power, control, and authority because due to our "human nature" again, others will adopt their beliefs and thinking and follow them, because as a group, humans tend to not think for themselves so much. They'll most always think of themselves, just not for themselves.

Sadly, most all of the leaders of our world today have deficiencies and issues that helped to create and cause virtually all of the grief and problems we are suffering for as the human race, on a daily basis. And here's the big point, even if we were somehow able to suddenly remove every single politician, ruler, military leader, business leader, and so forth, behind and responsible for how the world is being run today, it really wouldn't matter. Likely within a year, six months, or even less time, an entirely new group of horrible humans will step in to take over and allow their greed, corruption, fears, biases, insecurities, megalomanias, and whatever else they have and may be harboring to end up running the world as badly as the current group has been doing, if not even making it worse.

And as for studying history so we don't repeat it, there are some monumental problems with that logic. First off being that we are human and have instincts, hormones, and emotions that rise above any knowledge and learning we may otherwise think gets us to ignore such human traits. But it ain't ever happening. People do things every single day that are bad for them or that they know they shouldn't do, yet no matter how smart they are, they still do them. Plus, however intelligent we humans think we are, we truly are still just dumb, and in the end really no better or more deserving of being on this planet than any other creature in the world. And as for history itself, don't forget the old adage that history is written by the victors. Just think if Washington had lost the Revolutionary War instead. Chances are he would have been shot/hanged as a traitor, and would likely be no more than a footnote in history today. Or what if Hitler had somehow prevailed in WWII? Who knows what the world would look like, and how people would think today. I know this all sounds pretty depressing and bleak for mankind, but look back at experiments of John Calhoun with mice and the development of his Behavioral Sink Theory. And then ask yourself if we are really any better or different than the mice. And all this arguing, insults, and going back and forth about all this stuff in this thread just helps to further prove true most of the points I'm making.

What needs to immediately stop is the stupidity of senseless killing, and infliction of pain and suffering, ON ALL SIDES!!!!!!!!! For supposedly being the most intelligent life form on this planet, or at least thinking we are, we are pretty f---ing stupid!!!!!!

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobC

What needs to immediately stop is the stupidity of senseless killing, and infliction of pain and suffering, ON ALL SIDES!!!!!!!!! For supposedly being the most intelligent life form on this planet, or at least thinking we are, we are pretty f---ing stupid!!!!!!

Problem is.... it's not stupidity at all, if you're a psychopathic megalomaniac.

World War 2 doesn't happen if you could remove about 4 people before it all began: Tojo, Adolf, Joe, and Benny. Your average German and Brit would've rather played a friendly game of cards over a pint or two than try to kill each other, and the average Italian wanted nothing to do with that war in the first place. They weren't bad combatants - they just weren't killers (and I've been to Italy and believe me, they love Americans and everyone else generally.)

Japanese and American people had respect for each other before the war (baseball was becoming a huge part of Japanese life in the years before the war, and still is the basis of a strong cultural bond between that country and ours.)

Generally, populations don't hate each other and wouldn't choose war; it is governments. In the case of Russia, their government tends to consist of one man - the one brutal enough to eliminate his rivals.

So when Putin gives the order to bomb hospitals and kill women and children, it isn't a matter of stupidity. The problem is, he simply doesn't care.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Problem is.... it's not stupidity at all, if you're a psychopathic megalomaniac.

World War 2 doesn't happen if you could remove about 4 people before it all began: Tojo, Adolf, Joe, and Benny. Your average German and Brit would've rather played a friendly game of cards over a pint or two than try to kill each other, and the average Italian wanted nothing to do with that war in the first place. They weren't bad combatants - they just weren't killers (and I've been to Italy and believe me, they love Americans and everyone else generally.)

Japanese and American people had respect for each other before the war (baseball was becoming a huge part of Japanese life in the years before the war, and still is the basis of a strong cultural bond between that country and ours.)

Generally, populations don't hate each other and wouldn't choose war; it is governments. In the case of Russia, their government tends to consist of one man - the one brutal enough to eliminate his rivals.

So when Putin gives the order to bomb hospitals and kill women and children, it isn't a matter of stupidity. The problem is, he simply doesn't care.

Absolutely agree with a lot of what you're saying Mark, but the bottom line is people were stupid for originally putting such psychopathic megalomaniacs into positions of power to do the crap they do in the first place. And even if they may not have started out being psychopathic megalomaniacs, once they started exhibiting the telltale signs, people were still too stupid to remove them from power, and still dumb enough to believe and follow them. So yes, it ultimately is our own overall stupidity that allows this to happen.

As I had said before, humans almost always think of themselves, but rarely for themselves. So when one crackpot comes along and says and does things a lot of people think will benefit them in some way, they generally go along to adopt similar beliefs and follow them, blindly in a lot of cases. And once they do make such a connection, another common human trait often kicks in, the one where we don't like to admit to others, and ourselves, that we were wrong about something or someone. So even if the person they were following starts to do things their followers may not think are that great, as long as those followers themselves aren't directly getting negatively hurt or impacted, they're likely to just dismiss, or even outright ignore, whatever not so great things the person they're following has done or is doing.

In the end, it all comes down to overall human stupidity for the majority of us allowing a select few to be able to tell us what to do, and then not doing something about it when we finally realize some of those select few leaders shouldn't be leading anymore. The only real differences between people like Trump, Putin, Biden, and the likes of Charles Manson, is the number of people they were able to sway and otherwise coerce into believing and following them. They've all had people following them go out and hurt and kill others for them and in their names. Except some are viewed as world leaders, whereas others are considered as crazy cult founders and insane criminals. Guess it just depends on how many people you can get to drink your own personal flavor of Kool-Aid as to which option such people end up falling under.

To me, the one thing that does make sense is the Golden Rule, it is an extreme pity that it seems to not be truly followed by many people on this planet. It would certainly be a lot better place if everyone did.

[AustinMike]

Bob, I agree with most of what you wrote. Do I think we can solve all our problems by learning from history? Of course not. Firstly, take a thousand people and a single historical event and you will probably get nearly a thousand interpretations of how that event should be reflected in actions today. Secondly, societal norms and morals change through time. What was once accepted, may no longer be accepted today.

But, does that mean we shouldn't try to use historical events to provide some background to how we approach things today? Of course not.

Originally Posted by BobC

What needs to immediately stop is the stupidity of senseless killing, and infliction of pain and suffering, ON ALL SIDES!!!!!!!!!

I do take some exceptions with the part of your post that I quote above. I am tired of the bothsidesism that seems to permeate throughout any topical discourse today. In the current conflict, the one presently under discussion, there is only ONE side that is causing senseless killing and infliction of pain and suffering. Wouldn't you agree?

Originally Posted by BobC

For supposedly being the most intelligent life form on this planet, or at least thinking we are, we are pretty f---ing stupid!!!!!!

Could not agree with you more.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Bob, I agree with most of what you wrote. Do I think we can solve all our problems by learning from history? Of course not. Firstly, take a thousand people and a single historical event and you will probably get nearly a thousand interpretations of how that event should be reflected in actions today. Secondly, societal norms and morals change through time. What was once accepted, may no longer be accepted today.

But, does that mean we shouldn't try to use historical events to provide some background to how we approach things today? Of course not.



I do take some exceptions with the part of your post that I quote above. I am tired of the bothsidesism that seems to permeate throughout any topical discourse today. In the current conflict, the one presently under discussion, there is only ONE side that is causing senseless killing and infliction of pain and suffering. Wouldn't you agree?



Could not agree with you more.

Hey Mike, The one thing you disagreed with me on is actually not supposed to just be about the current situation. My apologies if it didn't come across that way. That statement was made in regard to all the situations that have ever occurred in the history of mankind, what is going on right now, and what has yet to occur in the future, in which innocent people on all different sides of these issues always seem to end up being the ones paying the highest price. I'm not for both sides, I'm really more for no sides, unless you are counting ALL the common, ordinary, everyday people from ALL races and societies as one unified side. That is the side I am for, not the ones created and put out there by the various leaders in different countries/societies/religions around the world. I always think of the old Black Sabbath song, War Pigs, and tend to view most politicians and military leaders, and some religious leaders, in that light. If these people are supposed to be our leaders and speaking out and fighting for us (Or is it really more for them?), why do they always do it from the rear? If we made all these a--hole politicians, religious, and military leaders who keep getting us into all these conflicts actually have to go out and face one another in fights, instead of sending out young people that still have their whole lives ahead of them to kill and be killed on their behalf, I wonder how much more often they'd come up with peaceful, rational solutions to problems, as opposed to actually ever risking their own lives.

And granted, that won't work in deterring all political/military/religious leaders from still getting us into all kinds of conflicts because let's face it, some of them will always still be psychopathic megalomaniacs. But maybe we can at least start culling the herd of them if they want to kill each other off fighting among themselves. Just leave the rest of us out of it, please.

[sbfinley]

While some garbage want to justify this terrible invasion and it’s horrible cost to human lives and well being because Russia was threatened by NATO expansion: here are actual heroes threatened.

Today in the Ukrainian city of Melitopol, protestors in the city squared were threatened and told they would be shot if they exited the square. So they went for a stroll, and protested throughout the city. This is how real patriots face adversity, not fakriots justifying the slaughter and destruction of a neighbor state that wants to self govern.


https://www.mv.org.ua/news/264230-v_...qg3MMmd6sh4k7A

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by BobC

Hey Mike, The one thing you disagreed with me on is actually not supposed to just be about the current situation. My apologies if it didn't come across that way. That statement was made in regard to all the situations that have ever occurred in the history of mankind, what is going on right now, and what has yet to occur in the future, in which innocent people on all different sides of these issues always seem to end up being the ones paying the highest price. I'm not for both sides, I'm really more for no sides, unless you are counting ALL the common, ordinary, everyday people from ALL races and societies as one unified side. That is the side I am for, not the ones created and put out there by the various leaders in different countries/societies/religions around the world. I always think of the old Black Sabbath song, War Pigs, and tend to view most politicians and military leaders, and some religious leaders, in that light. If these people are supposed to be our leaders and speaking out and fighting for us (Or is it really more for them?), why do they always do it from the rear? If we made all these a--hole politicians, religious, and military leaders who keep getting us into all these conflicts actually have to go out and face one another in fights, instead of sending out young people that still have their whole lives ahead of them to kill and be killed on their behalf, I wonder how much more often they'd come up with peaceful, rational solutions to problems, as opposed to actually ever risking their own lives.

And granted, that won't work in deterring all political/military/religious leaders from still getting us into all kinds of conflicts because let's face it, some of them will always still be psychopathic megalomaniacs. But maybe we can at least start culling the herd of them if they want to kill each other off fighting among themselves. Just leave the rest of us out of it, please.

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you intended.

As for Black Sabbath, they're one of my favorite bands (I especially love Vol. 4, but Paranoid is also a great album). Another great song on this topic is Dylan's "Masters of War" on his Freewheelin' album.

100% agree with the rest.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you intended.

As for Black Sabbath, they're one of my favorite bands (I especially love Vol. 4, but Paranoid is also a great album). Another great song on this topic is Dylan's "Masters of War" on his Freewheelin' album.

100% agree with the rest.

No problem! Figured you may have just misunderstood my meaning/intention.

As for Sabbath, have loved them since they first came out. Still have their original early albums from when they all were released. I have always thought and felt their very first, self-titled album, was their absolute best. Don't get me wrong, have Vol. 4 and Paranoid from when they were first released, and both are great. But there's something about their initial album that just puts it apart for me. But only really like them with Ozzie. They were never the same with Dio or anyone else. In fact, about the only song of theirs, without Ozzie singing lead, that I really like for some reason is It's Alright, with I believe Bill Ward handling the lead vocals. Sounds nothing like a typical Sabbath song, but is one of those tunes you can't seem to get out of your head. Did you ever get the opportunity to see them perform live with Ozzie?

Dylan's song is great also. But Sabbath's War Pigs is the first truly anti-war song I remember put out by such a different band than the normal protest and anti-war ballads and standards we were used to at the time. And the song's lyrics from back then are as true today as ever. Basically, the poor, common people of the world end up paying the price for fighting wars started by all the rich, powerful, and crazy a--holes on the planet. We are supposed to learn from history so we don't keep repeating our mistakes, and yet.......

[BobC]

No matter how this all ends up, why not let the people decide? Have the people of Ukraine vote as to whether or not they want to be part of Russia. And if an overwhelming majority agrees, let them become part of Russia.

Of course Putin would never agree to and abide by this because the Russian government doesn't give common people any true choice as to how they want to be governed, do they? There is no single perfect way for all people to live and be governed. Everyone has different thoughts and ideas on what is right or wrong, and just because you're born into a certain culture or society doesn't mean you should be forced to follow a certain way of life or thinking because of the ill luck you had in being born into a culture/society you ultimately don't like, or want to be part of.

And all this crap about NATO and nukes in neighboring countries being part of the reasoning behind this "special military operation" makes no sense. With all the long range missiles and nuclear weapons in the world today, so what if you don't have missiles in Ukraine pointed at you? Chances are just a small country or two away there are other countries with missiles already pointed at Russia. Just like Russia and China and other communist countries have their missiles and nuclear weapons pointed right back at us and other non-communist and NATO countries in the world. I can only guess at how many missiles and nuclear weapons are right at this moment targeting and locked onto New York city or Washington DC, and await only someone giving the order to have them launched. And the same for those on our supposed side locked onto Moscow and Beijing. I'm guessing the real reason for the uproar is that a missile fired from the Ukraine at Moscow, versus one being fired from the continental US, wouldn't give the Russians as much time to detect the launch and shoot it down. And even if they were able to shoot it down in time, it would still be over Russian territory and likely to inflict damage to Russian people and property, as opposed to a weapons launch say from the US that gets intercepted and shot down over an ocean or some other country. And isn't that one of, if not the main reason, we had the Cuban missile crisis back in Kennedy's day? Our side thinks the same way. Maybe if ALL these countries, ON ALL SIDES of these arguments would just stop all the lies and BS they spew out to all the common ordinary people of the world, and for once were open and honest with the entire planet about what was really bothering them, maybe........just maybe, all these world leaders for once could do something for the betterment of all mankind, and not just for their stupid, greedy selves. But I ain't holding my breath, because at the end of the day we're all mostly still just stupid, selfish humans.

The problem with being humans is that there will never be 100% agreement on how we should live and interact with one another. So we are doomed to always have wars and conflicts it seems, at least till we finally succeed in killing ourselves off, or we're done in by some cataclysmic event beyond our control. One of my hopefully most realistically obtainable goals is that I don't live long enough to see either of those things happen. That along with one day completing an S74-1 white silk Ty Cobb advertising back run.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by BobC

No problem! Figured you may have just misunderstood my meaning/intention.

As for Sabbath, have loved them since they first came out. Still have their original early albums from when they all were released. I have always thought and felt their very first, self-titled album, was their absolute best. Don't get me wrong, have Vol. 4 and Paranoid from when they were first released, and both are great. But there's something about their initial album that just puts it apart for me. But only really like them with Ozzie. They were never the same with Dio or anyone else. In fact, about the only song of theirs, without Ozzie singing lead, that I really like for some reason is It's Alright, with I believe Bill Ward handling the lead vocals. Sounds nothing like a typical Sabbath song, but is one of those tunes you can't seem to get out of your head. Did you ever get the opportunity to see them perform live with Ozzie?

Dylan's song is great also. But Sabbath's War Pigs is the first truly anti-war song I remember put out by such a different band than the normal protest and anti-war ballads and standards we were used to at the time. And the song's lyrics from back then are as true today as ever. Basically, the poor, common people of the world end up paying the price for fighting wars started by all the rich, powerful, and crazy a--holes on the planet. We are supposed to learn from history so we don't keep repeating our mistakes, and yet.......

I've never seen Sabbath live. Unfortunately. But I also have all the albums I bought back in the day. From their first album to the last one I bought, Mob Rules in 1981. I guess we'll have to disagree on Dio. I liked him in Sabbath. I also liked him in Rainbow and a lot of his solo stuff. Hmm, since we disagree on what is their best album and Dio, are we supposed to start shouting at and denigrating each other? Isn't that how it works these days?

Take care.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Hey, what do you know? We agree on something! We should learn from history.

Let's make up a hypothetical situation and see if we can use history to help us formulate a way to react.

Let's assume there's a country ... let's make one up and call it Deutschdirt. Let's say they were really down on their luck and agreed to a treaty. But then later on, they got a leader that didn't like that treaty. He didn't think it was fair. So he decided to annex a bordering country because, I don't know, he claimed Deutschdirters who lived there weren't being treated properly. Let's say that no other country objected. That leader then decided to take over another country and all the other countries said, "Neville mind him taking that country. If we let him have that country, he'll stop."

Is there anything in world history that you can think of that might give us a hint at how this might play out?

Putin is not Hitler and is not seeking to invade other countries. He told me last night.

Anyway, since I have you on the line, I looked a little bit more into what we were talking about regarding the so-called promise that was made to Gorbachev. And I have an article, which I'll share below, where Gorbachev says that the promise was made in regard to Germany only, but he goes on to say that the expansion of NATO broke the spirit of the agreement.

I also have an article by an author, who is Republican, who I respect very much named Eric Margolis, who is an expert on military history and history in general. I'll share that because he makes other claims. You say you looked at the documents that were released and could not find any evidence of promises broken. Margolis seems to differ.

https://www.rbth.com/international/2...lls_40673.html

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...ave-it-writing

Margolis also gives George H.W., and Baker, credit for not expanding NATO.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Putin is not Hitler and is not seeking to invade other countries. He told me last night.

That's what Hitler said.

Originally Posted by jgannon

Anyway, since I have you on the line, I looked a little bit more into what we were talking about regarding the so-called promise that was made to Gorbachev. And I have an article, which I'll share below, where Gorbachev says that the promise was made in regard to Germany only, but he goes on to say that the expansion of NATO broke the spirit of the agreement.

Oh, so do you now agree that Irv, Dore, and you are wrong to say that the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand to the east? That that is just a lie perpetrated by Putin and his stooges.

For anyone who doesn't want to click on the link, this is in the article and quotes Gorbachev:

"M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it."

Originally Posted by jgannon

I also have an article by an author, who is Republican, who I respect very much named Eric Margolis, who is an expert on military history and history in general. I'll share that because he makes other claims. You say you looked at the documents that were released and could not find any evidence of promises broken. Margolis seems to differ.

https://www.rbth.com/international/2...lls_40673.html

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...ave-it-writing

Margolis also gives George H.W., and Baker, credit for not expanding NATO.

Margolis claims:

"Ever since, I’ve been writing that the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, were shamelessly lied to and deceived by the United States, Britain, and their appendage, NATO.

"All the western powers promised Gorbachev and Shevardnadze that NATO would not expand eastward by ‘one inch’ if Moscow would pull the Red Army out of East Germany and allow it to peacefully reunify with West Germany. This was a titanic concession by Gorbachev: it led to a failed coup against him in 1991 by Communist hardliners.

"The documents released by George Washington University in Washington DC, which I attended for a semester, make sickening reading (see them online). All western powers and statesmen assured the Russians that NATO would not take advantage of the Soviet retreat and that a new era of amity and cooperation would dawn in post-Cold War Europe. US Secretary of State Jim Baker offered ‘ironclad guarantees’ there would be no NATO expansion. Lies, all lies."

Who do you believe more, Gorbachev or Margolis? Only one of them can be right. Do you believe the person who was actually a part of the negotiations or someone who claims you can read the shameless lies online without citing a single source for his claim?

In regards to documents, go back to my post where I provided a link to a site that seems to side with claim about the US lie AND provides links to documents (which Margolis DOES NOT do). Links to 30 documents are provided to support the claim. As I said, I looked at several documents (ones I thought most likely to contain proof of the promise) to find the smoking gun and did not find it. And no, I'm not going to look through all 30 documents to prove a negative (if I find nothing you'll claim that I missed it or it's in another document or something). You claim a promise to Russia was made, it is up to you to prove it. Look through those documents and find that proof. And no, citing an author you admire who happens to claim the same thing is not proof.

Think about it. Gorbachev was there. Reread what he said. Margolis was not there. Margolis says to read the documents. Which he DOES NOT provide. Who you gonna trust?

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

That's what Hitler said.



Oh, so do you now agree that Irv, Dore, and you are wrong to say that the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand to the east? That that is just a lie perpetrated by Putin and his stooges.

For anyone who doesn't want to click on the link, this is in the article and quotes Gorbachev:

"M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it."



Margolis claims:

"Ever since, I’ve been writing that the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, were shamelessly lied to and deceived by the United States, Britain, and their appendage, NATO.

"All the western powers promised Gorbachev and Shevardnadze that NATO would not expand eastward by ‘one inch’ if Moscow would pull the Red Army out of East Germany and allow it to peacefully reunify with West Germany. This was a titanic concession by Gorbachev: it led to a failed coup against him in 1991 by Communist hardliners.

"The documents released by George Washington University in Washington DC, which I attended for a semester, make sickening reading (see them online). All western powers and statesmen assured the Russians that NATO would not take advantage of the Soviet retreat and that a new era of amity and cooperation would dawn in post-Cold War Europe. US Secretary of State Jim Baker offered ‘ironclad guarantees’ there would be no NATO expansion. Lies, all lies."

Who do you believe more, Gorbachev or Margolis? Only one of them can be right. Do you believe the person who was actually a part of the negotiations or someone who claims you can read the shameless lies online without citing a single source for his claim?

In regards to documents, go back to my post where I provided a link to a site that seems to side with claim about the US lie AND provides links to documents (which Margolis DOES NOT do). Links to 30 documents are provided to support the claim. As I said, I looked at several documents (ones I thought most likely to contain proof of the promise) to find the smoking gun and did not find it. And no, I'm not going to look through all 30 documents to prove a negative (if I find nothing you'll claim that I missed it or it's in another document or something). You claim a promise to Russia was made, it is up to you to prove it. Look through those documents and find that proof. And no, citing an author you admire who happens to claim the same thing is not proof.

Think about it. Gorbachev was there. Reread what he said. Margolis was not there. Margolis says to read the documents. Which he DOES NOT provide. Who you gonna trust?

Joe! I provided the link about Gorbachev, because I wanted to acknowledge that Gorbachev does tell the story differently. But maybe there is something in the documents which might support what Gorbachev does say about NATO expansion violating the spirit of the agreement. You yourself say you have not looked through all of the documents. Maybe there is something in there that you didn't read that might temper your viewpoint.

Regarding the Hitler and Putin comparison, just because Hitler continued to invade other countries, doesn't mean that is Putin's objective. I think if you read what he has said on the matter, you should agree. That doesn't make him a "beneficent" invader.

For the record, and this goes to everyone here - I am against the invasion. All I have tried to do is discuss why Putin might have made the move. I do think that it was a failure of U.S. policy to recognize how serious Putin was about the matter. All of this could have been averted.

Another aspect to this reminds me of what Harry Truman used to say, which is that after you defeat an enemy, you have to build them back up again, so as not to create a reason for revenge or retaliation. The U.S. won the Cold War. It completely had the upper hand while Russia went through a decade of internal chaos and weakness. The U.S. during this time proceeded to unnecessarily humiliate Russia and take advantage of their weakness by expanding NATO. Putin came along and was determined to reinstill Russian pride. He watched as NATO continued to expand and the U.S. pulled out of the ABM treaty. As early as 2007, he declared Ukranian membership in NATO unacceptable. Then U.S. was involved with the Ukranian coup in 2014. Then we unilaterally pulled out of the INF Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty. Seven years of civil war in Ukraine and the agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine last November, it would seem finally pushed Putin over the line.

In my opinion, he lost any high ground or argument he had regarding Ukraine once he invaded it. Jingoistic protestations and lack of understanding about geopolitics by most of the crew here notwithstanding, the U.S. definitely incompetently contributed to the invastion.

Far from being unpatriotic, honest critique of one's country is one of the highest forms of patriotism, because if you love your country, you want to be honest with it and about it so it can be the best country it can be. And if it is a great country, one should also be able to freely discuss things without fear of censorship or intolerance. It's a shame that some people here have equated free speech and dissent from the mainstream line with lack of patriotism.

Gentlemen - a good day to you all. Let's hope there is a sane ending to what is going on in Ukraine. The quicker the better.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by jgannon

I do think that it was a failure of U.S. policy to recognize how serious Putin was about the matter. All of this could have been averted.

What kind of appeasement would you have suggested?

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Joe! I provided the link about Gorbachev, because I wanted to acknowledge that Gorbachev does tell the story differently. But maybe there is something in the documents which might support what Gorbachev does say about NATO expansion violating the spirit of the agreement. You yourself say you have not looked through all of the documents. Maybe there is something in there that you didn't read that might temper your viewpoint.

Shemp, you may acknowledge what Gorbachev said about a NATO promise, but do you believe him? Based on the rest of your reply, the answer is, "No." If you did, you wouldn't have linked to Margolis' article where he pretty much only talks about the Russians being LIED to.

As for the highlighted portion, if there is something in there about this "spirit," find it. How many times do I have to tell you that you are the one making the claim, you are the one who needs to provide evidence that your claim is valid. Do you really expect me to accept your claim because there MIGHT be something in the documents to support you? REALLY??

Lastly, in regards to this "spirit" that was "violated," how exactly would that be documented? If NATO expansion was never brought up by any country on either side, as Gorbachev says, what "spirit" are you talking about?

Shemp, I really don't get it. For some reason, you're still fishing for that angle so you can say Putin is justified in attacking Ukraine because of US lies or phantom "spirits" about NATO expansion.

Originally Posted by jgannon

Far from being unpatriotic, honest critique of one's country is one of the highest forms of patriotism, because if you love your country, you want to be honest with it and about it so it can be the best country it can be. And if it is a great country, one should also be able to freely discuss things without fear of censorship or intolerance. It's a shame that some people here have equated free speech and dissent from the mainstream line with lack of patriotism.

Get used to it Shemp. There are those who say, "Love it or leave it." I don't know how many times I've heard that. There is one political party in this country that seems to think they own patriotism and you're either with them or against them. If you don't wrap yourself up in the American flag or wear a flag pin, you're unpatriotic. If they are in the White House, you don't dare criticize the government because to do so is unpatriotic. In fact, you could probably storm the Capitol to prevent a fair election from being certified and you would probably be called a patriot by them ... if it is done to keep them in the White House of course.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

There is one political party in this country that seems to think they own patriotism and you're either with them or against them. If you don't wrap yourself up in the American flag or wear a flag pin, you're unpatriotic. If they are in the White House, you don't dare criticize the government because to do so is unpatriotic. In fact, you could probably storm the Capitol to prevent a fair election from being certified and you would probably be called a patriot by them ... if it is done to keep them in the White House of course.

WaterCooler Talk - Off Topics
General chat and off topic stuff. Please no politics or religion.

[gawaintheknight]

Two things. One is that we should maybe think about why, in spite of the risks of provoking Putin that many people are highlighting, Eastern European countries wanted to join NATO anyway. I assume they knew the risks very well, but thought it was still safer than not joining. If NATO doesn't let them join, it sends a message to Putin: we don't care about these countries and won't protect them. That's what he thought was the case with Ukraine, and we can see how that's working out.

Two, the "encircled by NATO" thing is not all that's going on. Putin has a set of ideological beliefs that are driving his actions as well.

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/0...ssian-fascism/

Ted

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

WaterCooler Talk - Off Topics
General chat and off topic stuff. Please no politics or religion.

Aren't you precious?!?

Originally Posted by Kzoo

The Criminal Cabal consists of, among others, the Central Bankers, the WEF and Klaus Schwab, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, and the Windsors (some would include the Vatican on this list, to my initial surprise as I'm Catholic).

The Buffett, Soros, Gates, Bloomberg, Bezos, Zuckerberg, and the 'political leader' type folks in our world are simply their foot soldiers carrying out and pushing their agenda towards a One World Government/Global Reset, a cashless Digital Currency, population control, etc.

Hmm, just as political as my statement and your response ... crickets.

Originally Posted by irv

I believe our media is corrupt and biased with a penchant for protecting U.S. interests by creating and pushing false narratives in an effort to make them look all divine and the like so I really have a hard time believing much of anything that we are being told about Putin, Russia, Zelenskyy and the Ukraine.

Just as political as my statement and your response ... crickets.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

I say we send The Donald over there.

See if he can talk his boy into ending this.

He does that, he would wrap up the next election.

Yeah, this was kind of tongue-in-cheek, but still just as political as my statement and your response ... crickets.

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Have people forgotten the level of corruption and meddling the US has done in Ukraine? Or Soros's love of Ukraine?

Why did Obama/Biden allow the Clintons to sell uranium to the Russians?

Why did Biden kill our energy independence, only to buy Russian energy exports?


I'm focused on our involvement in this "conflict". Our government is as much to blame as anyone, yet I don't hear any of that coming from the MSM/news.

Much, much more political than my statement and your response ... crickets.

Originally Posted by irv

He is likely just upset like John Kerry is about Putin's lack of buying into the global warming scam. Couldn't believe my eyes when I seen that. Just how stupid can these dingleberries get?
How dare Putin invade another country and not be concerned about climate change!!!

"“I hope President Putin will help us to stay on track with respect to what we need to do for the climate,” Mr. Kerry added"

While climate change should not be political, you think it is. Remember this thread from May 2020:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...+change&page=2

You claimed I believe in climate change because I want to punish, weaken, and control "the people that I hate, the ones that voted for," in YOUR words, "The Orange Meanie." Remember that? YOU brought up politics. Good times, huh?

And your response to Irv's political statement ... crickets.

Very selective of you, don't you think?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Shemp, you may acknowledge what Gorbachev said about a NATO promise, but do you believe him? Based on the rest of your reply, the answer is, "No." If you did, you wouldn't have linked to Margolis' article where he pretty much only talks about the Russians being LIED to.

As for the highlighted portion, if there is something in there about this "spirit," find it. How many times do I have to tell you that you are the one making the claim, you are the one who needs to provide evidence that your claim is valid. Do you really expect me to accept your claim because there MIGHT be something in the documents to support you? REALLY??

Lastly, in regards to this "spirit" that was "violated," how exactly would that be documented? If NATO expansion was never brought up by any country on either side, as Gorbachev says, what "spirit" are you talking about?

Shemp, I really don't get it. For some reason, you're still fishing for that angle so you can say Putin is justified in attacking Ukraine because of US lies or phantom "spirits" about NATO expansion.



Get used to it Shemp. There are those who say, "Love it or leave it." I don't know how many times I've heard that. There is one political party in this country that seems to think they own patriotism and you're either with them or against them. If you don't wrap yourself up in the American flag or wear a flag pin, you're unpatriotic. If they are in the White House, you don't dare criticize the government because to do so is unpatriotic. In fact, you could probably storm the Capitol to prevent a fair election from being certified and you would probably be called a patriot by them ... if it is done to keep them in the White House of course.

Infraction given - Politics