DriveInDriѵeOut
Inordinately Right
You are being racist Ricky.
Shame, shame.
The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming!
- Thread starter Sportello
- Start date
Shame, shame.
UnionStrong
Sorry, but I don’t care anymore.
Smart enough to put you on ventilator
Y r u so senstitiv talking about skin color like dumb liberals?
The eu will teach u anger management
UPS Horn Genie
Have you blown your horn today?
Benjamin Norton
@BenjaminNorton
·
55m
The CIA Noise Network (CNN) is doing PR propaganda for Ukraine's corrupt right-wing billionaire oligarch Poroshenko, the Western puppet who took over the country after a US-sponsored 2014 coup. Given current President Zelensky has been a failure, they're trying to bring him back
Quote Tweet
CNN
@CNN
· 3h
“How long do you think you can hold out?” “Forever.” Former Ukrainian President @poroshenko takes up a Kalashnikov rifle alongside civilian defense forces as he speaks to @JohnBerman from the streets of Kyiv.
@BenjaminNorton
·
55m
The CIA Noise Network (CNN) is doing PR propaganda for Ukraine's corrupt right-wing billionaire oligarch Poroshenko, the Western puppet who took over the country after a US-sponsored 2014 coup. Given current President Zelensky has been a failure, they're trying to bring him back
Quote Tweet
CNN
@CNN
· 3h
“How long do you think you can hold out?” “Forever.” Former Ukrainian President @poroshenko takes up a Kalashnikov rifle alongside civilian defense forces as he speaks to @JohnBerman from the streets of Kyiv.
UnionStrong
Sorry, but I don’t care anymore.
Poroshenko was Putins guy…..just sayinBenjamin Norton
@BenjaminNorton
·
55m
The CIA Noise Network (CNN) is doing PR propaganda for Ukraine's corrupt right-wing billionaire oligarch Poroshenko, the Western puppet who took over the country after a US-sponsored 2014 coup. Given current President Zelensky has been a failure, they're trying to bring him back
Quote Tweet
CNN
@CNN
· 3h
“How long do you think you can hold out?” “Forever.” Former Ukrainian President @poroshenko takes up a Kalashnikov rifle alongside civilian defense forces as he speaks to @JohnBerman from the streets of Kyiv.
a brief history of NATO:
By Chris Hedges / Original to ScheerPost
Iwas in Eastern Europe in 1989, reporting on the revolutions that overthrew the ossified communist dictatorships that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was a time of hope. NATO, with the breakup of the Soviet empire, became obsolete. President Mikhail Gorbachev reached out to Washington and Europe to build a new security pact that would include Russia. Secretary of State James Baker in the Reagan administration, along with the West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured the Soviet leader that if Germany was unified NATO would not be extended beyond the new borders. The commitment not to expand NATO, also made by Great Britain and France, appeared to herald a new global order. We saw the peace dividend dangled before us, the promise that the massive expenditures on weapons that characterized the Cold War would be converted into expenditures on social programs and infrastructures that had long been neglected to feed the insatiable appetite of the military.
There was a near universal understanding among diplomats and political leaders at the time that any attempt to expand NATO was foolish, an unwarranted provocation against Russia that would obliterate the ties and bonds that happily emerged at the end of the Cold War.
How naive we were. The war industry did not intend to shrink its power or its profits. It set out almost immediately to recruit the former Communist Bloc countries into the European Union and NATO. Countries that joined NATO, which now include Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia were forced to reconfigure their militaries, often through hefty loans, to become compatible with NATO military hardware.
There would be no peace dividend. The expansion of NATO swiftly became a multi-billion-dollar bonanza for the corporations that had profited from the Cold War. (Poland, for example, just agreed to spend $ 6 billion on M1 Abrams tanks and other U.S. military equipment.) If Russia would not acquiesce to again being the enemy, then Russia would be pressured into becoming the enemy. And here we are. On the brink of another Cold War, one from which only the war industry will profit while, as W. H. Auden wrote, the little children die in the streets.
scheerpost.com
By Chris Hedges / Original to ScheerPost
Iwas in Eastern Europe in 1989, reporting on the revolutions that overthrew the ossified communist dictatorships that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was a time of hope. NATO, with the breakup of the Soviet empire, became obsolete. President Mikhail Gorbachev reached out to Washington and Europe to build a new security pact that would include Russia. Secretary of State James Baker in the Reagan administration, along with the West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured the Soviet leader that if Germany was unified NATO would not be extended beyond the new borders. The commitment not to expand NATO, also made by Great Britain and France, appeared to herald a new global order. We saw the peace dividend dangled before us, the promise that the massive expenditures on weapons that characterized the Cold War would be converted into expenditures on social programs and infrastructures that had long been neglected to feed the insatiable appetite of the military.
There was a near universal understanding among diplomats and political leaders at the time that any attempt to expand NATO was foolish, an unwarranted provocation against Russia that would obliterate the ties and bonds that happily emerged at the end of the Cold War.
How naive we were. The war industry did not intend to shrink its power or its profits. It set out almost immediately to recruit the former Communist Bloc countries into the European Union and NATO. Countries that joined NATO, which now include Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia were forced to reconfigure their militaries, often through hefty loans, to become compatible with NATO military hardware.
There would be no peace dividend. The expansion of NATO swiftly became a multi-billion-dollar bonanza for the corporations that had profited from the Cold War. (Poland, for example, just agreed to spend $ 6 billion on M1 Abrams tanks and other U.S. military equipment.) If Russia would not acquiesce to again being the enemy, then Russia would be pressured into becoming the enemy. And here we are. On the brink of another Cold War, one from which only the war industry will profit while, as W. H. Auden wrote, the little children die in the streets.
Hedges: Chronicle of a War Foretold
I was in Eastern Europe in 1989 reporting on the revolutions that overthrew the ossified communist dictatorships that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was a time of hope. NATO, with the breakup of the Soviet empire, became obsolete.
scheerpost.com
lawrence wilkerson: It's a long history. And I certainly understand. I don't support Putin. I don't think Putin is a very good leader. I don't think his way of wiping out his opposition is particularly savory, but I do understand his strategic grasp and I do understand the fact that his military leaders are very frightened by the creep of NATO. I shouldn't say the creep [but rather] the onslaught of NATO. Indeed, my President, George W. Bush, went to Tbilisi and standing by the Georgia president declared Georgia would be a member of NATO in the future. What a colossally stupid thing to do and yet we did it and we've been doing it ever since largely so Lockheed Martin and others could sell their wares to more and more countries in the world. And I don't blame Putin for what he has done in standing up to our expansion of NATO
war is a racket.
Lawrence Wilkerson: And Ralph, those assurances were powerful. I just had a debate literally with one of my old friends over Jim Baker supposedly having come back and recanted and said that no, when he got back to Washington, the assurances that [Helmut] Kohl had been given in Germany and [Eduard] Shevardnadze and Gorbachev had been given in Moscow, were not acceptable to George H. W. Bush. Well, my man, Colin Powell, my boss at the time, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, due to Goldwater–Nichols [Act], attended all the NSC [National Security Council] meetings. He was the principal by Goldwater–Nichols, the change to the 1947 National Security Act, the penultimate amendment. He was the principal advisor, the principal military advisor to the president of the NSC and the Secretary of Defense. So he went to the meetings and he never came back and told me anything about that and he debriefed me on all the meetings. So as far as I was concerned, Powell's euphoria; he was ecstatic even about what was happening, that Russia was possibly going to be an observer at NATO and maybe even eventually a member of NATO. And where did we go astray in that history? Where did we go from that halcyon time when the Cold War was over and H. W. Bush to his inestimable credit did not want to beat his chest, did not want to trump it, did not want to claim victory and so forth. He just wanted to get on with, as he called it, the new world order, a peaceful world order. What happened to all of that?
What happened to all that happiness and joy [chuckle], if you will, at the end of the Cold War and the prospect of peace? Well, Bill Clinton largely happened to it when in 1994, he decided that he needed some more foreign policy bona fides. And oh, by the way, he needed some more contributions from corporations like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon and [Northrop] Grumman and so forth and more bona fides in the national security field. So he began a very rapid expansion of NATO with no consideration whatsoever for what the other side, in this case, Russia might think.
Lawrence Wilkerson: And Ralph, those assurances were powerful. I just had a debate literally with one of my old friends over Jim Baker supposedly having come back and recanted and said that no, when he got back to Washington, the assurances that [Helmut] Kohl had been given in Germany and [Eduard] Shevardnadze and Gorbachev had been given in Moscow, were not acceptable to George H. W. Bush. Well, my man, Colin Powell, my boss at the time, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, due to Goldwater–Nichols [Act], attended all the NSC [National Security Council] meetings. He was the principal by Goldwater–Nichols, the change to the 1947 National Security Act, the penultimate amendment. He was the principal advisor, the principal military advisor to the president of the NSC and the Secretary of Defense. So he went to the meetings and he never came back and told me anything about that and he debriefed me on all the meetings. So as far as I was concerned, Powell's euphoria; he was ecstatic even about what was happening, that Russia was possibly going to be an observer at NATO and maybe even eventually a member of NATO. And where did we go astray in that history? Where did we go from that halcyon time when the Cold War was over and H. W. Bush to his inestimable credit did not want to beat his chest, did not want to trump it, did not want to claim victory and so forth. He just wanted to get on with, as he called it, the new world order, a peaceful world order. What happened to all of that?
What happened to all that happiness and joy [chuckle], if you will, at the end of the Cold War and the prospect of peace? Well, Bill Clinton largely happened to it when in 1994, he decided that he needed some more foreign policy bona fides. And oh, by the way, he needed some more contributions from corporations like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon and [Northrop] Grumman and so forth and more bona fides in the national security field. So he began a very rapid expansion of NATO with no consideration whatsoever for what the other side, in this case, Russia might think.
FDR called the mergers of corporations and govt fascism:
awrence Wilkerson: It was always considered to be a progress that would go slowly. And over time, I remember Bill Perry, one of Bill Clinton's secretaries of defense, telling me as I visited him with my Marine Corps while in seminar and he'd just come back from Moscow. He'd just come back from several days in Moscow. And he was as euphoric as Powell had been before about what was happening. There was a plan that we would march very slowly with all the former Warsaw Pact countries, considering not just NATO membership but EU [European Union] membership. And that plan would unfold very, very slowly, methodically and it would unfold only as they came to be able to meet the requirements of both EU and NATO. And, by the way, NATO’s were more rigorous than the EU’s. And it would unfold only as Russia said, Okay, that's good; okay, that's good; okay, that's good. And we all nodded our heads in accordance with that initial agreement. What happened was that you have – I was just on a webinar with the Quincy Institute [for Responsible Statecraft] on this very thing. You had the CEOs and other people working for these now global – they're not just US, they're global arms manufacturers and arms merchants. You had them insinuating themselves into their equivalents, incipient though they were, within these new countries. And they become embedded with one another. And then you start getting, I need this; I need that, and you make this and you make that. And so very soon you have the kind of relationship we have with Saudi Arabia today, where you don't know the difference between the Saudi side and the US side because they're linked; they're joined at the hip and they share in the profits and they share in the ventures and they share in the weapons building and the weapons used. We've done this all over the world. And we were salivating at the prospect because some of the lines, the cruise missile line, for example, the friend-16 line, for example, were going into lowrate production or they were going coal, like the tank line recently did. And the Congress stepped in and we made tanks that are now stored up in the mountains that we'll never use, but that cost the American taxpayer a huge amount of money. So these industries all work together to build the kind of “need” and Ukraine is a perfect example of that today. Not for nothing do the New York Times report on some of the CEOs actually talking in meetings about how their shareholders and potential stock buyers ought to pay attention to Ukraine because Lockheed and Raytheon and all the rest of these guys, their stocks were just gonna skyrocket because of what was happening in Ukraine. This is a war industry. And what happened in 1994 and the years following was the war industry got a hold of the process of NATO expansion along with other interests. And it was ‘Katy bar the door’; let's go, let's go right up to the steps of Moscow, if we want to.
Ralph Nader: How prescient [Dwight] Eisenhower was when he coined the phrase militaryindustrial complex. Originally, I understand in the speech where he referred to it as...
Lawrence Wilkerson: Military, industrial, congressional, university, think tank, research, you name it. They are everywhere now. They're all over my campus at William & Mary now. They're all over my campus with new proposals, new money. It's very hard for these schools to turn this money down, especially a public university like William & Mary/
DOUUUUUU:
And people say, I've had these debates ongoing for the past six months, Well, why are they fearful of NATO attacking them? Come on, put yourself in their shoes. Wait until you see a Chinese battle fleet steaming in the Gulf of Mexico 12 miles and one inch off Corpus Christi, Texas. Wait until you see that. It is China's every right under international law to do that. They could do that 24/7 all year long. What do you think Washington would say about that? Well, reverse the situation and put yourself in Putin's shoes. We are the most arrogant empire, I think, that's been around for at least a couple hundred years. And that includes the British, so that's arrogant. - LAWRENCE WILKERSON
And people say, I've had these debates ongoing for the past six months, Well, why are they fearful of NATO attacking them? Come on, put yourself in their shoes. Wait until you see a Chinese battle fleet steaming in the Gulf of Mexico 12 miles and one inch off Corpus Christi, Texas. Wait until you see that. It is China's every right under international law to do that. They could do that 24/7 all year long. What do you think Washington would say about that? Well, reverse the situation and put yourself in Putin's shoes. We are the most arrogant empire, I think, that's been around for at least a couple hundred years. And that includes the British, so that's arrogant. - LAWRENCE WILKERSON
The difference oh Russian apologist is NATO is on their doorstep because of past Russian aggression. We're in Japan and South Korea to protect them from communist aggression.
hey im just quoting lawrence wilkerson, way up the chain of command during W bush admin and a truth teller
not 1 inch to the east:
Richard D. Wolff
@profwolff
·
1h
The evidence - from Yale University - on Ukraine. Highest US, German leaders promised Russia in 1990s that NATO would not move eastward if Russia OK'd unification of Germany. Ukraine: where Russia stops accepting the dismantling of that promise.
Richard D. Wolff
@profwolff
·
1h
The evidence - from Yale University - on Ukraine. Highest US, German leaders promised Russia in 1990s that NATO would not move eastward if Russia OK'd unification of Germany. Ukraine: where Russia stops accepting the dismantling of that promise.
Should be up to all the countries in NATO who gets in instead of just the richest or most powerful.not 1 inch to the east:
Richard D. Wolff
@profwolff
·
1h
The evidence - from Yale University - on Ukraine. Highest US, German leaders promised Russia in 1990s that NATO would not move eastward if Russia OK'd unification of Germany. Ukraine: where Russia stops accepting the dismantling of that promise.
UnionStrong
Sorry, but I don’t care anymore.
NATO is impotent
They're all in tuxedos?
Similar threads
