Every US president has to have a war - Gorbachev

[North Pole]

Re: Every US president has to have a war - Gorbachev

American Soldiers in Iraq Crashing Private Car With A Tank And Laughing

Video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0lcPYKWwec

America, you are committing war crimes.

[Armenian]

Re: Every US president has to have a war - Gorbachev

North Pole, thank you for this thread. All my life I was exposed to vicious propaganda about the horrors of the Soviet Union and the crimes it committed against civilians. Now, however, the shoe is definitely on the other foot. Nations worldwide are finally waking up to a new harsh reality. From the genocide of the native Americans to slavery, from land annexation to wars fought for profit - the most prolific and the most successful war criminal has always been the US government.

[HayotzAmrotz]

Re: Every US president has to have a war - Gorbachev

I disagree with you, HayotzAmrotz.
Do you really think that the KGB would just allow some smooth-talking man to dismantle the USSR and do nothing about him?
I am not a fan of Gorbachev but Perestroika was planned and KGB-controlled event. The USSR was broke. Its idiotic centralized, government-controlled economy was heading to nowhere. Gorbachev was just the right man to play a role, who as it seems to me, thought that it was him who was in charge....

"KGB controlled event"? Please, my friend, don't be ridiculous!
I'm afraid the only correct thing in your above post is the fact that USSR was indeed financially broke. However, it seems like you don't know the real reasons for the financial crisis. They had nothing to do with "government-controlled economy" etc. The sole reason of the financial collapse was the American blockage of $50 odd billion credit which USSR was due to receive from some world bankers in 1986-87 (receiving and giving such credits is a normal practice and happens all the time, but this particular credit was needed to cover the extra expenses of that stupid Afghan war). Why the yanks blocked it? Well, ever since the end of WW2 they have dreamed to kill USSR and they would have never missed such a great opportunity. Gorbachev, instead of protesting or at least working towards a solution, simply gave up. He is spineless traitor. End of story.

[skhara]

Re: Every US president has to have a war - Gorbachev

The sole reason of the financial collapse was the American blockage of $50 odd billion credit which USSR was due to receive from some world bankers in 1986-87

That's really not all that much. Soviet economic structure was great for industry, but awful for agriculture.

By the way, an interesting observation about the financial situation. Are we not "broke" in the USA? Look at the Iraq war spending. We are in negative money and spending even more money. Maybe the Soviet Union was just dumb? All that needed to be done was print more money? How come America can just print more money and spend it, but not everyone else?

[jgk3]

Re: Every US president has to have a war - Gorbachev

Are you sure the Soviet Union didn't try that?

[Armenian]

Re: Every US president has to have a war - Gorbachev

By the way, an interesting observation about the financial situation. Are we not "broke" in the USA? Look at the Iraq war spending. We are in negative money and spending even more money. Maybe the Soviet Union was just dumb? All that needed to be done was print more money? How come America can just print more money and spend it, but not everyone else?

More-or-less, you are right. There is lot about the world's financial system that we are not exposed to. Much of what occurs in that realm we don't get to see. We only see its ramifications: rise and fall of economies and major wars. However, since the time of the Crusades the world's "financial elite" have steadily lived in the West. The real "money," the real "old money," has always been in the West. The nature/character, the structures of the West's financial elite, is the key to answering your question. But be warned that there are many crazy theories associated with this gray/black area of the western world. So, as you come across them, pick and choose wisely.

[Armenian]

Re: Every US president has to have a war - Gorbachev

"KGB controlled event"? Please, my friend, don't be ridiculous!

Amrotz, it may not be true but it is not ridiculous. It is a serious theory and some aspects of it does make a lot of sense. According to the theory in question, the Soviet elite attempted to correct the impending financial collapse of the Soviet Union by doing some adjustments/rearrangements under the guise of Perestroika/Glasnost. This experiment apparently backfired when it got out of hand as independence movements and ethnic rivalries erupted throughout the Soviet Union. Don't forget the Soviet Union was not a natural construct and its economic principals were seriously flawed. Thus, is was due to collapse. If the Soviet elite attempted to make serious adjustments it is easy to see how it could get out of hand.

The sole reason of the financial collapse was the American blockage of $50 odd billion credit which USSR was due to receive from some world bankers in 1986-87

That is a very simplistic way of looking at this complex matter. $50 billion??? That's literally pocket change for major nations. Thinking that the blockage of this sum is what caused the collapse of the Soviet Union is ridicules. Rethink this matter, Amrotz.

North Pole is right. Gorbachev couldn't do much, if anything at all, had he not gotten support from the KGB elite. And why would the KGB elite agree to dismantle the Soviet Union? An experiment to remedy the economic demise of the Soviet Union getting out of control - makes the most sense for me.

The following is an excellent article written by the well-known American author and political commentator J.R. Nyquist. For those who are not aware of his writings, Nyquist is an ardent Russophobe. This individual believes that the initial stages of Gorbachev's Perestroika movement that lead to the Soviet collapse was a part of "a long-term strategic deception orchestrated by the Moscow-Beijing Axis." In other words, it was manufactured by top level strategists in the Kremlin in conjunction with the Chinese to undermine the economic supremacy of the western world. According to this line of reasoning, the longterm strategic attempt at the time went sour as the control of the central government was lost and the entire territory of the Soviet Union fell into disarray. Apparently, the recently established Shanghai Cooperation Organization, as well as other geopolitical maneuverings of China and Russia during the last few years, are Moscow's and Shanghai's attempt at realizing their initial anti-American agenda. In my opinion, a lot of the geopolitical matters regarding the "East" that Nyquist writes about does make some sense, if looked upon within a proper context. Nevertheless, this latest piece of his is definitely worth reading.

Armenian

************************************************** ****************

ECONOMIC WARFARE IN THE FINAL PHASE

by J. R. Nyquist

This week the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, warned against Russia’s use of energy as an instrument of foreign policy. Speaking before his ambassadors, the French President said: “Russia is imposing its return [as a great power] on the world scene by employing its assets, notably oil and gas, with a certain brutality.” A great power ought to be gentle in its economic or political superiority. The Russians, however, are accustomed to a more cynical use of their advantages. The language of the Russian president includes mockery, condescension and threats. The West cringes, the East advances. Who cares what the weak countries think? Their feelings are without consequence.

Russia is not only engaged in a military buildup. Russia wants to use its economic muscles. You might ask what economic muscles Russia could have? It is bankrupt, backward, hobbled, demoralized and generally dismissed as an effective economic actor. We must remember, however, that positions in the world economy can change, that tables can be turned. Last June, at the International Economic Forum in St. Petersburg, the Russians called for a “new international financial architecture.” Here is Russia’s “Final Phase” economic strategy. The financial vulnerability of capitalism is growing. Keep pushing oil prices higher. Weaken the dollar. Precipitate the inevitable “crisis of capitalism.” Let the have-not nations rise up. Let them throw off their dollar shackles. Let them unite with Russia and China in “one clenched fist.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin believes the United States is vulnerable. The emerging economies of Brazil, India and China – combined with Russia – can shove the hollowed-out American economy aside. After all, American economic ascendancy is “archaic, undemocratic and unwieldy,” according to Putin. As for Europe, its dependence on Russian energy exports will assure a smooth process of “Finlandization.” Such a process begins with gentle warnings from Russia’s ambassadors in Europe and ends with self-censorship. Russia’s economic penetration of Europe gives special leverage to Moscow. In other words, the Kremlin has entered into the Fabric of European political life – through agent networks, influence operations and business pressure. These relationships can be used to influence powerful people, to adversely affect the careers of anyone who opposes Russian interests.

Economic influence means political influence. As America is humiliated, as America retreats, Russia advances. The day might come when Europe pays for its energy in rubles. If this occurs, Europe would have to acquire a large store of Russian currency. Russia’s economic position would grow, and so would Russia’s hold on Europe. Moscow wants to build a global old exchange on Russian territory, knocking big financial players to one side. The Russians want to stun the American economy. They want to weaken an already weakened dollar.

In 1984 a Russian defector named Anatoliy Golitsyn wrote of the period following the collapse of communism. He warned of a renewed attack on the West, engineered by KGB strategists. He said that this attack had an economic dimension. In his 1984 book, New Lies for Old, he wrote: “’Liberalization’ in Eastern Europe on the scale suggested could have a social and political impact on the United States itself, especially if it coincided with a severe economic depression. The communist strategists are on the lookout for such an opportunity.” According to Golitsyn, the communist bloc tracks Western economic developments. They watch for developing weaknesses. “The communist bloc will not repeat its error of failing to exploit a slump as it did in 1929-32.” The smartest political observers know that a financial slump resurrects Marxism and its critique of economic freedom.

Referring to a deceptive phase of self-advertised Russian weakness, Golitsyn warned: “Information from communist sources that the bloc is short of oil and grain should be treated with particular reserve, since it could well be intended to conceal preparation for the final phase of the policy and to induce the West to underestimate the potency of the bloc’s economic weapons.” The economic weakness of Russia led Europe to feel safe about their growing dependence on Russian oil and gas. And now it is too late. Now we see how Russia and China have formed a military bloc. We see them supporting the nuclear ambitions of Iran, the paranoid buildup of Syria and Venezuela – the seduction of Latin America and the bloody unraveling of sub-Saharan Africa.

The U.S. financial situation worsens as the old communist bloc gathers its economic, political and military forces. Look at the new Russian weapons – nuclear missiles, tanks, jet fighters and more. Look at Latin America and notice what is happening in Venezuela, Bolivia and Colombia. The communists are advancing under various false flags. They seek the destruction of the United States. It doesn’t matter who is in the White House. It doesn’t matter what policy the U.S. is following. They want to destroy America, because America stands in the way of their plans.

If you live in America and want your children to be free, you’d better wake up. The actions of Russia are not in reaction to American “aggression” or “imperialism.” They are part of a long-established pattern of deception and exploitation. This is how the Russians behave. This is how they’ve always behaved. Most political pundits and “experts” will scoff at this statement. But let me ask them: Is it a coincidence that a KGB-regime has emerged in “democratic” Russia? Is it happenstance that this regime has formed a military alliance with communist China?

Shortly before her death, the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya asked whether the rise of Putin’s Russia was mere happenstance. In answer to this question she took a bullet in the back of the head. The silencing of those who ask the right questions is part of the old communist pattern. According to Mark Riebling, KGB defector Golitsyn’s 1984 book contains 148 falsifiable predictions. Of these predictions, 139 were “fulfilled by the end of 1993 – an accuracy rate of nearly 94 percent.” Today, Golitsyn’s accuracy rate is higher. Having predicted Russia’s use of oil as a weapon, having predicted a future alliance between Russia and China, it might be said that 141 out 148 of Golitsyn’s predictions have come to pass.

In recent months Russia tried to provoke a war between Israel and Syria. It turns out that the paranoia in Damascus was fueled from Moscow. The conventional analyst thinks the Russians are motivated by the prospect of further arms sales to Syria. But this is not the whole answer. Russia seeks to foment a greater military crisis with which to intensify the economic and energy crisis. The Russians and their allies are making trouble where they can. The hour is ripe. The U.S. president is weak. The American economy is troubled. One great push, one more straw upon the camel’s back, and capitalism might be overthrown – once and for all.

Source: http://www.financialsense.com/stormw...2007/0831.html

[Armanen]

Re: Every US president has to have a war - Gorbachev

How come America can just print more money and spend it, but not everyone else?

A couple of main reasons, oil is bought and sold in u.s. dollars, world financial insitutions (IMF, World Bank) are basically arms of the u.s. government, bretton woods financial system established after ww2 as well as the washington consensus that followed soon after. Also it doesn't hurt when you are one of the only, if not the only, major industrialized nation that still has a positive population growth, unlike the major economies of Europe or Japan.

[HayotzAmrotz]

Re: Every US president has to have a war - Gorbachev

That is a very simplistic way of looking at this complex matter.

There is nothing simplistic about nearly a century old desire of one country and one system to destroy another country and another system (USA vs USSR). Making things look and sound complicated, in other words distorting the truth, is a Western speciality and "your" J.R. Nyquist with his truly rudiculous theory is a classic example. Rethink, my friend, and here is a documentary to help you: "ЦРУ против СССР приказанно уничтожить" (CIA against USSR. The order is: destroy). I saw it in Russian but maybe there is an English subtitled version of it somewhere on the net.

$50 billion??? That's literally pocket change for major nations. Thinking that the blockage of this sum is what caused the collapse of the Soviet Union is ridicules.

First of all $50 billion of 1986 is NOT the same as $50 billion of 2008. There is a huge difference between them and any economist will tell you that 1986 $50 billion equals to $..... of 2008 billions. Don't be suprised if the figure is $200 billion or even more. Secondly, $50 billion of liquid money (cold hard cash in big bags) is NOT the same as $50 billion on the paper or computer screen. And finally, today's US dollar is fuked beyond recognition so, today that sum is a "pocket change" indeed but in 1986 it was a serious sum in the strongest currency. The US blockage of that cash credit was a contribution to the collapse, and stupid Gorbi was another contribution. Two rings in the chain of events.

Gorbachev couldn't do much, if anything at all, had he not gotten support from the KGB elite. And why would the KGB elite agree to dismantle the Soviet Union? An experiment to remedy the economic demise of the Soviet Union getting out of control - makes the most sense for me.

Gorbachev and his men penetrated KGB in order to disarm it. And they achieved that because back then it was a strange system where a dumb ass party aparatchik could have caused a storm inside a well established institution with a piece of paper from a politbyoro meeting.

P.S. There is no way you completely dislike America and I think that coupled with lack of alternative information sources (such as Russian language documentaries and many other Russian language information material) stops you to see the truth. The bottom line is: Your country (USA) is guilty of causing death, destruction and misery to hundreds of millions of people of the former Soviet Union. American attack on Soviet Union was neither the first not the last criminal act of the Americans, and until that criminal entity known as USA is not stopped they will continue to destroy countries and people.

[North Pole]

Re: Every US president has to have a war - Gorbachev

North Pole, thank you for this thread. All my life I was exposed to vicious propaganda about the horrors of the Soviet Union and the crimes it committed against civilians. Now, however, the shoe is definitely on the other foot. Nations worldwide are finally waking up to a new harsh reality. From the genocide of the native Americans to slavery, from land annexation to wars fought for profit - the most prolific and the most successful war criminal has always been the US government.

Correct, Armenian.
It's only Ruskies and terrorists who are doing something bad, American Empire, on the other hand, is just an angelic creation. (not)

FROM PRESSTV:

US invasion damaged Iraq's Babylon

Sat, 24 May 2008

Archeologists claim the US military occupation of Iraq has inflicted extensive damage on the ruins of the ancient city of Babylon.
The city, located some 85 kilometers southeast of Baghdad, was transformed into a US military camp after the 2003 invasion and a heliport was built among its ruins.
The base was later passed to the Polish army and although the soldiers left the area in 2005, the tremors caused by helicopters and armored vehicles have damaged the city's historical monuments.
The US military has acknowledged the damage done to the archaeological sites from 2003-2004.
A US military spokesman recently announced that the troops had 'moved facilities away from many other important archaeological sites'.

UNESCO has described the Babylon damages caused during the site's military occupation as 'very serious,' AFP reported.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=57192&sectionid=351020201

FROM BBC:

US army base 'has damaged Babylon'

A double fortified wall enclosed the city, protecting it from attack
Coalition forces in Iraq have caused irreparable damage to the ancient city of Babylon, the British Museum says.
Sandbags have been filled with precious archaeological fragments and 2,600 year old paving stones have been crushed by tanks, a museum report claims.



The US Army says the troops based in the city, some 50 miles (80km) south of Baghdad, are well aware of its historical significance.
Babylon's Hanging Gardens were among the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.

US military spokesman Lt Col Steven Boylan said the base, which has around 6,000 troops under Police command, is needed to "further defeat terrorists and insurgents".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4177577.stm

Babylon is a city of ancient Mesopotamia, the remains of which can be found in present-day Al Hillah, Babil Province, Iraq, about 85 kilometers (55 mi) south of Baghdad.

All that remains today of the ancient famed city of Babylon is a mound, or tell, of broken mud-brick buildings and debris in the fertile Mesopotamian plain between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in Iraq. Historical resources inform us that Babylon was in the beginning a small town that had sprung up by the beginning of the third millennium BC (the dawn of the dynasties). The town flourished and attained prominence and political repute with the rise of the first Babylonian dynasty. It was the "holy city" of Babylonia by approximately 2300 BC, and the seat of the Neo-Babylonian Empire from 612 BC. The Hanging Gardens of Babylon were one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.



Babylon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia