Me and Pat... What the crap! This can´t be!!

Drosselmeier

Diabloii.Net Member
Me and Pat... What the crap! This can´t be!!

Dross was seriously shocked this morning. He read the following article and nearly swallowed his own tounge.

What Are We Doing in Russia's Neighborhood?
by Pat Buchanan


Napoleon III, Emperor of France, saw his opportunity.

With the United States sundered and convulsed in civil war, he would seize Mexico, impose a Catholic monarchy and block further expansion of the American republic.

In 1863, a French army marched into Mexico City. In 1864, Maximilian, the brother of Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph, was crowned Emperor of Mexico. The French empire had returned to North America a century after its expulsion in 1763.

Secretary of State Seward did nothing until the Union armies had defeated the Confederacy. Then, he called in Gen. John Schofield, who had wanted to lead an army of volunteers into Mexico to drive the French out, and instructed him instead to go to Paris. "I want you to get your legs under Napoleon's mahogany and tell him he must get out of Mexico," Seward told Schofield. To impress upon Napoleon that the Union was in earnest, President Johnson, at the urging of Grant and Sherman, sent Gen. Sheridan with 40,000 troops to the Rio Grande.

Napoleon got the message. The French army headed for the boats, and Maximilian went before a Mexican firing squad.

Lesson: Nations are unwise to seize upon the temporary weakness of a great power to put military forces inside its sphere of influence.

Which brings us to this headline in last week's Washington Post: "U.S. May Set Up Bases in Former Soviet Republics."

The lead graph reads like something out of the London Times in the salad days of Kipling and Queen Victoria: "Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday that the United States might establish military bases in parts of the former Soviet empire, but he sought to reassure Russians that increased U.S. influence in the region does not pose a threat to them." With bases already in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, we apparently intend to build a base in Georgia, birthplace of Stalin.

Query: What are we doing there? What is the strategic interest in Georgia? Tbilisi is about as far away as one can get. Why are we rubbing Russia's nose in her Cold War defeat by putting U.S. imperial troops into nations that only yesterday were a part of that country? Powell anticipated the question: "Are we pointing a dagger in the soft underbelly of Russia? Of course not. What we're doing is working together against terrorism."

But after Iraq, where we invaded an oil-rich country on what the world believes were false pretenses and forged evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, why should Russians not suspect our motives?

After all, the neoconservatives who beat the drums loudest for war, and cherry-picked the intelligence sent to Bush that got us into war, have been braying for years that we intend to create an American empire and impose our "benevolent global hegemony" on all mankind.

Why should Russians, Chinese and Iranians not believe America's crusader castles in Central Asia and the Caucasus are not part of a grand scheme for a Pax Americana?

Have we forgotten our history? When Reagan put Marines into the middle of Lebanon's civil war, 241 perished in the terrorist bombing of their Beirut barracks. Reagan retaliated, but got out. He should never have gone in. Who runs Beirut or rules Lebanon is not our business.

When we intervened in Somalia's civil war, we got "Blackhawk Down" in Mogadishu and 18 dead Rangers. Again, we pulled out. We should never have gone in. When we planted a U.S. army on Saudi soil after the Gulf War, we got 9-11. Now we have pulled out of there.

How often must we be taught the lesson?

Have we considered the consequences of planting military bases in countries afflicted by Islamic fundamentalism and ruled by autocrats who, only 15 years ago, were apparatchiks of Moscow?

A U.S. imperial presence in Central Asia and the Caucasus resented by Russia, Iran and China and detested by Islamists is less likely to contain terrorism than to invite it.

Even a cursory reading of U.S. history shows us to be an almost paranoid people about any foreign military presence near our frontiers. The French, British, Spanish and Russians were all bought off or driven out. Moscow's presence in Cuba and meddling in Grenada and Nicaragua in the Cold War were constant causes of American outrage.

But if we are entitled to our own Monroe Doctrine – i.e., no foreign colonies or bases in our backyard – are not other great nations like China and Russia equally entitled? Why should they not feel as we do, and one day act as we did with Napoleon, and tell us to get out of Central Asia and to get out of the Caucasus?

But, again, why are we going in? Other than empire, what is the vital interest here?

So... it´s me and Pat now. I honestly didn´t see this one coming.
 

AeroJonesy

Diabloii.Net Member
Yeah, I don't see much use in putting bases in Russia. Unless they are for some sort of international collaboratoin on space travel, then I'm all for it.

Don't we already have bases in Turkey, and aren't we doing stuff in Pakistan now too? And I don't recall ever hearing Russia's name in the news in regards to any terrorist activity.
 
Has anyone noticed that since the US has thousands of troops stationed in the middle east, the attitudes of the radical leaders has changed for the better?

NB :)
 

Drosselmeier

Diabloii.Net Member
Nastie_Bowie said:
Has anyone noticed that since the US has thousands of troops stationed in the middle east, the attitudes of the radical leaders has changed for the better?

NB :)
So what you´re saying is that the threat of invasion is a good way of making Russia fall in line and do as they´re told?

EDIT: Spelling.
 
Drosselmeier said:
So what you´re saying is that the threat of invasion is a good way of making Russia fall in line and do as they´re told?

EDIT: Spelling.
I wasn't thinking about Russia. Case in point, Mohamar Ghaddafi. I think these guys are learning that the current administration is willing to put it's money where it's mouth is.

NB :)
 

Drosselmeier

Diabloii.Net Member
Nastie_Bowie said:
I wasn't thinking about Russia. Case in point, Mohamar Ghaddafi. I think these guys are learning that the current administration is willing to put it's money where it's mouth is.

NB :)
True... but that doesn´t really have anything to do with the topic discussed here.
 
Drosselmeier said:
True... but that doesn´t really have anything to do with the topic discussed here.
You are saying the troops are there to intimidate the russians.

I am saying, the US is using the instability in the region to station troops there to intimidate the fringe moslem governments in general and military preparedness, akin to the cold war tactics of supporting less than reputable governments in the name of "fighting communism". Could be construed as "dirty pool", so what?

I am surprised Pat Buchanan made so much sense, as are you. The fact that you agree with PB is no less amazing than me agreeing with PLF, which I did today. :surprise:

NB :)
 

Drosselmeier

Diabloii.Net Member
I´m not saying that at all. What I and Pat are saying is that maybe it´s unwise to start messing around and rattling your sabres in another great powers sphere of influence and interest.

Don´t you think the **** of Chechnya is enough to keep Russias neighbours in line? Once that is wrapped up any further terrorist attacks in Russia could easily be used to rally Russians for an invasion of any nation in the region that misbehaves. Don´t forget that Russians hate swarthy people and islam just as much as the american destiny-manifest crowd does.

Edit: Caps and political correctness.
 
Drosselmeier said:
Edit: Caps and political correctness.
[/color]
Not for me, I hope! :lol:

Fear of invasion has been prevelent in the russian mindset for centuries. A lot of less than nice things have been done in the name of protecting the Motherland. The US is taking advantage of the shaky condition of all the governments in the former Soviet Union, by stationing troops throughout the region. Killing two birds with one stone, is my point. A win/win situation strategically speaking. Doesn't hurt the russians either, as they can't afford a lot of military action on thier southern border.

Pat Buchanan should stick to what he does best and stay out of political races. I have always liked his reporting skills.

NB :drink:
 

Drosselmeier

Diabloii.Net Member
Nastie_Bowie said:
Not for me, I hope! :lol:

Fear of invasion has been prevelent in the russian mindset for centuries. A lot of less than nice things have been done in the name of protecting the Motherland. The US is taking advantage of the shaky condition of all the governments in the former Soviet Union, by stationing troops throughout the region. Killing two birds with one stone, is my point. A win/win situation strategically speaking. Doesn't hurt the russians either, as they can't afford a lot of military action on thier southern border.

Pat Buchanan should stick to what he does best and stay out of political races. I have always liked his reporting skills.

NB :drink:
Hehe... nah. I changed a word into "swarthy people".

So you think the Russians will be grateful for the US annexing what used to be parts of the motherland?

What I think you and the other Bushbots on this forum overlook when talking about foreign relations is that there are nationalists in other countries as well... that and the fact that not everyone is convinced the US is "good" and that the "crusade" against "evil" should be left in its hands. I, for one, am not convinced this is being done in Russias best interest.

The point of the article was pretty much that no country appreciates having foreign military skulking around its borders. This is very true of Russia, and the situation is made even more serious by the fact that these countries used to be united with Russia.

Provocation.


 

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
Pat Buchanan has long been against the Bush adminstration's foreign policy agenda. He is dead set against the pre-emptive strike method first advocated by Wolfowitz et. al. and believes in the more traditional containment policy of America's adversaries.

What you are seeing here is all part of the grand Neocon plan. A policy of American military hegemony over the world, It is their vision ... their Project for the New American Century.

I have posted their ideas and concepts many times on this board.
 
Drosselmeier said:
This is very true of Russia, and the situation is made even more serious by the fact that these countries used to be united with Russia.

Provocation.


Only because of Stalin's iron fist. Postwar spoils etc.

Bushbot? Hmm ... :scratch:

Ilad, haven't the fundamentalist moslem factions declared war on the US? I believe "jihad" means holy war, more bloodshed in the name of God. The US has declared war on the "terrorists". In a war you strive for strategic superiority over your enemies. At least that is how I play Stratego. Same concept.

NB :)
 

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
Nastie_Bowie said:
Ilad, haven't the fundamentalist moslem factions declared war on the US? I believe "jihad" means holy war, more bloodshed in the name of God. The US has declared war on the "terrorists". In a war you strive for strategic superiority over your enemies. At least that is how I play Stratego. Same concept.

NB :)
The Neocon movement was started long before the attack on Sept. 11th. 2001. That terrorist attack only served as a catalyst and excuse to implement their plan.

Bush's pre-emptive attack on Iraq had little to do with the "War on Terrorism". You know as well as I that there never has been any known ties of Saddam's regime to Al Queda's attack on the twin towers in NYC. This needless war only served to divert our attention and manpower from finding the mastermind of 9/11 ... Al Queda's leader ---> Osama Bin Laden.

Then what is their plan?

With the fall of the Soviet Union, America became the premiere superpower of the world. The aim of the Neconservative movement is to keep that power and control by any means possible ... up to and including the invasion and conquering of other sovereign nations. Their aim: to set up more and more military bases not only in the Middle East, but wherever they think is necessary. They are implementing these plans by using fear and propanganda. They have dramatically increased military spending while placing the US fiscal policy and budget into a bottomless sea of red ink.

These people are arrogant and ruthless. Their policies are reckless and dangerous. Their plan for the continued American military and economic dominance of the world smacks of nothing more than neo-colonialism, imperialism, and empire.
 

Steve_Kow

Banned
llad12 said:
The Neocon movement was started long before the attack on Sept. 11th. 2001. That terrorist attack only served as a catalyst and excuse to implement their plan.
That sounds like a line from a bad movie.
 

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
Steve_Kow said:
That sounds like a line from a bad movie.
I agree wholeheartedly. It's certainly past time to get a new director to run this play ... and our nation's foreign policy. :p
 

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
Nastie_Bowie said:
Ilad's whole post sounds like a sub-plot of Dr. Strangelove.

Do you hear voices, Ilad?

NB :)
If you don't like what I say, try arguing your point rather than just making childish insults.
 

Drosselmeier

Diabloii.Net Member
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

I don´t understand why you rightwingers refuse to take this seriously. When people complain about PNAC policy it´s in no way a critsicm of YOUR policy. The PNAC agenda is not in your interest either. The only people who will without a doubt stand to gain from this are the corporate criminals and demagouges in charge.
 
Top