Who Restarted the Cold War?

[December]

Who Restarted the Cold War?

"Putin's Hostile Course," the lead editorial in The Washington Times of October18, began thus:

"Russian President Vladimir Putin's invitation to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit Moscow is just the latest sign that, more than 16 years after the collapse of Soviet communism, Moscow is gravitating toward Cold War behavior. The old Soviet obsession—fighting American imperialism—remains undiluted. ...

"(A)t virtually every turn, Mr. Putin and the Russian leadership appear to be doing their best in ways large and small to marginalize and embarrass the United States and undercut U.S. foreign policy interests."

The Times pointed to Putin's snub of Robert Gates and Condi Rice by having them cool their heels for 40 minutes before a meeting. Then came a press briefing where Putin implied Russia may renounce the Reagan-Gorbachev INF treaty, which removed all U.S. and Soviet medium-range missiles from Europe, and threatened to pull out of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, whereby Russia moved its tanks and troops far from the borders of Eastern Europe.

On and on the Times indictment went. Russia was blocking new sanctions on Iran. Russia was selling anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. Russia was selling weapons to Syria that found their way to Hezbollah and Hamas. Russia and Iran were talking up an OPEC-style natural gas cartel. All this, said the Times, calls to mind "Soviet-era behavior."

Missing from the prosecution's case, however, was the motive. Why has Putin's Russia turned hostile? Why is Putin mending fences with China, Iran and Syria? Why is Putin sending Bear bombers to the edge of American airspace? Why has Russia turned against America? For Putin's approval rating is three times that of George Bush. Who restarted the Cold War?

To answer that question, let us go back those 16 years.

What happened in 1991 and 1992?

Well, Russia let the Berlin Wall be torn down and its satellite states be voted or thrown out of power across Eastern Europe. Russia agreed to pull the Red Army all the way back inside its border. Russia agreed to let the Soviet Union dissolve into 15 nations. The Communist Party agreed to share power and let itself be voted out. Russia embraced freedom and American-style capitalism, and invited Americans in to show them how it was done.

Russia did not use its veto in the Security Council to block the U.S. war to drive Saddam Hussein, an ally, out of Kuwait. When 9-11 struck, Putin gave his blessing to U.S. troops using former republics as bases for the U.S. invasion.

What was Moscow's reward for its pro-America policy?

The United States began moving NATO into Eastern Europe and then into former Soviet republics. Six ex-Warsaw Pact nations are now NATO allies, as are three ex-republics of the Soviet Union. NATO expansionists have not given up on bringing Ukraine, united to Russia for centuries, or Georgia, Stalin's birthplace, into NATO.

In 1999, the United States bombed Serbia, which has long looked to Mother Russia for protection, for 78 days, though the Serbs' sole crime was to fight to hold their cradle province of Kosovo, as President Lincoln fought to hold onto the American South. Now America is supporting the severing of Kosovo from Serbia and creation of a new Islamic state in the Balkans, over Moscow's protest.

While Moscow removed its military bases from Cuba and all over the Third World, we have sought permanent military bases in Russia's backyard of Central Asia.

We dissolved the Nixon-Brezhnev ABM treaty and announced we would put a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Under presidents Clinton and Bush, the United States financed a pipeline for Caspian Sea oil to transit Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Black Sea and Turkey, cutting Russia out of the action.

With the end of the Cold War, the KGB was abolished and the Comintern disappeared. But the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House and other Cold War agencies, funded with tens of millions in tax-exempt and tax dollars, engineered the ouster of pro-Russian regimes in Serbia, Ukraine and Georgia, and sought the ouster of the regime in Minsk.

At the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, historic or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred.

We blew it.

We moved NATO onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with our "indispensable-nation" arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France treated Weimar Germany after Versailles.

Who restarted the Cold War? Bush and the braying hegemonists he brought with him to power. Great empires and tiny minds go ill together.

Source - http://www.vdare.com/asp/printPage.asp?url=http://vdare.com/buchanan/071018_cold_war.htm

[December]

NATO expansion relapse into Cold War - FM Lavrov

http://english.pravda.ru/img/idb/lavrov36.jpg

- Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Thursday that NATO's further expansion eastward was reminiscent of the Cold War standoff between the Soviet Union and the West.

"We do not think NATO's expansion is necessary, and believe the policy is a relapse into the Cold War," Lavrov told a news conference following talks with his Finnish counterpart.

Lavrov said Europe should instead join efforts in countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and other threats facing all the continent's nations.

Three ex-Soviet Baltic republics and seven former Communist-bloc states in Eastern Europe have joined NATO since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Former Soviet allies Ukraine and Georgia have also declared plans to join the 26-member alliance.

Russia has repeatedly expressed concern about the emergence of new NATO bases close to its borders and the bloc's reluctance to ratify an updated Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty, which has regulated the deployment of troops and weapons on the continent since the Cold War.

Moscow has dismissed NATO's arguments that it must first withdraw troops from Moldova and Georgia, and has imposed a moratorium on the implementation of the old CFE treaty.

Lavrov said Moscow welcomed cooperation with the bloc within existing formats.

"There are various formats of cooperation between NATO and Russia, or Ukraine or other countries. There are no obstacles to joint work in the future," the minister said.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/07/mil-070705-rianovosti01.htm

[December]

US, Russia 'inching towards Cold War'

Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:47:48

The United States and its rival Russia are inching toward a new Cold War in 2008, a new opinion poll conducted by Press TV indicates.
According to the online poll, some 62 percent of respondents believed that the two countries are on the verge of a new Cold War in 2008.
Some 7550 people participated in the opinion poll which was conducted from December 21, 2007 to January 13, 2008.

A majority of participants are from the United States.

Relations between the US and Russia have been strained amid growing tension between the two rivals. A US plan to station a missile shield system in Eastern Europe has recently triggered a diplomatic row between Moscow and Washington.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=38616&sectionid=3510203

[K-D-K-D-K]

Putins course of action is no problem for the U.S. We can handle them.

[moses2792796]

America could not win a world war three if it were to occur, they have made too many enemies over the years with their ridiculous foreign policies. The only reason they still have any allies is because other western countries are too gutless to stand up to the so called "greatest nation".

[jafar00]

Putins course of action is no problem for the U.S. We can handle them.


You can handle what exactly?

[December]

Bush speech stokes row with Kremlin

June 5, 2007
Sam Knight and Philippe Naughton

President Bush risked further anger from the Kremlin today when he said that democracy in Russia had suffered under Vladimir Putin's rule.
Just hours before his arrival at the G8 summit in Germany — where proceedings have already been overshadowed by a row over America's plans to install missile interceptors in Eastern Europe — Mr Bush did little to improve the chill in relations between Moscow and the West.

Delivering a prepared speech in the Czech Republic, an erstwhile Soviet satellite that could soon house a US missile tracking facility, Mr Bush listed a number of countries where democracy was partial or where recent freedoms were in danger.

Although he acknowledged that freedom moves "at different speeds in different places", the US President levelled a particular accusation at Mr Putin and Moscow. "In Russia, reforms that once promised to empower citizens have been derailed, with troubling implications for democratic development," he said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1887320.ece

[Truth Detector]

This argument is empty on facts and honesty and full of nonsensical false rhetoric.

Let's take just ONE issue: NATO.

How is NATO a threat to the Russian nation? Has NATO ever attacked anyone? Is NATO's purpose to threaten the Russian people?

The TRUTH is we have a power hungry politician named Putin who does not want to step down or share that power and who is using his own paranoia to promote the notion that America and NATO is somehow a threat to Russians. How so?

The only REAL threat to the Russian people is this lifelong former KGB agent and bureaucrat who think that Imperialism and dictatorial rule is a good thing.

How is it that a Missile DEFENSE system a threat to Russia? Missile defense systems shoot down incoming ballistic missiles. Is Putin threatened by the notion that he cannot freely hurl offensive missiles into neighboring nations?

Let's not forget the occupation of the Baltic states by Russia; the occupation and closing of East Germany and East Berlin; the pact with Hitler in WWII and subsequent invasion of Finland by Russia.

Let's not forget that it was the Soviet expansion into the Middle East that started a mini arms race in the region and allowed fascist dictators like Assad of Syria, Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Abdul Nasser and al-Saddat of Egypt to threaten peace in the region and attack Israel.

Once more we see an effort to misinform and re-write the history books to promote a Leftist/Socialist agenda that impugns Bush and the American people while defending Fascism and autocracy.

Nice try, but no buy; Bravo!

[December]

This argument is empty on facts and honesty and full of nonsensical false rhetoric.


Did you read the first article? It seems like you did not.[hr]
Has NATO ever attacked anyone?


Yes.

[December]

Actually we need to ask a question - what exactly do people mean when they suggest that a NEW Cold War is on a horizon?

In reality there is no and could not be some sort of neo-Cold War (which was about ideas - Communism vs Capitalism) but a competition between two capitalit countries.

If this is what these days is to be new Cold War than you can say that there is a Cold War between USA and Japan. The only reason some people talk about new Cold War is because American establishment believed that after the reforms that took place in the USSR (Perestroika) Russia will become an American colony.

Yes, during 1990s Russia was looted by American (and other Western) "businessmen" but it did not turn into India.

And this is what makes Wall Street and City of London bankers angry. However, all they can do is blackmail Russia and purposely confuse the Western public with their propaganda rethorics about new Cold War.

[Athena]

Is there any question that both the US and Russia are competing for control of the same region? That is the main reason the US got so involved with Isreal. It is why the US supported Bin Ladin when he was fighting the Russians. What gives the US the right to control shipping lanes around Iran? The US keeps war ships in the Persian Gulf and that is not national defense. It is about protecting shipping lanes and US economic interest on foriegn soil.

Does anyone remember what happened when the USSR put missles in Cuba? The US had invaded Cuba and deserved protection, and when the USSR went about giving Cuba protection, the US was intollerant of the USSR being involved, so why Russia tolerate the US the Russian side of the globe?

In short the cold war papaganda should be ignored. It was unfunded the first time, and the US doesn't have the right to control the region is it is controlling.

[Truth Detector]

This argument is empty on facts and honesty and full of nonsensical false rhetoric.


Did you read the first article? It seems like you did not.[hr

Yes I did read the article and it is full of pap and denial about why the Soviet Union pulled back. The notion that they did it for noble reasons is laughable in a historic context and denial at it's worst.

The Soviet Union pulled back because it could no longer sustain its campaign to control its satellite states that were under their brutal control. It was the reality that they could no longer commit their resources to a wasteful arms race while their nation’s population was starving.

The suggestion that it was somehow "noble" is absurd in the extreme.

It is almost as equally absurd to suggest that France is also an "ally".


Has NATO ever attacked anyone?


Yes.


I see you choose to select the questions to answer to avoid an honest debate and then do not support your contentions with credible facts. Let me ask it again until you can provide an answer;

Let's take just ONE issue: NATO.

How is NATO a threat to the Russian nation? Has NATO ever attacked anyone? Is NATO's purpose to threaten the Russian people?[hr]What gives the US the right to control shipping lanes around Iran? The US keeps war ships in the Persian Gulf and that is not national defense. It is about protecting shipping lanes and US economic interest on foriegn soil.



How absurd that you think that US ships are an attempt to control the shipping lanes around Iran. I guess when one has a political agenda to defend; one is required to distort the facts.

The US has ships there to prevent the control of these shipping lanes by those in Iran attempting to control them and prevent other nation’s free trade and shipping.

I know this is a great big "DUH" for some here, but if not for the nations who want to PREVENT shipping, we would not have to be there ensuring that other nations shipping is not interfered with.

Is it in our interests? Of course it is. It is in the economic interests of ourselves and our trading partners to ensure that despot regimes do not gain control of the strategic resources or the FREE movement of same that are such an important part of the GLOBAL economy.

I am surprised that the OBVIOUS can be so elusive to some.

I guess you forget as well the UN sanctions on Iran and that our ships, as well as other nations, are there to ensure that those economic sanctions are complied with. I guess in your world you would just TRUST rather than verify.

Does anyone remember what happened when the USSR put missles in Cuba? The US had invaded Cuba and deserved protection, and when the USSR went about giving Cuba protection, the US was intollerant of the USSR being involved, so why Russia tolerate the US the Russian side of the globe?

It's obvious you have no memory of ACTUAL events based on these comments.

What version of history did you study; The Fidel Castro university of lies and distortions? The US, at ANY time could have easily invaded Cuba and taken it over in a day. Why we never did is a testimony to the weak knee'd politics of the Democrat leadership at the time.

The notion that a CIA supported contingent of 3,000 poorly armed and poorly trained Cuban Nationals to re-invade the nation of Cuba would have any success and be considered a US invasion is truly a study in denial.

Does it occur to you that by placing Soviet strategic missiles in Cuba it was a direct threat to USA security and could be tantamount to an act of war? How do you think the soviets would react if we had placed strategic nuclear weapons in Turkey, or Finland?

How do they react today when we discuss placing DEFENSIVE missile systems in former soviet block countries?

Your version of history is about as credible as your knowledge of the nuclear threat Russia’s SECRET arming of Cuba posed to the USA. If anything, JFK's late and weak response which nearly predicated WWIII was half assed and an example of extreme poor judgment and naiveté'.

It should have resulted in the immediate invasion of Cuba with US military forces and a removal of a regime obviously being used by Communist Russia to threaten our security.

The Cubans would have been better off, and so would the current political situation in the region.

Here’s a reality check for you; it is typically NOT a good thing for people to be under the control of dictators. It is typically NOT a good thing for nations wanting our destruction to control Middle East oil or placing ballistic missiles within 30 minutes striking distance of our shores. I is typically NOT a good thing for our trading partners to have their shipping lanes and economies threatened by despotic regimes.

It is typically NOT a good thing to suggest that America is a bad influence in a region where Dictators and Communist regimes wish to exert their influence through force.

But I guess when you have a partisan axe to grind about American foreign policy; denial; distortions and re-writing history to fit their narrow views of the world are all one has.

In short the cold war papaganda should be ignored. It was unfunded the first time, and the US doesn't have the right to control the region is it is controlling.


"Unfunded" at the time?

How delightful it must be to live in a world of denial.

The US has a right to be involved in the region if other nations are attempting to control it to further their interests, and those interests are against the free will of those nations and free trade with other nations whom those nations choose to trade with.

The Middle East is littered with the history of European and Soviet meddling in their affairs. It was the European oil companies of Dutch Shell and British Petroleum who exploited the regions vast resources.

WWII saw the attempt by fascist and allied regimes trying to protect their empires and defend their hold on the regions local tribes.

The creation of the State of Israel was not the making of the USA. It was the League of Nations/UN that created it and then sat on its hands when Arab legions attempted to destroy the very State it had created and carved out of the wasteland of the former British Protectorate in what was known as the Palestine Territories. The US was brought into the picture as a NUETRAL party to assist in the peaceful negotiations between to disparate parties.

The notion that we have no RIGHT to be involved without disparaging the constant invasions and exploitations of France, Germany, Britain, Turkey and Russia makes your arguments irrelevant.

The notion that the USA is a BAD influence in the region defies the REALITIES of the Middle East.

I suggest you do a little more historical research on this region from CREDIBLE sources rather than sound off the political pap of Osama Bin Laden and Ahmandinejad.

[justaguy]

Does anyone remember what happened when the USSR put missles in Cuba? The US had invaded Cuba and deserved protection, and when the USSR went about giving Cuba protection, the US was intollerant of the USSR being involved, so why Russia tolerate the US the Russian side of the globe?

[font=Tahoma][size=medium][color=#008000]It's obvious you have no memory of ACTUAL events based on these comments.

What version of history did you study; The Fidel Castro university of lies and distortions? The US, at ANY time could have easily invaded Cuba and taken it over in a day. Why we never did is a testimony to the weak knee'd politics of the Democrat leadership at the time.

The notion that a CIA supported contingent of 3,000 poorly armed and poorly trained Cuban Nationals to re-invade the nation of Cuba would have any success and be considered a US invasion is truly a study in denial.

Does it occur to you that by placing Soviet strategic missiles in Cuba it was a direct threat to USA security and could be tantamount to an act of war? How do you think the soviets would react if we had placed strategic nuclear weapons in Turkey, or Finland?




Umm, excuse me? It is a matter of record that we did have IRBM's in Turkey at the time. This is easily verifiable and looked up. From just the first source found on the web,

"In 1961, the U.S. deployed 15 Jupiter IRBMs (intermediate-range ballistic missiles) at İzmir, Turkey, aimed at the western USSR's cities, including Moscow. Given its 1,500-mile (2,410 km) range, Moscow was only 16 minutes away. Yet, Kennedy gave them low strategic value, given that a SSBN submarine provided the same magnitude of threat, and from a distance.

Khrushchev publicly expressed anger and personal offense from the Turkish missile emplacement. The Cuban missile deployment — the first time Soviet missiles were outside the USSR — was his response to U.S. nuclear missiles in Turkey. Previously, Khrushchev had expressed doubt to the poet Robert Frost about the readiness of the "liberal" U.S. to fight over tough issues.[10]"

and,
"After much deliberation between the Soviet Union and Kennedy's cabinet, Kennedy agreed to remove all missiles set in Turkey on the border of the Soviet Union in exchange for Khrushchev removing all missiles in Cuba."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

[Truth Detector]

Does anyone remember what happened when the USSR put missles in Cuba? The US had invaded Cuba and deserved protection, and when the USSR went about giving Cuba protection, the US was intollerant of the USSR being involved, so why Russia tolerate the US the Russian side of the globe?

[size=medium][color=#008000]It's obvious you have no memory of ACTUAL events based on these comments.

What version of history did you study; The Fidel Castro university of lies and distortions? The US, at ANY time could have easily invaded Cuba and taken it over in a day. Why we never did is a testimony to the weak knee'd politics of the Democrat leadership at the time.

The notion that a CIA supported contingent of 3,000 poorly armed and poorly trained Cuban Nationals to re-invade the nation of Cuba would have any success and be considered a US invasion is truly a study in denial.

Does it occur to you that by placing Soviet strategic missiles in Cuba it was a direct threat to USA security and could be tantamount to an act of war? How do you think the soviets would react if we had placed strategic nuclear weapons in Turkey, or Finland?




Umm, excuse me? It is a matter of record that we did have IRBM's in Turkey at the time. This is easily verifiable and looked up. From just the first source found on the web,

"In 1961, the U.S. deployed 15 Jupiter IRBMs (intermediate-range ballistic missiles) at İzmir, Turkey, aimed at the western USSR's cities, including Moscow. Given its 1,500-mile (2,410 km) range, Moscow was only 16 minutes away. Yet, Kennedy gave them low strategic value, given that a SSBN submarine provided the same magnitude of threat, and from a distance.

Khrushchev publicly expressed anger and personal offense from the Turkish missile emplacement. The Cuban missile deployment — the first time Soviet missiles were outside the USSR — was his response to U.S. nuclear missiles in Turkey. Previously, Khrushchev had expressed doubt to the poet Robert Frost about the readiness of the "liberal" U.S. to fight over tough issues.[10]"

and,
"After much deliberation between the Soviet Union and Kennedy's cabinet, Kennedy agreed to remove all missiles set in Turkey on the border of the Soviet Union in exchange for Khrushchev removing all missiles in Cuba."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis


[font=Tahoma]Again, your distorted versions of history notwithstanding, these 15 Jupiter missiles were of little strategic value. They were not part of the "deal" struck by Kennedy in the Cuban crises and the spineless and inexperienced Kennedy Administration lost an opportunity to end the threat and Castro's rule by NOT invading.

These missiles were NOT part of the "deal" struck by Kennedy and were dismantled after the fact by a Kennedy Administration that was cowed rather than confronting the Soviets with strength.

Here's a history for you to become "informed:" http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDcubanmissile.htm

This is the option an experienced and strong President would and should have made:

"Invasion. Send United States troops to Cuba to overthrow Castro's government. The missiles could then be put out of action and the Soviet Union could no longer use Cuba as a military base."


Now back to the rest of your commentary; it is factually inacurate and lacking any credibility.

[justaguy]

Does anyone remember what happened when the USSR put missles in Cuba? The US had invaded Cuba and deserved protection, and when the USSR went about giving Cuba protection, the US was intollerant of the USSR being involved, so why Russia tolerate the US the Russian side of the globe?

[size=medium][color=#008000]It's obvious you have no memory of ACTUAL events based on these comments.

What version of history did you study; The Fidel Castro university of lies and distortions? The US, at ANY time could have easily invaded Cuba and taken it over in a day. Why we never did is a testimony to the weak knee'd politics of the Democrat leadership at the time.

The notion that a CIA supported contingent of 3,000 poorly armed and poorly trained Cuban Nationals to re-invade the nation of Cuba would have any success and be considered a US invasion is truly a study in denial.

Does it occur to you that by placing Soviet strategic missiles in Cuba it was a direct threat to USA security and could be tantamount to an act of war? How do you think the soviets would react if we had placed strategic nuclear weapons in Turkey, or Finland?




Umm, excuse me? It is a matter of record that we did have IRBM's in Turkey at the time. This is easily verifiable and looked up. From just the first source found on the web,

"In 1961, the U.S. deployed 15 Jupiter IRBMs (intermediate-range ballistic missiles) at İzmir, Turkey, aimed at the western USSR's cities, including Moscow. Given its 1,500-mile (2,410 km) range, Moscow was only 16 minutes away. Yet, Kennedy gave them low strategic value, given that a SSBN submarine provided the same magnitude of threat, and from a distance.

Khrushchev publicly expressed anger and personal offense from the Turkish missile emplacement. The Cuban missile deployment — the first time Soviet missiles were outside the USSR — was his response to U.S. nuclear missiles in Turkey. Previously, Khrushchev had expressed doubt to the poet Robert Frost about the readiness of the "liberal" U.S. to fight over tough issues.[10]"

and,
"After much deliberation between the Soviet Union and Kennedy's cabinet, Kennedy agreed to remove all missiles set in Turkey on the border of the Soviet Union in exchange for Khrushchev removing all missiles in Cuba."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis


[font=Tahoma]Again, your distorted versions of history notwithstanding, these 15 Jupiter missiles were of little strategic value. They were not part of the "deal" struck by Kennedy in the Cuban crises and the spineless and inexperienced Kennedy Administration lost an opportunity to end the threat and Castro's rule by NOT invading.

These missiles were NOT part of the "deal" struck by Kennedy and were dismantled after the fact by a Kennedy Administration that was cowed rather than confronting the Soviets with strength.
[quote]

Bull-fucking-shit. It doesn't matter that they were of little strategic importance, it matters that Khrushchev took particular offense to IRBM's in Turkey, and was a direct factor in deciding to place missles in Cuba.
Go argue with the references, including the declassified minutes of the Kennedy administartion and the Library of Congress. You will be labled as a historical revisionist.

[quote]
Here's a history for you to become "informed:" http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDcubanmissile.htm

This is the option an experienced and strong President would and should have made:

"Invasion. Send United States troops to Cuba to overthrow Castro's government. The missiles could then be put out of action and the Soviet Union could no longer use Cuba as a military base."


Now back to the rest of your commentary; it is factually inacurate and lacking any credibility.


Damn good thing you were not CIC and never will be then.
Again, argue with the references, of which there are numerous and part of the archives of the Library of Congress. In other words, Bull shit to your revisionist crap.
And here are more references for you to become more informed.
Doubt that it will help though.
http://library.thinkquest.org/11046/people/khrushchev.html
http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=Khrushchev_Placement_of__Missiles_in_C uba

http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/volume_vi/exchanges.html
From Khrushchev's letter to Kennedy,
"You are disturbed over Cuba. You say that this disturbs you because it is 90 miles by sea from the coast of the United States of America. But Turkey adjoins us; our sentries patrol back and forth and see each other. Do you consider, then, that you have the right to demand security for your own country and the removal of the weapons you call offensive, but do not accord the same right to us? You have placed destructive missile weapons, which you call offensive, in Turkey, literally next to us. How then can recognition of our equal military capacities be reconciled with such unequal relations between our great states? This is irreconcilable."

Kennedy's reply,
"1) You would agree to remove these weapons systems from Cuba under appropriate United Nations observation and supervision; and undertake, with suitable safeguards, to halt the further introduction of such weapons systems into Cuba.

2) We, on our part, would agree--upon the establishment of adequate arrangements through the United Nations to ensure the carrying out and continuation of these commitments--(a) to remove promptly the quarantine measures now in effect and (b) to give assurances against an invasion of Cuba. I am confident that other nations of the Western Hemisphere would be prepared to do likewise.

If you will give your representative similar instructions, there is no reason why we should not be able to complete these arrangements and announce them to the world within a couple of days. The effect of such a settlement on easing world tensions would enable us to work toward a more general arrangement regarding 'other armaments', as proposed in your second letter which you made public./2/ I would like to say again that the United States is very much interested in reducing tensions and halting the arms race; and if your letter signifies that you are prepared to discuss a detente affecting NATO and the Warsaw Pact, we are quite prepared to consider with our allies any useful proposals. "

[Athena]

Well, I see I face a lot of disagreement.

I am not clear on why it is okay for the US to have bases around the world, and not Russia?

Regardless of how the USSR would react to the US having missiles close to the USSR, what gives any nation the right to have military forces in other countries? This right giving power, must be above all nations, and must be unbiased. What is it?

I do not know what you think gives the US the right to have ships in the Persian Gulf and around Iran. So what if Iran controls the shipping lane. Why is that the business of the US?

[Truth Detector]

Well, I see I face a lot of disagreement.

I am not clear on why it is okay for the US to have bases around the world, and not Russia?


Perhaps a study of history would help you understand the "whys" of US bases.

Europe; we are there because after securing Europe from the Nazi regime, along with our allies, we began a policy of establishing bases there as a BUFFER against Communist Russia's aggressive expansion.

We were there at the invite of the nations that we had the bases in.

Japan; we are there because after securing Japan from the Imperialist Military regime, along with our allies, we began a policy of establishing bases there in an effort to secure Democracy there and peace. In addition, there was a lot of Communist expansionism in the region which was a threat to our allies.

We were there at the invite of the nations that we had the bases in.

In the Middle East, we only have bases where we are the invited guests of those nations. They see us as protecting their interests from Communists, despots, dictators and Islamic Fascists.

The former Soviet Union was not a welcomed guest in many cases and pursued an aggressive role in overturning Governments and securing dictators who supported the Communist dictators in Russia.

It is telling that you can't see the difference between Communist Soviet Russian aggression and America's attempt to stop those efforts, but this could be due to your young age I am guessing, and the fact that our educational systems fail to educate these days.

Regardless of how the USSR would react to the US having missiles close to the USSR, what gives any nation the right to have military forces in other countries?

It's not about giving a nation the "right" to have military forces in their countries; it's about those nations wanting protection from those Communist Dictators who want to bring their nations down through aggressive military means.

Again, one can only have this point of view if one is historically challenged or politically naive.

The Unite States does not maintain any bases where they are not the invited guests of the nations they maintain them in. I am sure that in today’s world, if a country wants the Russians to establish military bases in their countries, they would do it. However, the Russians have a poor record of promoting Democracy and over throwing legitimate regimes.


I do not know what you think gives the US the right to have ships in the Persian Gulf and around Iran. So what if Iran controls the shipping lane. Why is that the business of the US?


The nations surrounding the Straight of Hormuz and the United Nations would beg to differ on this issue and your views on this are naive at best.

You have to be the ONLY one, besides Ahmandinijad, who believes that allowing Iran to control Middle East shipping lanes is a "good" idea.

May I ask your age?

In order to have these kinds of views, one has to believe that Freely elected Governance and Democracy is not a good ideal and the Communist regimes or okay regardless of the lack of human rights, citizens freedoms and their documented abuses of their citizens.

Do you understand WHY these Communist regimes do not allow their citizens the freedom to come and go, or get news from outside their controlled sources?

[Athena]

Does anyone remember what happened when the USSR put missles in Cuba? The US had invaded Cuba and deserved protection, and when the USSR went about giving Cuba protection, the US was intollerant of the USSR being involved, so why Russia tolerate the US the Russian side of the globe?

[font=Tahoma][size=medium][color=#008000]It's obvious you have no memory of ACTUAL events based on these comments.

What version of history did you study; The Fidel Castro university of lies and distortions? The US, at ANY time could have easily invaded Cuba and taken it over in a day. Why we never did is a testimony to the weak knee'd politics of the Democrat leadership at the time.

The notion that a CIA supported contingent of 3,000 poorly armed and poorly trained Cuban Nationals to re-invade the nation of Cuba would have any success and be considered a US invasion is truly a study in denial.

Does it occur to you that by placing Soviet strategic missiles in Cuba it was a direct threat to USA security and could be tantamount to an act of war? How do you think the soviets would react if we had placed strategic nuclear weapons in Turkey, or Finland?




Umm, excuse me? It is a matter of record that we did have IRBM's in Turkey at the time. This is easily verifiable and looked up. From just the first source found on the web,

"In 1961, the U.S. deployed 15 Jupiter IRBMs (intermediate-range ballistic missiles) at İzmir, Turkey, aimed at the western USSR's cities, including Moscow. Given its 1,500-mile (2,410 km) range, Moscow was only 16 minutes away. Yet, Kennedy gave them low strategic value, given that a SSBN submarine provided the same magnitude of threat, and from a distance.

Khrushchev publicly expressed anger and personal offense from the Turkish missile emplacement. The Cuban missile deployment — the first time Soviet missiles were outside the USSR — was his response to U.S. nuclear missiles in Turkey. Previously, Khrushchev had expressed doubt to the poet Robert Frost about the readiness of the "liberal" U.S. to fight over tough issues.[10]"

and,
"After much deliberation between the Soviet Union and Kennedy's cabinet, Kennedy agreed to remove all missiles set in Turkey on the border of the Soviet Union in exchange for Khrushchev removing all missiles in Cuba."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis



Thank you for that information. That makes the USSR putting missiles in Cuba completely justifiable!!! You contributed a lot to me understanding of things. Thank you. I was rather young at the time and not understanding of politics, just that the US felt very threatened by the USSR. More and more I am realizing the US is the intruder and I don't think this is morally right. Again, thank you for the information.

Truth detector, I find your reply as biased and offensive. I do not like this forum's practice of insisting answers to everything said in thread be done in one reply, because these every long replies, including everyone's arguements, are overwhelming and confusing to me, so I will say no more about your argument at this time. I might return to your arguement after someone else post here, so my reply to your arguement is separate from my reply to good information about the US having missiles in Turkey. Why did Turkey invite the US to be such a threat to the USSR and should the US have taken this invitation? Fortunately, Kennedy de escalated the situation, instead of escalating it.

[Truth Detector]

Thank you for that information. That makes the USSR putting missiles in Cuba completely justifiable!!! You contributed a lot to me understanding of things. Thank you. I was rather young at the time and not understanding of politics, just that the US felt very threatened by the USSR. More and more I am realizing the US is the intruder and I don't think this is morally right. Again, thank you for the information.


I suggest that you study the politics of the cold war. Then perhaps you will grasp the idea that it was the Communist Soviet Union attempting to force it's dominance in Europe and the Middle East that was the threat feared by European nations including Turkey who was a NATO ally by 1952 as a direct result of the threat posed by the USSR.

It would also behoove you to read about Russia's dominance of East Germany and the building of the Berlin Wall. A wall not intended to keep the West out, but intended to keep it's citizens in the Communist bloc.

You should ask yourself the question; why did the Communists have to fence their citizens in? The answer is readily apparent as to why, and the notion that the US was the intruder is historically wrong to say the least.

Truth detector, I find your reply as biased and offensive. I do not like this forum's practice of insisting answers to everything said in thread be done in one reply, because these every long replies, including everyone's arguements, are overwhelming and confusing to me, so I will say no more about your argument at this time. I might return to your arguement after someone else post here, so my reply to your arguement is separate from my reply to good information about the US having missiles in Turkey. Why did Turkey invite the US to be such a threat to the USSR and should the US have taken this invitation? Fortunately, Kennedy de escalated the situation, instead of escalating it.


Let me put the historic REALITIES in perspective for you so that you can be INFORMED.

Russia's land mass is 8,649,500 square miles. Their military dwarfs Turkey's and they had an arsenal of about 39,000 nuclear weapons of which 5,000 were strategic nuclear warheads and 3,400 inactive reserves.

Turkey has a land mass of 300,948 square miles and joined NATO in 1952. The idea that stationing a mere 15 nearly obsolete Jupiter missiles with a single 1.45 megaton warhead and range of 1,500 miles at the invitation of the Turkish Parliament could be considered an offensive threat to the USSR is beyond absurd.

The bluster from Khrushchev was just that, mere bluster. The notion that this would justify the stationing of more modern intercontinental ballistic missiles in Cuba is equally absurd in the extreme.

The United States, had it wanted to, could have easily invaded Cuba at any time and taken it over in a matter of days, not weeks. Cuba was neither a threat to our security, nor were we a threat to Cuba’s. The United States had obviously taken the political position of non-direct intervention. The notion that the US was a threat to Cuba and therefore a justification for Soviet Ballistic missiles is again, absurd.

Had Cuba stationed Soviet ballistic missiles on their land, the retaliation from US based missiles would have been overwhelming.

The Cuban Missile crises was the result of a naive and inexperienced Kennedy administration and a bloviating blustery Nikita Khrushchev who believed that the best way to keep the West off balance was to assume the role of a madman to scare them into giving in. It worked.

A more experienced leader would have seen the Soviet bluster for what it was and perhaps used the event as a convenient excuse to invade Cuba and free it from a dictator who would eventually drag the living standards of it's people down to the level of a Third World African nation.

The crises would have ended and the Soviet bluster exposed for what it was; bluster.

Now if you had any knowledge of history, you would know that the USA stood between the Communist Soviet Union and it's desire to spread Communism throughout Europe and the Middle East by promoting despots who would become satellite governments to Communist Russia. The USSR did this by arming their satelites and providing money, food and fuel. We call this a bribe.

The United States, thanks to ideas like the Marshal plan, helped to establish Democracies throughout the conquered nations after WWII and promote peaceful global coexistence and economic prosperity. I invite you to compare those nations who were under US allied control and those who were under Soviet control.

The USSR attempted to aggressively expand their empire by arming despots who controlled the militaries of these respective countries and holding dictatorial control over them by fencing in their citizens and controlling the news their citizens received.

It is absurd in the extreme to suggest that the US was the aggressor. I guess we have our educational systems to thank for such uninformed positions and historical ignorance.

[Athena]

Truth Detector, thank you for the lesson in good manners. I was so offended I couldn't continue reading your explanation. Heaven knows I tend to be condensending and how much I need to learn how it turns people off and causes them to avoid reading my post.

I remember my folks discussing Veitnam and the decision in my home was, it was bad idea to get involved. Years later, I remember being told if we didn't win in Veitnam, the communist would invade Hawaii and that didn't happen. What did happen is thousands of people died in a foolish war and millions of dollars were spent on a war that should not have happened.

The USSR is not the only country that attempted to extend its borders and influence, so why is this being discussed as though it is an ungivable thing to do? Iran liked the US very much, because the US seemed to be protecting Iran from British imperialism, and then Iran turned against the US. The US supplied and trained Bin Laden when he was fighting the USSR and this has come back to bite US.
You seem to take the position that the US has clean hands, and the only wrongs involved Russians. I see everyone involved in a power grab, not just the communist.

The US was a threat to Cuba. It embargoed everything except medicine and some food, and stopped buying Cuba's exports when Cuba nationalized property held by US citizens. That was very hostile, and why should they know the hostility would stop there? The CIA does terrible things in these countries where the US wants control, and the US has bombed countries such as Panama and did invade Cuba. How was Cuba to predict US action when it was clearly hostile?

The reason people living in the US gave the USSR information for making a nuclear bomb, was concern of the what the US would do with this power if it were not balanced. Personally, I think the concern was justified. No sooner is the USSR unable to balance that power, and the neocons publicly announce their intensions to control the territory rich in oil, and make the first strike in another unjustified war. All industrial economies depend on oil, and he who controls oil, controls the world. Haliburton, and Cheney, understand this. US citizens, supposedly well educated people, do not.

http://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/subject/missile-crisis/preface.htm

August, 1945: In two days, Japan lost over 150,000 civilians to the only atomic bombs ever used on human beings. Brought to its knees by such a massacre, the Japanese people vow to forever be a nuclear free nation, believing they can thus escape from the suffering and extreme devastation wrecked upon them by atomic warfare.

The United States had other plans.

In July of 1954, with their military occupying the entire nation, the United States begins to secretly stockpile atomic bombs on the Japanese island of Okinawa. The weapons are not planned for use against Japanese cities, but instead the Soviet Union, 600 kilometers (less than 400 miles) away. By December, the U.S. spreads its atomic weapons to the Japanese mainland. In February through September of 1956, the U.S. military deploys more nuclear missiles to the Japanese islands of Chichi Jima (The Regulus submarine launched ballastic missiles (SLBM)) and stockpiles more nuclear bombs on Iwo Jima: expecting that in a nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, the island of Okinawa will be a prime nuclear target. The island bases are to serve as an extremely secret location of "recovery and reload" for U.S. nuclear bombers and submarines, in order to carry out further nuclear attacks on the Soviet Union. The Japanese government and people are completely oblivious to nuclear weapons being stored on their soil. ..........

On October 28, 1959, the United States informs Turkey that it will host 15 Jupiter nuclear missiles (IRBMs) aimed at the Soviet Union, scheduled for installation in June of 1961. The missiles are to be armed with 1.45 megaton warheads: 97 times the power of the atomic bomb detonated over Japan.

[Truth Detector]

Truth Detector, thank you for the lesson in good manners. I was so offended I couldn't continue reading your explanation. Heaven knows I tend to be condensending and how much I need to learn how it turns people off and causes them to avoid reading my post.


Debate with someone like you is a total waste of time. You don't care about the FACTS, you admit that you DONT read, and your sources are laghable.

As is typical of a Leftist, you are more concerned with your emotional state and spewing emotional pablum than you are with the FACTS. I am not here to make you FEEL good, I am here to debate the FACTS, something you have shown an extreme propensity to avoid.

Continue to enjoy your blissful ignorance and denial. I have much better things to do than to debate with a Marxist who still believes in a failed philosophy rgardless of the obvious failure of said philosophy and it's extremely pathetic history on human rights.