Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pat Buchanan: Who Started Cold War II?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pat Buchanan: Who Started Cold War II?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20080819/...pbux/op_337089

    Who Started Cold War II?
    Tue Aug 19, 3:00 AM ET

    The American people should be eternally grateful to Old Europe for having spiked the Bush-McCain plan to bring Georgia into NATO.
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Had Georgia been in NATO when Mikheil Saakashvili invaded South Ossetia, we would be eyeball to eyeball with Russia, facing war in the Caucasus, where Moscow's superiority is as great as U.S. superiority in the Caribbean during the Cuban missile crisis.

    If the Russia-Georgia war proves nothing else, it is the insanity of giving erratic hotheads in volatile nations the power to drag the United States into war.

    From Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, U.S. presidents have sought to avoid shooting wars with Russia, even when the Bear was at its most beastly.

    Truman refused to use force to break Stalin's Berlin blockade. Ike refused to intervene when the Butcher of Budapest drowned the Hungarian Revolution in blood. LBJ sat impotent as Leonid Brezhnev's tanks crushed the Prague Spring. Jimmy Carter's response to Brezhnev's invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the Moscow Olympics. When Brezhnev ordered his Warsaw satraps to crush Solidarity and shot down a South Korean airliner killing scores of U.S. citizens, including a congressman, Reagan did — nothing.

    These presidents were not cowards. They simply would not go to war when no vital U.S. interest was at risk to justify a war. Yet, had George W. Bush prevailed and were Georgia in NATO, U.S. Marines could be fighting Russian troops over whose flag should fly over a province of 70,000 South Ossetians who prefer Russians to Georgians.

    The arrogant folly of the architects of U.S. post-Cold War policy is today on display. By bringing three ex-Soviet republics into NATO, we have moved the U.S. red line for war from the Elbe almost to within artillery range of the old Leningrad.

    Should America admit Ukraine into NATO, Yalta, vacation resort of the czars, will be a NATO port and Sevastopol, traditional home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, will become a naval base for the U.S. Sixth Fleet. This is altogether a bridge too far.

    And can we not understand how a Russian patriot like Vladimir Putin would be incensed by this U.S. encirclement after Russia shed its empire and sought our friendship? How would Andy Jackson have reacted to such crowding by the British Empire?

    As of 1991, the oil of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan belonged to Moscow. Can we not understand why Putin would smolder as avaricious Yankees built pipelines to siphon the oil and gas of the Caspian Basin through breakaway Georgia to the West?

    For a dozen years, Putin & Co. watched as U.S. agents helped to dump over regimes in Ukraine and Georgia that were friendly to Moscow.

    If Cold War II is coming, who started it, if not us?

    The swift and decisive action of Putin's army in running the Georgian forces out of South Ossetia in 24 hours after Saakashvili began his barrage and invasion suggests Putin knew exactly what Saakashvili was up to and dropped the hammer on him.

    What did we know? Did we know Georgia was about to walk into Putin's trap? Did we not see the Russians lying in wait north of the border? Did we give Saakashvili a green light?

    Joe Biden ought to be conducting public hearings on who caused this U.S. humiliation.

    The war in Georgia has exposed the dangerous overextension of U.S. power. There is no way America can fight a war with Russia in the Caucasus with our army tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nor should we. Hence, it is demented to be offering, as John McCain and Barack Obama are, NATO membership to Tbilisi.

    The United States must decide whether it wants a partner in a flawed Russia or a second Cold War. For if we want another Cold War, we are, by cutting Russia out of the oil of the Caspian and pushing NATO into her face, going about it exactly the right way.

    Vladimir Putin is no Stalin. He is a nationalist determined, as ruler of a proud and powerful country, to assert his nation's primacy in its own sphere, just as U.S. presidents from James Monroe to Bush have done on our side of the Atlantic.

    A resurgent Russia is no threat to any vital interests of the United States. It is a threat to an American Empire that presumes some God-given right to plant U.S. military power in the backyard or on the front porch of Mother Russia.

    Who rules Abkhazia and South Ossetia is none of our business. And after this madcap adventure of Saakashvili, why not let the people of these provinces decide their own future in plebiscites conducted by the United Nations or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe?

    As for Saakashvili, he's probably toast in Tbilisi after this stunt. Let the neocons find him an endowed chair at the American Enterprise Institute.

    To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

    COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC

  • #2
    It is extremely rare that I agree with Pat Buchanan, but I think that in this case his analysis is spot-on.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by BigPat View Post
      It is extremely rare that I agree with Pat Buchanan, but I think that in this case his analysis is spot-on.
      Hmmm.....I've always agreed with Pat Buchanan.

      Comment


      • #4
        BigPat,

        Let's see if you agree with Pat Buchanan on this article;

        -------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Who Is Randy Scheunemann?
        And None Dare Call It Treason
        By Patrick J. Buchanan
        8-22-8


        Who is Randy Scheunemann?

        He is the principal foreign policy adviser to John McCain and potential successor to Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski as national security adviser to the president of the United States.

        But Randy Scheunemann has another identity, another role.

        He is a dual loyalist, a foreign agent whose assignment is to get America committed to spilling the blood of her sons for client regimes who have made this moral mercenary a rich man.

        From January 2007 to March 2008, the McCain campaign paid Scheunemann $70,000 pocket change compared to the $290,000 his Orion Strategies banked in those same 15 months from the Georgian regime of Mikheil Saakashvili.

        What were Mikheil's marching orders to Tbilisi's man in Washington? Get Georgia a NATO war guarantee. Get America committed to fight Russia, if necessary, on behalf of Georgia.

        Scheunemann came close to succeeding.

        Had he done so, U.S. soldiers and Marines from Idaho and West Virginia would be killing Russians in the Caucasus, and dying to protect Scheunemann's client, who launched this idiotic war the night of Aug. 7. That people like Scheunemann hire themselves out to put American lives on the line for their clients is a classic corruption of American democracy.

        U.S. backing for his campaign to retrieve his lost provinces is what Saakashvili paid Scheunemann to produce. But why should Americans fight Russians to force 70,000 South Ossetians back into the custody of a regime they detest? Why not let the South Ossetians decide their own future in free elections?

        Not only is the folly of the Bush interventionist policy on display in the Caucasus, so, too, is its manifest incoherence.

        Defense Secretary Robert Gates says we have sought for 45 years to stay out of a shooting war with Russia and we are not going to get into one now. President Bush assured us there will be no U.S. military response to the Russian move into Georgia.

        That is a recognition of, and a bowing to, reality namely, that Russia's control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and occupation of a strip of Georgia cannot be a casus belli for the United States. We may deplore it, but it cannot justify war with Russia.

        If that be true, and it transparently is, what are McCain, Barack Obama, Bush, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel doing committing the United States and Germany to bringing Georgia into NATO? For that would commit us to war for a cause we have already conceded, by our paralysis, does not justify a war.

        Not only did Scheunemann's two-man lobbying firm receive $730,000 since 2001 to get Georgia a NATO war guarantee, he was paid by Romania and Latvia to do the same. And he succeeded.

        Latvia, a tiny Baltic republic annexed by Joseph Stalin in June 1940 during his pact with Adolf Hitler, was set free at the end of the Cold War. Yet hundreds of thousands of Russians had been moved into Latvia by Stalin, and as Riga served as a base of the Baltic Sea fleet, many Russian naval officers retired there.

        The children and grandchildren of these Russians are Latvian citizens. They are a cause of constant tension with ethnic Letts and of strife with Moscow, which has assumed the role of protector of Russians left behind in the "near abroad" when the Soviet Union broke apart.

        Thanks to the lobbying of Scheunemann and friends, Latvia has been brought into NATO and given a U.S. war guarantee. If Russia intervenes to halt some nasty ethnic violence in Riga, the United States is committed to come in and drive the Russians out.

        This is the situation in which the interventionists have placed our country: committed to go to war for countries and causes that do not justify war, against a Russia that is re-emerging as a great power only to find NATO squatting on her doorstep.

        Scheunemann's resume as a War Party apparatchik is lengthy. He signed the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) letter to President Clinton urging war on Iraq, four years before 9/11. He signed the PNAC ultimatum to Bush, nine days after 9/11, threatening him with political reprisal if he did not go to war against Iraq. He was executive director of the "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq," a propaganda front for Ahmad Chalabi and his pack of liars who deceived us into war.

        Now Scheunemann is the neocon agent in place in McCain's camp.

        The neocons got their war with Iraq. They are pushing for war on Iran. And they are now baiting the Russian Bear.

        Is this what McCain has on offer? Endless war?

        Why would McCain seek foreign policy counsel from the same discredited crowd that has all but destroyed the presidency of George Bush?

        "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence ... a free people ought to be constantly awake," Washington warned in his Farewell Address. Our Founding Father was warning against the Randy Scheunemanns among us, agents hired by foreign powers to deceive Americans into fighting their wars. And none dare call it treason.

        Copyright Creators Syndicate

        Comment


        • #5
          *sigh*

          Okay just what do you want The United States Empire do do?

          I mean do you love this country? I'm pretty sure we're doing these things to keep russia from becoming a "New Soviet Union" which you know whenever things like Georgia happen I don't see it as a "protection of russian peoples in the near abroad" I see it as a probe of American intent. So we re institute the Monroe doctorine and an isolationist policy... then what? We do have american interest abroad, and having a state in that area as an ally would be great if it were a poweful ally. Though if you don't stop russian it eventually will eat up all the little countries around if we decide to do nothing. It is the interests of those Old War heros and partriots from the old country.
          Who started Cold War 2? Russia, when they attack Estonia in that cyber war fiasco.
          Though North Korea, did too when they test fired those missles at japan, when the US said "Don't".
          I'm sure we have to have Americans stationed somewhere that counts home and abroad. Training our allies or standing on borders or... whatever need to know operation I don't need to know.
          What I'd like to know is, what are the alternatives to this Global policing that everyone accuses us of?
          I know we have a lot of domestic self hate going on in our country, I'd like o see a return to patriotism, and I'm sad that 911 happened but for a little while in the days that followed our country was galvanized under the flag. I'd like to live in that U.S. every day but I don't want it to take another disaster to get us there.

          ......
          uhm... end rant. . .
          They will all look up to me and shout, "Save us!", and I will whisper back... "No."

          LAW is not JUSTICE

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by midnight_v View Post
            Okay just what do you want The United States Empire do do?

            I mean do you love this country? I'm pretty sure we're doing these things to keep russia from becoming a "New Soviet Union" which you know whenever things like Georgia happen I don't see it as a "protection of russian peoples in the near abroad" I see it as a probe of American intent. So we re institute the Monroe doctorine and an isolationist policy... then what? We do have american interest abroad, and having a state in that area as an ally would be great if it were a poweful ally. Though if you don't stop russian it eventually will eat up all the little countries around if we decide to do nothing. It is the interests of those Old War heros and partriots from the old country.
            Who started Cold War 2? Russia, when they attack Estonia in that cyber war fiasco.
            Though North Korea, did too when they test fired those missles at japan, when the US said "Don't".
            I'm sure we have to have Americans stationed somewhere that counts home and abroad. Training our allies or standing on borders or... whatever need to know operation I don't need to know.
            What I'd like to know is, what are the alternatives to this Global policing that everyone accuses us of?
            I know we have a lot of domestic self hate going on in our country, I'd like o see a return to patriotism, and I'm sad that 911 happened but for a little while in the days that followed our country was galvanized under the flag. I'd like to live in that U.S. every day but I don't want it to take another disaster to get us there.

            ......
            uhm... end rant. . .
            I do love this country, and I still serve in the military. However, in this case it sure seems as if we are kind of picking a fight with the Russians. What if the situation was reversed? How would the U.S. react if Russia formed a military alliance with Mexico and placed missiles there? (we sure did not take kindly when they tried to place missiles in Cuba....). Also, it was Georgia that picked this current fight with Russia. We do need to protect our allies, but we really have no compelling interest in this fight. Furthermore, placing missiles in poland is foolish and is doing nothing but harm,ing relations with Russia even further.

            Comment


            • #7
              So you propose we ally with russia? What about the attacks on estonia?
              We can never trust that nation as long as it's ruled by old soviet patriots.
              Last edited by midnight_v; 08-25-2008, 02:36 AM.
              They will all look up to me and shout, "Save us!", and I will whisper back... "No."

              LAW is not JUSTICE

              Comment


              • #8
                One reason why relations with Russia are important...

                http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080825...s_080825040635

                US-Russia chill threatens NASA space program

                by Jean-Louis Santini 2 hours, 16 minutes ago

                WASHINGTON (AFP) - The chill left on US-Russian relations by Moscow's military incursion into Georgia could spell problems for future US access to the International Space Station, US experts said.
                ADVERTISEMENT

                The National Aeronautics and Space Administration will become dependent on flights to the ISS by Russia's Soyuz spacecraft when it retires the shuttle fleet that has long ferried US astronauts into space in 2010.

                NASA will only get its successor space vehicle, Orion, planned for a revival of trips to the moon, ready for flight in 2015 at the earliest.

                That leaves the needs of US astronauts visiting the ISS vulnerable to the possibility of a new Cold War between Washington and Moscow after Russia's powerful military overran much of Georgia two weeks ago in the dispute over South Ossetia.

                "If recent Russian actions are any indicator, a technical excuse to completely block US access to the ISS for geopolitical reasons would fit nicely into the Kremlin toolkit," Vincent Sabathier, an expert on human space exploration at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told AFP.

                Sabathier noted that not only was the short Georgia war a serious thorn in relations, but also the US determination to set up in Poland and the Czech Republic its missile defense system, which Russia calls a threat to its military.

                "Almost immediately after the Czech Republic signed an agreement with the US to place missile defense tracking radar in its territory, oil supplies through the Druzhba pipeline to the central European country were reduced to a trickle ... ostensibly for technical reasons," Sabathier said.

                The end of the three-decade-old shuttle program leaves NASA with at least a five-year hole on which it will have to pay Russia's space agency to deliver and retrieve US astronauts and cargo to the ISS.

                That depends as well on the US Congress voting an exemption to a 2000 law that bans US government agencies from opening contracts with countries like Russia that are considered aiding Iran and North Korea, which the US has labelled supporters of terrorism.

                Even before the Georgia fighting erupted on August 8 there was opposition in the Congress to such an exemption, and now that has likely increased, according to Florida Democratic Senator Bill Nelson.

                "In an election year, it was going to be very difficult to get that waiver to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to an increasingly aggressive Russia," Nelson said.

                "Now, I'd say it's almost impossible."

                Nelson, who supports allowing NASA to contract the Soyuz, said that without the exemption the US could find itself in 2011 with no access to the 100-billion-dollar space station -- largely paid for by the United States.

                Because the ISS needs someone aboard all the time to keep it going, the situation, Nelson said, would mean leaving the station to "degrade and burn up on rentry, or with us ceding it to those who can get there."

                NASA's chief Michael Griffin told AFP just days before the Georgia conflict erupted that it was a "great concern" that something could happen to make Soyuz unavailable.

                "If anything at all in that five years period goes wrong with the Russian Soyuz, then we have no system to access the space station."

                But after the Russia invasion of Georgia, NASA downplayed the political risk, saying it has a long history of cooperation with the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos).

                "While it is possible that government-to-government issues could potentially have an impact on other aspects of a relationship between nations, including cooperative space exploration activities, NASA believes that it will be able to rely upon Roscosmos-provided Soyuz vehicles for future space station activities."

                John Logsdon of George Washington University's Space Policy Center expects Congress to allow the waiver, "as long as Russia can be said to be abiding by the terms of the cease-fire (in Georgia)."

                "There is an issue but I don't think it's so strong to prevent the waiver from passing, as long as Russian behavior is what it has been agreed to on Georgia," Logsdon told AFP.

                However, he said, "if the situation with Russia gets much worst, then it's very hard to project what might happen because again, there is really no viable alternative."

                Comment


                • #9
                  One reason why U.S.-Russia relations are important...

                  Double post.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by midnight_v View Post
                    So you propose we ally with russia? What about the attacks on estonia?
                    We can never trust that nation as long as it's ruled by old soviet patriots.
                    We don't have to be best friends or military allies with them, however, going out of our way to provoke tensions with them is foolish.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      And to think, all of this could have been avoided if we'd listened to Nixon.
                      “We don't disagree, you are wrong. Until you have a clue what you are talking about we can't disagree.” - cgh6366

                      Comment

                      MR300x250 Tablet

                      Collapse

                      What's Going On

                      Collapse

                      There are currently 6339 users online. 365 members and 5974 guests.

                      Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                      Welcome Ad

                      Collapse
                      Working...
                      X