Putin attacks 'very dangerous' US

Post Reply
User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Putin attacks 'very dangerous' US

Post by Guysanto » Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:07 pm

Putin attacks 'very dangerous' US

Russian President Vladimir Putin has attacked the United States for what he said was its "almost uncontained" use of force around the world.

America's "very dangerous" approach to global relations was fuelling a nuclear arms race, he told a security summit.

Correspondents say the strident speech may signal a more assertive Russia.

US defence secretary Robert Gates, also attending the summit in Munich, said only that the Russian leader had been "very candid".

Mr Putin told senior security officials from around the world that nations were "witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations".

"One state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way," he said, speaking through a translator.

"This is very dangerous. Nobody feels secure anymore because nobody can hide behind international law.

"This is nourishing an arms race with the desire of countries to get nuclear weapons."

BBC defence and security correspondent Rob Watson, in Munich, said Mr Putin's speech was a strident performance which may well be remembered as a turning point in international relations.

While the new US defence secretary had little to say about the speech, US Senator Joseph Lieberman described it as "provocative."

Its rhetoric "sounded more like the Cold War", the senator said.

And Republican Senator John McCain added: "Moscow must understand that it cannot enjoy a genuine partnership with the West so long as its actions at home and abroad conflict fundamentally with the core values of the Euro-Atlantic democracies. In today's multi-polar world there is no place for needless confrontation."

Mr Putin's spokesman Dimitry Peskov said the speech was "not about confrontation, it's an invitation to think".

"Until we get rid of unilateralism in international affairs, until we exclude the possibility of imposing one country's views on others, we will not have stability," he said.

The conference, founded in 1962, has become an annual opportunity for world leaders to discuss the most pressing issues of the day.

...

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/m ... 349287.stm

Published: 2007/02/10 16:52:55 GMT

© BBC MMVII

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:22 pm

I think that Putin is 100% right in what he said in that speech.

The U.S. government is indeed very dangerous to the rest of the world.

The only problem is that Mr. Putin who voiced the remarks is himself a very dangerous man. The difference is that Russia has had significant economic and political difficulties that have diminished its world status.

Perhaps Putin's words reflect a resurgent Russia?

Tout jan nou nan mera!

Barb
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:36 pm

Post by Barb » Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:18 pm

I thought peace was preferable to war. I thought that was obvious to everyone. What happened? Did our education system fail or what?

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:06 pm

I think that what happened is the George W. Bush administration, period. Even if some consider him a mere puppet, manipulated by Dick Cheney and a cabal of neo-conservatives. The thing is IT happened (in 2000) and IT happened again (in 2004).

In between was the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2011. And the trauma for Americans to be attacked by a foreign enemy on their own turf [even more to the core than the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese]. And the subsequent full-scale manipulation by the administration of the natural thirst for vengeance. And the Patriot Act and opportunistic suppression of American civil liberties by an administration who realized the golden opportunity to expand its powers beyond all previously considered limits. They accomplished this by instilling FEAR in nearly every single citizen, already traumatized by the events or not. They also managed to enlist the mainstream press (the Fourth branch of Power) that totally surrendered its independence and its mission to inform and educate, in lieu of serving as mere pawns of government propaganda [The role played by the New York Times in particular was particularly appalling].

The neo-conservative agenda was set well before the Supreme Court selection of George Bush in 2000 [Plan for A New American Century]. George H. W. Bush refused to go along or sign off on it. But Dick Cheney [who chose for himself the office of Vice-President because he knew that he would never be elected President], George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz affixed their signatures at the bottom line. The neo-conservative agenda was on. All that was needed was:
  • getting to the seat of power, by hook or by crook[/*:m]
  • some conveniently pre-defined military targets[/*:m]
  • and... a spark![/*:m]
And it sparked.

This is no conspiracy theory. I am not claiming that Bin Laden was not the intellectual author of 9/11. There are enough indications that the attack came on his order. There are also a lot of strange and unexplained circumstances surrounding this particular tragedy. It is not in my power to say in any degree of certainty who and what parties played a role in it. But what I have been able to discern is that the George W. Bush administration manipulated the trauma and fears of the American people to pursue its agenda of power grab and warmongering in the most cynical of ways. And the American people could not or did not act to prevent it.

Was it a failure of our education system?

I don't know... I think it was the sum of many failures.

Our civic leadership must be reborn.

Post Reply