NEWS: Gorbachev: The United States is Sick

Originally posted by drfunk
methinks you are incapable of accepting reality. It's not obvious at all since there seems to be a lack of conclusive and scholarly evidence of a gorbachev NWO conspiracy, but a lot of opinion and paranoia.

Don't insult my intelligence. Heck, don't even insult Gorbachev's intelligence! Gorbachev IS an one world government advocate. He is just covering himself very well thanks to his very strong public persona, charisma and background as an ex-Soviet leader. He is surrounded by very capable people covering his tracks and ensuring that nothing incriminating against Gorby get out.

Originally posted by drfunk
I've studied the gorbachev years quite a lot actually, read many books that are for gorbachev and those who do nothing but attack him and i've written many essays and papers on the subject. It's actually my favourite area of history atm so researching the gorbachev years is a little hobby of mine as well as university work.

My conclusion of Gorbachev is from a lot of hard work, it isn't something i've just accepted straight away (actually when i first began interested in the subject, i thought he was weak and a fool)

Anyways, if you can offer me some scholarly journal articles and conclusive proof that he is part of a NWO I would sure love to have a read of them. Or will you just keep offering unfounded opinions that have no credible evidence to back them up?

Well, it's good that you're doing a "scholarly" research on Gorbachev, I just wondered what type of reading resources you have on Gorbachev? The official, sanitized versions?

I don't need to give you "scholarly journal articles" on Gorbachev but I should tell you how I picked out Gorbachev to be the next Soviet leader during the funeral of Yuri Andropov in 1984. However, Konstantin Chernenko became the Soviet leader by then. When Chernenko died, I still betted on Gorbachev to be the next leader and eventually it was what I expected. I was only 14 at the time.

Look, I'll tell you... sometimes famous politicians don't reveal a lot of their own true beliefs in public, just the media/public perception of such officially sanitized beliefs. Gorbachev is a very highly reputable ex-politician, an intellectual and a world statesman, something he would prefers all the public see and know him in this light. He doesn't wanted YOU, ME or anybody to know his hidden intentions, which is why he's concealing himself by appearing charming, thoughtful, well-known, well-regarded and very influential. Precisely that what he wanted to be casted in public in America and the world...except Russia.

Russians do not hold Gorbachev in high regards. In fact, Russians have a very negative sentiment toward him.

I knew a personal Russian friend several years ago in college. He was from Moscow, an artist/muralist who came to America as a visiting artist-in-residence, spent a year at the college I was attending, even lived on the same dorm floor as I did. He and I talked a great deal a lot of his "beloved mother country", Russia. He hated the communist system and the Communists and disliked Gorbachev. He didn't say much of that, except for his face showing disdain for Gorbachev and the communist system. He returned to Russia after a year in college and was planning to return again but he died of heart attack in Moscow, as he was in his late 50s.

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Don't insult my intelligence. Heck, don't even insult Gorbachev's intelligence! Gorbachev IS an one world government advocate. He is just covering himself very well thanks to his very strong public persona, charisma and background as an ex-Soviet leader. He is surrounded by very capable people covering his tracks and ensuring that nothing incriminating against Gorby get out.

It wasn't an insult to your intelligence, it takes some really smart ppl to come up with ridiculous conspiracy theories sometimes you know. there is no NWO, there is no proof, just conspiracy theorists, secret societies and paranoia. You have no real proof of it nor or of Gorbachev's involvement as a great schemer in the NWO conspiracy.

Well, it's good that you're doing a "scholarly" research on Gorbachev, I just wondered what type of reading resources you have on Gorbachev? The official, sanitized versions?

I don't need to give you "scholarly journal articles" on Gorbachev

well if you can't give me any sort of research or evidence that is of at least a university level by experienced scholars I have nothing more to say as you do not have a solid and detailed argument backed up by evidence and sources, just an opinion with nothing backing it up.


thanks,
drfunk






[edit on 23-4-2005 by drfunk]

Originally posted by drfunk
It wasn't an insult to your intelligence, it takes some really smart ppl to come up with ridiculous conspiracy theories sometimes you know. there is no NWO, there is no proof, just conspiracy theorists, secret societies and paranoia. You have no real proof of it nor or of Gorbachev's involvement as a great schemer in the NWO conspiracy.

That is because Gorbachev is very well-covered. I told you that he has his very capable people covering his tracks. I don't need to give you proof myself. The proof is in his words and involvements.

Originally posted by drfunk
well if you can't give me any sort of research or evidence that is of at least an university level by experienced scholars I have nothing more to say as you do not have a solid and detailed argument backed up by evidence and sources, just an opinion with nothing backing it up.

Use. The. Search. Engine. Make. Your. Own. Conclusion.

The Earth Charter - Agenda for Totalitarianism Gorbachev is responsible for this.
Sustainable Development - Agenda for World Depopulation Gorbachev's Green Cross International is part of it.



"We are beginning to see practical support. And this is a very significant sign of the movement towards a new era, a new age.... We see both in our country and elsewhere... ghosts of the old thinking.... When we rid ourselves of their presence, we will be better able to move toward a new world order...relying on the relevent mechanisms of the United Nations."
Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, at the Middle East Peace Talks in Madrid (1991)

Gorbachev's old friend, Willy Brandt (West German Socialist Chancellor in the 1970s) once said this:
"The New World Order is a world that has a super-national authority to regulate world commerce and industry; an international organization that would control the production and consumption of oil; an international currency that would replace the dollar; a World Development Fund that would make funds available to free and communist nations alike; and an international police force to enforce the edicts of the New World Order."

"Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about
Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are
primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal
changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes.
Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.
We want to accomplish three things:

One, we want the Americans to withdraw conventional forces from Europe.
Two, we want them to withdraw nuclear forces from Europe.
Three, we want the Americans to stop proceeding with Strategic Defense Initiative."
~Gorbachev, in a 1987 speech to the Politburo.

Note: He may not have succeeded disarming America as the Soviet leader of a crumbling, dysfunctional worldpower but he is succeeding as a major world player in disarming America from within.


[edit on 4/23/2005 by the_oleneo]

Originally posted by drfunk

well if you can't give me any sort of research or evidence that is of at least a university level by experienced scholars I have nothing more to say as you do not have a solid and detailed argument backed up by evidence and sources, just an opinion with nothing backing it up.


thanks,
drfunk

And what exactly did i present if not a paper by a Russian scholar who thinks it is highly probable that what these Russians defectors have been saying is true? That paper was written in 1990, since then more things have come to pass that Golitsyn wrote about in 1984.

I was able to refute with evidence everything you claimed, from the Russians stopping their nuclear and military armament buildup, to your statement that we are in a safer and peaceful world now because of Gorbachev.

Oh and btw, i forgot to give a list of what Russia was doing during the mid 80s with nuclear armaments....

www.nti.org...


Gorbachev comes to live in the US and he decides to call hypocrit and bash the US.... While Russia has new upgraded ICBMs, they have been making new nuclear subs and a wonderweapon capable of bypassing any missile defense system.....not to mention what China has been doing along with some other countries.... Yep, Gorby is still part of the plan to disarm the US. I can't believe we allowed that idiot to come live in the US....

Head firmly in the sand there, just because other countries are imperfect does not automatically make the united states whiter than white. That seems to be the crux of ALL your arguments Muaddib.

Originally posted by subz
Head firmly in the sand there, just because other countries are imperfect does not automatically make the united states whiter than white. That seems to be the crux of ALL your arguments Muaddib.

Not really subz. I never claimed that the US is completly innocent, but it is ironic to ask the US alone to rid of it's nuclear weapons when the rest of the world, including Russia, China, North Korea and many others have been upgrading and expanding their armaments....including nuclear weapons.

It clearly shows that Gorbachev wants the US to disarm....yet he claims that Russia is ready, despite the fact that Russia has been upgrading and working more than ever in updating it's nuclear program...as well as upgrading and helping acquire nuclear programs in regimes that are anti-american....

The "crux of all your arguments" seem to focus on bashing the US subz...



[edit on 24-4-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Not really subz. I never claimed that the US is completly innocent, but it is ironic to ask the US alone to rid of it's nuclear weapons when the rest of the world, including Russia, China, North Korea and many others have been upgrading and expanding their armaments....including nuclear weapons.

It clearly shows that Gorbachev wants the US to disarm....yet he claims that Russia is ready, despite the fact that Russia has been upgrading and working more than ever in updating it's nuclear program...as well as upgrading and helping acquire nuclear programs in regimes that are anti-american....

The "crux of all your arguments" seem to focus on bashing the US subz...[edit on 24-4-2005 by Muaddib]

In other words, subz would be applauding Russia, China, North Korea and Iran for their nuclear attacks on the United States, if any. That would make subz criminally culpable to outright murderous attack(s) on the United States by the said hostile powers.

If any...

Originally posted by Muaddib
Not really subz. I never claimed that the US is completly innocent,

Oh but you do, every criticism leveled at the United States, be it breaking of treaties, human rights abuses, blatant electoral fraud, environmental rape or hypocrasy, you have an excuse or denial.

Originally posted by Muaddib
It clearly shows that Gorbachev wants the US to disarm....yet he claims that Russia is ready, despite the fact that Russia has been upgrading and working more than ever in updating it's nuclear program

Dont be overly simplistic with this. When the original proposal was given to Reagan in 1987 to completely remove all nuclear weapons from both countries it was a bilateral plan. It didnt call for the United States to remove all of her weapons then the Russians would, that would be insane. It called for a step by step process in which both countries could be assured the other was removing their nuclear weapons. Reagan turned it down flat Good job moron.

You must get a kick out of portraying the Russians as the ubiquitous international bad guy, ever waiting to bring down the United States. You can be forgiven for this attitude as generations of Americans (and Westerners) have been brain washed into believing that.

Lets see how things REALLY were progressing at that crucial missed opportunity:

While Reagan was being extolled (in the US) for leading the world towards peace at the Washington summit, where the INF treaty was signed, the UN General Assembly, speaking for `the community of nations,' voted a series of disarmament resolutions. It voted 154 to 1, with no abstentions, opposing the buildup of weapons in outer space (Reagan's Star Wars) and 135 to 1 against developing new weapons of mass destruction. The Assembly voted 143 to 2 for a comprehensive test ban, and 137 to 3 for a halt to all nuclear test explosions. The US voted against each resolution, joined twice by France and once by Britain. None of this was reported in the Free Press, the `community of nations' being irrelevant when it fails to perceive the Truth.

Who's the ubiquitous bad guy? Who scuppers ANY chance the World has of becoming a safer place? Who tries to maintain its military superiority at the expense of global saftey? Who is really after a New World Order - headed by one country?
1980 - 1989

How about this UN resolution calling for complete nuclear disarmament of both the United States and the Soviet Union?

Recalling that at their meeting at Geneva in November 1985 the
leaders of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of
America committed themselves to the objective of working out effective
agreements aimed at preventing an arms race in space and terminating it on
Earth,

3. Calls upon the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics and the Government of the United States of America to spare no
effort in seeking the attainment of all their agreed objectives in the
negotiations, in accordance with the security interests of all States and the
universal desire for progress towards disarmament, in particular early
achievement of a treaty implementing the agreement to reduce their strategic
offensive arms by 50#per#cent, which could be signed during President Reagan'svisit to Moscow

UN.org - General and Complete Disarmament 1987
Just why did America not want to give up its nuclear weapons? Did it know that the USSR was on the brink of collapse any way and could keep its weapons and rule the World when the USSR collapsed?

Reagan and Gorbachev did not see eye-to-eye on Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. At one point, Reagan said to Gorbachev, "You must believe that this is so important for the safety of the world that I will give you the technology as we develop it." Gorbachev laughed—laughed-- and said, "Mr. President, surely you understand I can't believe that—since you won't even give us the technology for milking machines!"

The Shape of Days: Good Stuff
Seems like it was Reagan that was trying to hoodwink the USSR into disarming with the carrot of shared technology. Do you think the USA would of transfered its technology? Or was Gorbachev right in laughing at such a proposterous lie?

Originally posted by Muaddib
The "crux of all your arguments" seem to focus on bashing the US subz...

Ive been completely open about my agenda on correcting American attitudes on their own countries behaviour in light of Americas international lecturing on human rights and general bad behaviour. I tend to post in threads where America is involved so yeah I guess the crux of my arguments mostly are on showing America up for what it truly is - the Worlds only remaining super-hypocrit.

Your argument that Russia is trying to get the USA to disarm whilst working on "wonder weapons" is not some plot. Its in direct response to the United States efforts to negate all of Russia's nuclear deterrent with its missile shield. Its working on this "wonder weapon" so that the USA doesnt bring down the MAD scenario. The Russians are playing catch up for its own national security and not for some kind of World domination plot.

Have you not noticed that America has NEVER once entered into open conflict with a nuclear power? Thats because the US government fears being on the receiving end of nuclear weapons thus its their Achilles heel and everyone knows it. Why do you think the USA doesnt want Iran to have nuclear weapons? For World stability or because if Iran gets them it will not be able to attack Iran any more?

Yet you gloss over all of the United States provocations. You dont see Russia or China policing the World do you? Yet you come down them on like tonne of bricks at every juncture. Try opening your eyes to the real threat to global stability and international sovereignty for once.

Originally posted by the_oleneo
In other words, subz would be applauding Russia, China, North Korea and Iran for their nuclear attacks on the United States, if any. That would make subz criminally culpable to outright murderous attack(s) on the United States by the said hostile powers.

If any...

What the hell are you on about? Are you being sarcastic or just idiotic?

Lets not forget which sole country is responsible for the Worlds only nuclear attacks. Where you get the idea that with my bias against the United States some how makes me condone the use of nuclear weapons against her people I do not know.

[edit on 25/4/05 by subz]

subzhead, I wouldn't place so much faith or trust in the International House of Bozos. Screw the UN. It's nothing but a meaningless, hypocritical, worthless world body reeking of endless scandals, human wrongs and corruption. I would prefers the UN (or the IHB) to be relocated to Antarctica, it's more suitably.

Originally posted by subz
What the hell are you on about? Are you being sarcastic or just idiotic?

Lets not forget which sole country is responsible for the Worlds only nuclear attacks. Where you get the idea that with my bias against the United States some how makes me condone the use of nuclear weapons against her people I do not know.
[edit on 25/4/05 by subz]

Oh, cry me a freaking river! Japan refused to surrender, even they realized they were losing and facing defeat, they still won't budge to the unconditional surrender requested by the Allies. Heck, even it took the Japanese almost a week to deliberate after the Americans dropped the last atomic bomb ("Fat Man") on Nagasaki. The military government of Japan even threatened to take the Emperor hostage should the Emperor agree to surrender to the Allies. Eventually the Emperor prevailed and agreed to the surrender on 15th of August, 1945. Not until 2nd of September, 1945 on the USS Missouri that Japan formally surrendered in a treaty.

[edit on 4/25/2005 by the_oleneo]

Originally posted by subz

Oh but you do, every criticism leveled at the United States, be it breaking of treaties, human rights abuses, blatant electoral fraud, environmental rape or hypocrasy, you have an excuse or denial.

Subz.... everyone that reads newspapers or news from abroad can see that almost everybody is always puting the blame and bashing the US for any reason....but noone ever says anything about what their own countries have been doing.... The hypocrits are the Europeans, Chinese, Russians, and a few others who always want to blame the US but don't want to look at the dung that their own governments have been involved in, even recently. It seems that in order for them to forget and ignore all the crap they have done they have to continuously bash at the US.

Originally posted by subz
Dont be overly simplistic with this. When the original proposal was given to Reagan in 1987 to completely remove all nuclear weapons from both countries it was a bilateral plan. It didnt call for the United States to remove all of her weapons then the Russians would, that would be insane. It called for a step by step process in which both countries could be assured the other was removing their nuclear weapons. Reagan turned it down flat

Good job moron.

Who is being simplistic and naive is whoever would claim that "the world would have been rid of nukes if the US would have agreed with Russia..." when we all know that Russia is not the only other communist country to have nuclear weapons or to have made tests in the 1960s and started nuclear programs around that time...

International Security has just published, in its Winter 2000/2001 issue, an article, "Whether To 'Strangle the Baby in the Cradle'": The United States and the Chinese Nuclear Program, 1960-64," written by National Security Archive analysts William Burr and Jeffrey T. Richelson. Drawing on recently declassified documents, the authors provide the first detailed account of the Kennedy and Johnson administration's reactions to the emerging nuclear weapons capabilities of the People's Republic of China (PRC). Besides elucidating the systematic efforts by the intelligence agencies to monitor Chinese nuclear weapons developments, the authors describe and discuss the concerns of U.S. senior officials and expert advisers over the prospects of a nuclear-armed People's Republic of China (PRC). The authors also review the possible courses of action, including covert military operations, that top officials, including President Kennedy, considered in response to the Chinese nuclear program. Many of the documents that follow are cited as sources in the International Security article; others were selected because of their interest. Most are published here for the first time.

Excerpted from.
www.gwu.edu...

BTW good job on insulting the memory of a good man that is dead and that wasn't as naive and simplistic as you seem to be.

One more thing... the russians continued building their nuclear arsenal and other armaments while they claimed they wanted the world to be free of nukes.....riiiight...as i said, you are too naive. Thankfully president Reagan wasn't as simple minded and naive.

And who would also forget that Russia agreed to get help from the rest of the G8 nations to scrap it's old nuclear weapons, recieving billions for this program, yet they have been claiming that their old nukes still work, so they won't dismantle them....after recieving most of the money....

Originally posted by subz
You must get a kick out of portraying the Russians as the ubiquitous international bad guy, ever waiting to bring down the United States. You can be forgiven for this attitude as generations of Americans (and Westerners) have been brain washed into believing that.

The one that is actually getting a kick on portraying a country which probably assured that the whole world was not a communist hotbed is yourself subz.

I think by now we all know your stance about weapons of all types. You are too much of an idealist and this is clouding your reasoning... The whole world is not going to disarm nomatter how much you want it to, and you can't be serious even to think that if the US disarms everything is going to be alright....that alone shows how deluded you are because of your idealism. Being a bit idealistic is not so bad, as long as you always keep some sense and realize that you are living in the real world, not in some ideal utopia.

Originally posted by subz
How about this UN resolution calling for complete nuclear disarmament of both the United States and the Soviet Union?

Of course and the UN did not find it necessary to include the rest of the countries in the world in this initiative including China which had a nuclear program even in the 60s...

Originally posted by subz
Your argument that Russia is trying to get the USA to disarm whilst working on "wonder weapons" is not some plot. Its in direct response to the United States efforts to negate all of Russia's nuclear deterrent with its missile shield. Its working on this "wonder weapon" so that the USA doesnt bring down the MAD scenario. The Russians are playing catch up for its own national security and not for some kind of World domination plot.

Oh boy...and who was the first country to ever deploy a missile defense system in their country that would at least partially bring down the MAD scenario?.... Russia... Mutual Assured Destruction would mean that both countries would be totally anihilated, yet if one country has a missile defense system, MAD does not work, and Russia has had a missile defense system for a long time. they even upgraded and improved their defense systems in 2000 and 2003.

Originally posted by subz
Have you not noticed that America has NEVER once entered into open conflict with a nuclear power? Thats because the US government fears being on the receiving end of nuclear weapons thus its their Achilles heel and everyone knows it. Why do you think the USA doesnt want Iran to have nuclear weapons? For World stability or because if Iran gets them it will not be able to attack Iran any more?

Actually, i will turn that question back on you.... Have you noticed that Russia and China among others have never entered into open conflict with the US?.... and the greatest reason that i see why China has not already invaded Taiwan is because they are trying to find ways to actually invade Taiwan in a week's time, before the american fleet can get to the straits and help Taiwan.

Originally posted by subz
Yet you gloss over all of the United States provocations. You dont see Russia or China policing the World do you? Yet you come down them on like tonne of bricks at every juncture. Try opening your eyes to the real threat to global stability and international sovereignty for once.
[edit on 25/4/05 by subz]

Noo.... i just see China trying to impose it's will over an independent country, not allowing them to finally declare that they are independent... firing missiles and making shows of force to intimidate the people of Taiwan into "not declaring that it is independent...." A country whose government does not harbor terrorists agaisnt mainland China and that want a peaceful end to all this nonsense from the communist regime in China.

I just see every major oposition of the kremlin in the former soviet states beign executed, poisoned, branded terrorist and then murdered, shooting them twice in the head and then calling it suicide, as well as some other....dubious ways in which the oposition of the communists...I mean the ways in which the oposition of the newly found democracy in Russia finds an early end. Not to mention the internal war and genocide/murders that the Russian government is still perpetrating against many people from the former Russian states....



[edit on 26-4-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Subz.... everyone that reads newspapers or news from abroad can see that almost everybody is always puting the blame and bashing the US for any reason....but noone ever says anything about what their own countries have been doing.... The hypocrits are the Europeans, Chinese, Russians, and a few others who always want to blame the US but don't want to look at the dung that their own governments have been involved in, even recently. It seems that in order for them to forget and ignore all the crap they have done they have to continuously bash at the US.

That's funny, to me it seems it's the exact opposite, the Americans blaming the UN and whatever other country for this and that, while not willing to face their own missteps.

A classic example is the thread about Annan stating that the US is also to blame for the food for oil scandals. Look all those "proud americans" feel sorry for themselves, and yell that Annan should resign.

It's pathetic.

I hope I don't have to mention the array of mistakes made by Bush and the American government, who STILL seem unwilling to admit their wrongs.


[edit on 26-4-2005 by Jakko]

Old Gorby's shootin off again. I think this time he's closer to right than wrong though.

Not in his choice of choice words but in the overall message.

Dallas

Originally posted by Jakko
........
It's pathetic.

I hope I don't have to mention the array of mistakes made by Bush and the American government, who STILL seem unwilling to admit their wrongs.


[edit on 26-4-2005 by Jakko]

And i hope i don't have to start giving all the evidence, again, against most of what people like yourself keep trying to bring up and keep claiming were lies. Evidence which in many cases come from other countries....

Yes, the US has made mistakes, noone is perfect, but all the crap that anti-Republicans, anti-Bush, or anti-US keep coming up with is just...pathetic....


[edit on 26-4-2005 by Muaddib]

So to sum up your rebuttal Muaddib you:

1. Quote some blurb about a 1960's China and U.S efforts to spy on their nuclear weapons progress
2. Try and justify American wrongs by highlighting China's and Russia's (Which I said was always your tactic )
3. Call my idealistic and not based in reality

Is that a fair summary?

First of all, I dont need lecturing in the evils China and Russia perpetuate. I can clearly see them. The problem I have with you is that for some reason you see the wrongs in other countries but justify the wrongs the USA commits or even gloss over them because other countries are doing it.

Its the equivalent of "He stole my lollypop so I stole his" and it gets us nowhere.

Everyone knows the United States is the most powerful country in the World so when it behaves JUST AS BAD or even WORSE than China and Russia its a serious problem. It cannot get away with it just because other countries are doing it, thats just pathetic.

If the World really is to get a leg up from this #fest we call life we need idealists who are not content to continue the tit-for-tat bullcrap that is international politics. Its a little hard to administer change and morality when you are behaving just as bad unless you're pointing a gun at someones head (read as Bush's international "diplomacy")

Muaddib I'd have no problems with you if you would not try and excuse the United States of blatant wrong doing.

Edit: Just recently look at how a country can act in an idealist manner. Britain is leading the fight in halving World poverty by 2015. How idealistic is that? Setting aside 0.7% of GDP for combating poverty and 100% write offs of third-world debt. Can we expect the United States to go along with this effort or not?

[edit on 26/4/05 by subz]

Originally posted by subz
Edit: Just recently look at how a country can act in an idealist manner. Britain is leading the fight in halving World poverty by 2015. How idealistic is that? Setting aside 0.7% of GDP for combating poverty and 100% write offs of third-world debt. Can we expect the United States to go along with this effort or not?

[edit on 26/4/05 by subz]

Can you expect for this fight against poverty to work 100%? No....

I am not saying not to fight agaisnt poverty, just like I would never say to stop fighting agaisnt terrorism, that in itself is being idealistic. But I know full well that neither poverty nor terrorism is ever going to end. That is being realistic, we can stall it, slow it, and even better the situation for some people, but we can not completly stop either one.

You might want the whole world to have no weapons at all, and that there is no poverty anywhere in the world, among some other things "you might want or wish." Wanting this in itself is not bad, but expecting it to happen is unrealistic.

You don't think that i would wish for peace in the world? or that noone, no kid or person anywhere in the planet would have to go hungry? or that there weren't any dictatorships in the world? If wishing solved all the problems in the world, things would be easier, but they are not, that's where realism sinks in. The world is not perfect, because we are imperfect human beings. We have flaws and many differences which bring conflicts and problems.

There are many reasons why there is so much poverty around the world, some of those reasons are because of religious beliefs which we will never change, and althou we can fight against poverty and terrorism, you can be certain noone will be able to eliminate them from the face of the world.

There are too many differences in this world. Differences in religions, differences in political and economic affiliations, etc. As long as there are differences in the world there will always be war, poverty, terrorism, and a whole miriad of problems which we are facing right at this moment.

Idealism is not bad, as long as you have some sense and realize that because there are so many differences in this world, the world will never be perfect, it will never be an utopia.

Ok, back on topic, I do not trust Gorbachev nor the Russian government for all the evidence other members and I have been posting.

Oh, and to anwser your question as to why I keep backing the US, it is simple. Because things are not white and black in the world, and as you can see by all the evidence i have provided, there is more than enough reason for Reagan not to have trusted Gorbachev to disarm the US, among some of the other topics we have argued and discussed about.

[edit on 26-4-2005 by Muaddib]

I understand your take on "idealism" Muaddib, I really do, its just that im of the opinion if you dont set the highest goals youre never going to get anywhere at all. Complacency with mediocrity and the like.

With regards to Britain's "War on Poverty" it revolves around 100% write-offs of debt so that perpetual debt due to interest is eradicated. When free from these unfair loans these countries can grow to sustain themselves. Writing off debt is not hard, its just our greed that keeps them in debt. This kind of approach was called "idealistic" as recently as 5 years ago.

I guess im just not ever going to be content with the status quo

Edit: But surely you can see that the way the United States behaves so unilaterally is wrong. For example, if you demand that Iraq complies with UN demands yet you have never bowed to UN demands yourself how can that work?

Its not about being black and white, its about:

1. recognising the United States conducts itself poorly (regardless of what other countries do)
2. recognising the United States is the Worlds strongest nation
3. recognising that due to its strength the United States is capable of enacting much good in the World
4. pressuring your government into actually acting magnanimous instead of acting in "the US's best interests"
5. failing that, dont tirade when other countries act in "their best interests" - i.e. go for nuclear weapons

[edit on 26/4/05 by subz]

Originally posted by subz
Complacency with mediocrity and the like.

Right and you can find that a lot in the IHB (the UN).

Originally posted by subz
With regards to Britain's "War on Poverty" it revolves around 100% write-offs of debt so that perpetual debt due to interest is eradicated. When free from these unfair loans these countries can grow to sustain themselves. Writing off debt is not hard, its just our greed that keeps them in debt. This kind of approach was called "idealistic" as recently as 5 years ago.

We'll see in ten or fifteen years that those poverty-stricken countries can sustain themselves after we cancel their debts while the rest of the developed countries would have to pick up the third world's debt tabs.

Originally posted by subz
Edit: But surely you can see that the way the United States behaves so unilaterally is wrong. For example, if you demand that Iraq complies with UN demands yet you have never bowed to UN demands yourself how can that work?

Surely you don't see China or Russia behaving so unilaterally wrong lately or for the past decade?

When China is behaving like the United States as a global superpower, can Muaddib and I count on you for sage wisdom?

the_oleneo, when you post something worthy of a response I'll offer you some of my sage-like wisdom mmmkay

Originally posted by krotzkrotz
"I think the United States is sick. It suffers from the sickness, the disease of being the victor and it needs to cure itself from this disease," Gorbachev said.
[edit on 21-4-2005 by RANT]

Do either of you live in the US? Will you be effected by it if the US takes dear Gorbachev's advice and "cures itself from..the disease" of victory?

Let's see, do we listen to a guy from a country that just a few years ago was archenemy to the US, and who had his country's arsenal pointed at us? Let him or someone else become the "victor" and suffer from the 'terrible disease of victory' over the US??

Or is it his sterling success at pulling his country and his country's people up from dire poverty and utter corruption that makes him someone to quote and praise as knowledgeable about US policies?

I give the "what are you thinking" award to both of you!