AntonH
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Jun 2008
Posts: 59
Location: London
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:37 pm Post subject: Gorbachev: US to be empire or democracy? |
 |
|
Let's see what big business media has to offer tonight, these last days or weeks or months of a world without global war: former Soviet Union leader Gorbachev likening (however vaguely) the US election to a puppet play, and the US to a warmongering empire..
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/04/opinion/edgorbachev.php?page=1
| Quote: | FROM RUSSIA WITH ALARM
Questions for the candidates
By Mikhail Gorbachev
Published: July 4, 2008
There has been unusual interest throughout the world in the U.S. presidential race.
Skeptics, of whom there are quite a few, say the campaign is just a marathon show that has little to do with real policymaking. Even if there's a grain of truth in that, in an interdependent world the statements of the contenders for the White House are more than just rhetoric addressed to American voters.
Major policy problems today cannot be solved without America - and America cannot solve them alone.
Even the domestic problems of the United States are no longer purely internal. I am referring first of all to the economy. The problem of the huge U.S. budget deficit can be managed, for a time, by continuing to flood the world with "greenbacks," whose rate is declining along with the value of U.S. securities. But such a system cannot work forever.
Of course, the average American is not concerned with the complexities of global finance. But as I talk to ordinary Americans, and I visit the United States once or twice a year, I sense their anxiety about the state of the economy. The irony, they have said to me, is that the middle class felt little benefit from economic growth when the official indicators were pointing upward, but once the downturn started, it hit them immediately, and it hit them hard.
No one can offer a simple fix for America's economic problems, but it is hard not to see their connection to U.S. foreign policies. Over the past eight years the rapid rise in military spending has been the main factor in increasing the federal budget deficit. The United States spends more money on the military today than at the height of the Cold War.
Yet no candidate has made that clear. "Defense spending" is a subject that seems to be surrounded by a wall of silence. But that wall will have to fall one day.
We can expect a serious debate about foreign policy issues, including the role of the United States in the world; America's claim to global leadership; fighting terrorism; nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and the problems caused by the invasion of Iraq.
Of course I am not pretending to write the script for the presidential candidates' debates. But I would add to this list of issues two more: the size of America's defense budget and the militarization of its foreign policy. I am afraid these two questions will not be asked by the moderators. But sooner or later they will have to be answered.
The present administration, particularly during George W. Bush's first presidential term, was bent on trying to solve many foreign policy issues primarily by military means, through threats and pressure. The big question today is whether the presidential nominees will propose a different approach to the world's most urgent problems.
I am extremely alarmed by the increasing tendency to militarize policymaking and thinking. The fact is that the military option has again and again led to a dead end.
One doesn't have to go very far to find an alternative. Take the recent developments on nonproliferation issues, where the focus has been on two countries - North Korea and Iran.
After several years of saber-rattling, the United States finally got around to serious talks with the North Koreans, involving South Korea and other neighboring countries. And though it took time to achieve results, the dismantling of the North Korean nuclear program has now begun.
It's true that nuclear issues in Iran encompass some unique features and may be more difficult to solve. But clearly threats and delusions of "regime change" are not the way to do it.
We have to look even deeper for a solution. "Horizontal" proliferation will only get worse unless we solve the "vertical" problem, i.e. the continued existence of huge arsenals of sophisticated nuclear weapons held by major powers, particularly the United States and Russia.
In recent months there seems to have been a conceptual breakthrough on this issue, with influential Americans calling for revitalizing efforts aimed at the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. Both John McCain and Barack Obama have now endorsed that goal.
I have always been in favor of ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction. On my watch, the Soviet Union and the United States concluded treaties on the elimination of a whole class of nuclear weapons - Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) missiles - and on A 50 percent reduction of strategic weapons, which led to the destruction of thousands of nuclear warheads.
But when we proposed complete nuclear disarmament, our Western partners raised the issue of the Soviet Union's advantage in conventional forces. So we agreed to negotiate major cuts in non-nuclear weapons, signing a treaty on this issue in Vienna.
Today, I see a similar and even bigger problem, but the roles have been reversed. Let us imagine that 10 or 15 years down the road the world has abolished nuclear weapons. What would remain? Huge stockpiles of conventional arms, including the newest types, some so devastating as to be comparable to weapons of mass destruction.
And the lion's share of those stockpiles would be in the hands of one country, the United States, giving it an overwhelming advantage. Such a state of affairs would block the road to nuclear disarmament.
Today the United States produces about half of the world's military hardware and has over 700 military bases, from Europe to the most remote corners of the world. Those are just the officially recognized bases, with more being planned. It is as if the Cold War is still raging, as if the United States is surrounded by enemies who can only be fought with tanks, missiles and bombers. Historically, only empires had such an expansive approach to assuring their security.
So the candidates, and the next president, will have to decide and state clearly whether America wants to be an empire or a democracy, whether it seeks global dominance or international cooperation. They will have to choose, because this is an either-or proposition: The two things don't mix, like oil and water.
Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, is president of the International Foundation for Socio-Economic and Political Studies in Moscow. |
|
|
Frazzel
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 05 Oct 2005
Posts: 480
Location: the beano
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The '08 Electoral Soap Opera
Alf Mendes
The current presidential race in America bears all the earmarks of an
apolitical Soap Opera which is now fast-approaching its anticlimax.
The main reason for this being that - for the past few decades now (as
first exposed by the Collier brothers in their book "Votescam: the
Stealing of America"), the American electoral system has been
controlled/manipulated by the use of electronic voting systems (EVS) -
such as Diebold, ES&S..et al. - all under the control of the American
Corporate Establishment - and with not a little help from:
(a) The US-funded Help America Vote Act (HAVA) passed by the Bush
Administration in October 2002 in order to encourage States to use
said EVS's.
(b) The two very influential organisations: the Information Technology
Association of America (ITAA) - and its associate, World Information
Technology & Services Alliance (WITSA). And (c) the suborned,
corporate-controlled American media!
Indeed, this vote-rigging is now - and has been for some years - a
well-documented fact , as comprehensively covered by Lynn Landes and
Bev Harris on their websites (Hence this author's use of the term
"anticlimax" in the opening paragraph). Landes had earlier written an
article "Elections in America - Assume Crooks Are In Control" - and
subsequently Harris, in her book "Black Box Voting" had revealed that
it was Landes' article which had "...triggered my interest in voting
machines". Suffice it to add here that Harris's BlackBoxVoting.org
website exposes many examples of vote-rigging in this absurdly
long-winded build-up of 'primaries' - leading to the eventual
'election' of a US President!
One obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is that senators and
congressmen must be very well aware of this vote-rigging, and it is
therefore of pertinence to recall the following:
(a) in the 1988 New Hampshire primary, G.H.W. Bush had beaten the
favourite, Senator Robert Dole, and it later transpired that the
machine used had been a Shouptronic Direct Recording Electronic voting
machine (DRE) supplied by one Ramsom Shoup, who had twice been
convicted of vote fraud in Philadelphia!
& (b) Running against Bush Jnr. in 2000 for the Presidency, McCain
won that crucial New Hampshire's Primary by 49% of the vote against
Bush's 30% - only to be beaten by Bush in many subsequent rigged
primaries - as a result of which, he withdrew from the contest. McCain
is evidently one of those senators noted above!
Furthermore, a scan of the activities of the current contestants in
both the senate and congress reveals a number of joint co-sponsorships
between Republican and Democrat in the signing of Acts,
Decrees-and-the-like - some examples of which follow:
(a) For some time now, Americans have relied heavily on immigrant
labour - especially Mexican - as a result of which, in 2005, the
Secure America & Orderly Immigration ACT was sponsored by Senators
John McCain (R-AZ) & Edward Kennedy (D-MA) - and backed by Barack
Obama (who had just been elected Senator). It was turned down by the
House of Representatives.
(b) As a result of which, in October 2006, President Bush authorised
the construction of security fencing along the US/ Mexican border, the
Secure Fence Act -which had again been co-sponsored by Obama.
(c) in December 2006 - Bush signed the Democratic Republic of the
Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Act - of which, Obama had been
the primary sponsor.
(d) In 2007, Obama joined Republican Chuck Hagel in introducing
legislation to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism, a clause of which
was passed by Congress in December of that year.
Senator Joseph (Joe) Robinette Biden Jnr having been chosen by
Barack Obama to be his V/P, a brief scan of his background is
therefore of pertinence:
(e) In June 1987, he had declared his candidacy for President - only
to have to withdraw from the race in September '87, when it was
publicised in the New York Times that he had cheated when studying at
Syracuse University College of Law, where he had graduated in 1968.
(f) In 2004, Biden was considered a likely candidate as
Vice-President for the Democrat Kerry - but, instead, he urged Kerry
to select the Republican Senator, John McCain, as his running mate!
(g) He had decided to run for the Presidency in January '07 - but
subsequently dropped out of the race in January '08.
The foregoing merely confirms that since the Bolshevik revolution in
1917 Republicans and Democrats have been one-and-the-same politically
- for the very simple reason that both 'parties'were now under the
control of Corporate/Capitalist America who, understandably, viewed
the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 as a very dangerous threat. 'Down
with the Reds' was now the call! Thus was the 'cold war' born. From
now on, all American Administrations - whether Republican or Democrat
- would adhere to one agenda: namely, capitalist domination on a
global scale - come what may! If this is not a fascist agenda, what is
it?!...And until this said agenda is deposed/disposed of, then we are
faced with probable chaotic upheavals in the MidEast, Balkans,
Georgia, Ukraine..et al...regardless of whether either McCain or Obama is president at the time.
_________________
"injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" Martin Luther king |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
