digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Putin blasts U.S. for 'very dangerous' foreign policies

cbc.ca — Russian President Vladimir Putin has accused the United States of making the world a more dangerous place by trying to impose its will through an "almost uncontained, hyper use of force." U.S. foreign policies are prompting countries around the world to develop nuclear arms, Putin said.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • citizenbfk, on 10/12/2007, -18/+27Sounds like a serious confrontation. That's what happens when you act like a bully trying to push the whole world around.

    Is this the lead up to WWIII? Or has it already started?
    • freakon, on 10/12/2007, -28/+3In soviet russia, US blast you!

      WTF?
    • raskalz, on 10/12/2007, -11/+57There is no WW3. Putin just told US how things are really are and how coutnries percieve them. Cudos for being strait forward. It is no secret everyone hates American Foreign Policy, and their "partnership" with Israel and war of "Iraqi Freedom" ~cough~cough~ is destebalizing the middle east. Besides NATO was made to have protection against USSR which now fell apart, and NATOs expensions kinda does not make sense, except it shows that US is trying to expand its imperialistic grab on the world. And Guess what, some countries do not like this thing.

      The only problem with globalization, that it is in fact Americanization
    • raskalz, on 10/12/2007, -15/+24sorry for mistakes:
      "The only problem with globalization, that it is in fact it is Americanization"
    • BeefBaron, on 10/12/2007, -17/+7At least it doesn't say BREAKING: in the title...
    • scheper, on 10/12/2007, -24/+8It's not like Putin isn't a bully himself, he's just not so open about it.

      At least George doesn't kill, poison or torture his opposition.
    • jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -19/+8The war on terror is WW3 or WW4 depending on how you look at it. And this is not just a war on Al Qaeda, it's a war on Islamic extremism. This will only get uglier, especially considering the type of Government likely to step into the White House in 2009.

      These are more uncertain times than most people like to think...
    • kaelyiesta, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14This just in, countries that have weapons and energy deals with Iran and Iraq get huffy when US jeapordizes their middle eastern cash cow.

      In other news, grass found to be green.
    • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/17/colbert-its-a-world-war-iii-or-iv/
    • dissident, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20yep... you know it's funny how all the terrorists attempting to blow up the US on the TV show '24' would say the same thing... it's the US bullying the world around (our imperialism) that causes this stuff... funny how the producers of that show seem to understand that yet the whole concept of that goes over most people's heads. Most people don't realize america created most of the problems it faces today.
    • jambox, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8@scheper

      Torture - hmmm, Guantanamo Bay ring any bells?
    • Tweedy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/12/europe/EU-GEN-Poland-US-Missile-Defense.php

      Putin is mad the US is going to put those right next to his country.
    • deiphobus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7WWIII? No. Everyone has already seen the horrors of war, especially on a global scale. I seriously doubt that anyone wants to see a war of that magnitude ever again.

      As for Putin, he is doing the right thing. His comments will not damage relations with the US. People should see it more as a balancing act. In a way, Putin is saying that even if the US is, without a doubt, the strongest world power, it doesn't mean that they are the only world power and that they can do anything they want. We need people like Putin, who can stand up and directly say to the US that what they are doing is wrong. Let's admit it, George Bush does not know what he is doing. Even Americans themselves are no longer happy, probably even appalled, I'd dare say, with what their President is doing and/or what he has failed to do.

      Putin is saying that the US should seriously rethink its foreign policies. He is one of the very few who can do this, and for that, I salute him.
    • Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6It's Russia who is stalling the U.N. sanctions on Iran's rogue nuclear program.
      It's Russia who is selling nuclear technology, as well as other hi-tech weaponry
      to Iran. It is the Russian's fault that the Middle Eastern nations fear Iranian
      nuclearization.
    • brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@Mu99ins
      And it is the Government of the USA that alienated Iran after 9/11 by naming them as part of the "Axis of Evil" when the government and people of Iran wanted to be and considered themselves our allies.

      There were massive rallies in support of the US in Iran after 9/11. The government and people were behind the US as was most of the world. Unilateral aggressions and poor diplomacy (some people don't like being called evil) threw that support away and turned it into distrust, dislike, and disgust.

      The US is hardly the first country to ever be the victim of a terrorist attack. Many countries all over the world were very sympathetic to the loss and horror that goes along with such senseless destruction. Rather than forging new bonds and working to unite the administration decided it was better to take a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach.
    • xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4"And it is the Government of the USA that alienated Iran after 9/11 by naming them as part of the "Axis of Evil" "

      Um, lets see here.
      The USA has the Navy Seals and Delta Force.
      Iran has Hezbollah and Al Qaeda

      Got it?
    • raskalz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ Mu99ins And it is US fault that Israel got so many weapons that create a looooot of problems in Midle East.. ;)
    • JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Polonium-210 is a way better foreign policy, Mr. KGB Colonel Putin.
  • laterthandawn, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1Oh, good.

    Cold War, Part Deux
    • j.carcinogen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Part of Gate's reply... left out of this canadian article:

      "As an old Cold Warrior, one of yesterday's speeches almost filled me with nostalgia for a less complex time. Almost," Gates said. Then, as the audience chuckled, the defense secretary said he has accepted Putin's invitation to visit Russia.
    • raskalz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Russia is not interested in cold war 2.
    • H4rdcore, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16The cold war never ended. Look at who the so called rogue nations are: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea.... America's strategy is just the old fashioned containment strategy. Russia and China are trying to expand their influence southwards, or at least trying to maintain it and the US is trying to block them or even trying to push back the boundary. The USA just can't say it's about the threat of communism anymore, so they call it terrorism. After all, the US government has to sell these wars to their people.
    • kaelyiesta, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4absolutely right hardcore,
      The war hasn't ended, just changed the name is all. That and there is an unwritten(as far as we know) agreement to confine the casulties of this war in other countries for the most part. Why do you suppose so many countries are ganging up on the US right now? If you think its because us yanks are somehow worse than say russia/china/whatever other inspiring superpower then you should step back and think about it not so narrowly. Because like in any other strategic game, you join with everyone else in ganging up on the biggest guy if you think you still have a chance. We're winning the cold war, but its not over. There is still a lot of land and oil to carve up.
    • jambox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@h4rdcore
      @kaelyiesta
      I like the continuing cold war views, but to be honest, I think it's a bigger issue than that.

      With the continuing rise of India and China, the US and Russia risk becoming 2nd-rate powers within 50 years, so the situation is somewhat different.

      Also I think the NATO thing is a bit more complex, with EU enlargement proving a serious headache for Russia.

      However, I agree entirely that the Middle East is being used yet again as a proxy for the big powers to fight over.
  • j.carcinogen, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7Highly slanted and biased article, leaving outt he way Gate's rebutted, and the Czech's response to Putin (insinuating because of Putin) that NATO needs to be enlarged (followed by applause).
    • gini1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Well Gate's rebuttal was not much of a rebuttal and some official from Czech government can say what she likes. The fact that there was not much noise from other leaders probably tells that Putin said something comprehensive and there is not much to add let alone argue against.
  • epicstruggle, on 10/12/2007, -24/+17It may be so, but Putin is quite possibly the worst person to make these sort of claims. He has single handily bullied/killed freedom of the press in Russia, armed Iran (and others), and has threatened/blackmailed Eastern/Western Europe by with holding natural gas these last few winters, not to mention their play to install a puppet government in Ukraine.
    • raskalz, on 10/12/2007, -12/+28umm hello Fox Troll

      Putin is the greates president in Russia Since the collapse of USSR. He brought back economy to the country, and started rebuilding it!
    • laterthandawn, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17Logic like that would dictate that President Bush shouldn't say a bad thing about anyone...

      Have you seen our latest ratings as far as our free press goes? Happen to catch two highly "disputed" American elections back to back? Happen to notice that illegal war we're involved in?

      Damn. I guess Bush and Putin best not mention one another's names.
    • raskalz, on 10/12/2007, -10/+28Oh and by the way, onlike some other countries, Russia does not have "Prisons" in Cuba , where people are holded without any trial and god knows what happens. Also it does not have Patriot Acts which can impreason and execute any citizen of its country without any evidence. Those things are "kinda" against the constitution... ;)
    • jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7@epicstruggle:

      I would've said a lot of the same things myself here, but you already have. I would like to add that he's been killing dissidents (including that infamous case in Britain) and renationalizing industries like oil and in the process stealing the fortunes of the "Oligarchs".

      @rascalz:

      That's not "Fox Troll" speak. Putin's march in the direction of Soviet-style government has been covered in great detail in the International press. I guess you would say newspapers like "The Economist" are just Neocon rags
    • deweyhewson, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8@raskalz

      I'm no fan of Bush, but I had to respond to your obviously well-researched comment: Can you show me the part in the Patriot Act that says our government can execute any citizen with no evidence? No? I thought not. And yes, we "holded" insurgent detainees at our Cuban base, but will you explain to me what trials they should have? We're at war, you don't have trials for POWs. I'm not saying we treat them the way we should, but they definitely don't deserve a "trial or be let go". For God sakes, they are prisoners of war!

      Is there any direct evidence tying Bush with the assasination of a former intelligence officer? Interesting, because there is for Putin.

      *sigh* What's sad is I actually have to defend America on Digg to morons who don't know how good we have it here.
    • XTheEliminator, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6What a load of bull raskalz. Putin hasn't even started rebuilding Gazprom infrastructure, let alone the country.

      Oh and jcm267, lately the economist has been making a worrying slide in that direction. Cancelled my subscription about a year ago.
    • scheper, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20"I'm not saying we treat them the way we should, but they definitely don't deserve a "trial or be let go". For God sakes, they are prisoners of war!"

      They are not. Many of the "POWs" are people linked, or remotely linked, often falsely, with terrorists. That link could be a distant relative, or an old childhood friend. These people are arrested from all over the world, and have nothing to do with the war. They do deserve a trial or be let go.
    • olexij, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5@raskalz

      you just do not see the signs. You could also write precisely the same about Hitler in 1933:
      "Hitler is the greatest chancellor in Germany since the collapse of Germany in WW I. He brought back economy to the country, and started rebuilding it!"
    • scheper, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6"Also it [Russia] does not have Patriot Acts which can impreason and execute any citizen of its country without any evidence. Those things are "kinda" against the constitution... ;)"

      The Patriot Act cannot execute citizens, with or without evidence. Russia has recent laws that allow execution of anyone opposing the government. That's a lot worse.
    • jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5I can't believe the morons here are diggin up rascalz's first comment. You people are reaching that fine line where idiocy meets insanity.
    • jambox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@deweyhewson
      @raskalz

      Well there's no evidence Putin had Litvinenko killed, it's possible it was an enemy of his, such as Maxim Berezovsky (think I spelled that right).

      Also, while the Economist isn't a 'neo-con rag', it certainly isn't the sort of magazine that's going to do someone like Putin a favour, what with the whole energy shortage thing and the emergence of Gazprom.

      I don't like Putin very much given Russia's conduct in Chechnya and the gross hyper-capitalism that's going on, with people walking out of Russia to go live in London holding billions of dollars of the Russian people's money, which they worked and saved for.

      You don't get any points for calling Gitmo inmates POWs, if you didn't have much of a reason to go to war in the first place - it may seem like par for the course but that sort of thing is definitely frowned upon in international politics, as is rendition. You can see that by the German and Italian judiciaries issuing arrest warrants for CIA agents.

      But I don't think Putin cares about the welfare of individuals or the moral rights and wrongs of Iraq and the rest. His valid point is that US policy has had a counter-productive effect in terms of influence and non-proliferation. North Korea probably wouldn't have risked upsetting Beijing (and they are upset) by going after nukes if it wasn't for Iraq. Iran is still a question regarding it's true intentions towards the US and Israel, but I should imagine that any more US sabre-rattling is going to get a very poor reception from the other veto-holding nations on the security council.
    • mapkinase, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@raskalz

      What you are writing is good. Now try to achieve this without all your sock puppets.
    • BabyWookie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Under Putin, the Russian economy has been experiencing significant growth, along with the improvements in living conditions of the people. The socio-political situation has been stabilized, the Muslim extremists and mobsters have been cracked down on and the country is experiencing a resurgence of national pride and optimism. Putin is smart, eloquent and projects a great deal of strength and confidence. He's the anti-Yeltsin and anti-Bush. He was a breath of fresh air to the Russian people tired of old, weak, incompetent leaders and is extremely popular. Granted, I do think that he has an authoritarian streak and deserves to be criticized for a number of things, especially his conservative stances, but let's not be misleading here.

      Name one Russian opposition politician that has been violently suppressed. Name one opposition protest that has been violently suppressed. Please, do. I see these opposition figures such as Boris Nemtsov bash Putin on Russia's national media all the time.

      In reality, people like Politkovskaya have caused very little trouble for Putin. Most people recognized her for the American shill that she was. Her influence was minimal. There are thousands of people who cause a lot more trouble for Putin and they are all alive and well. I doubt Putin would have bothered to take her out. Same with Litvinenko. Have you ever heard of that clown before he was poisoned?

  • milezteg, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8Yawn more 2-3 day old news on the front page of digg.
    • zephc, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7I'm pretty sure this is the 3rd time I've seen it on the front page...
  • ElectricSoup, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8"almost uncontained, hyper use of force."

    This is coming from Putin? Anyone well-informed enough to know what he's done in Russia (never mind to his neighbors) must be laughing rather grimly at that one--providing they haven't been fed Polonium-210 to silence them from commenting on the matter.

    This is like being called fat by Luciano Pavarotti.
  • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -15/+8Putin is pissed that his sweet deal with Saddam is no logner. Same with Chirac.
    • the6thReplicant, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14yeah it's everyone else's fault

      just because the US has decided to not support Saddam after it has for so many years before, really doesn't give you the right to start pointing your finger at other countries and their stupid foreign policies. repeat after me. YOU ARE NO BETTER THAN CHIRAC AND PUTIN. YOU ARE WORSE.

      or, maybe use your own critical thinking on your own government first, since now we're in worse danger from terrorists than ever before thanks to guys like you....slow..clap...

      ciao
    • ScottMaximus1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Caps lock sure does make you look cool.


      Assssmonkey
  • Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19I love Putin. Give him a polonium martini, on the house.
  • BamaStangGuy, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5This coming from Russia who's foreign policy consists of aiding a country run by Muslim Extremists who want Nuclear Weapons. I could give a damn what Putin thinks of our Foreign policy. What good does Russia do for the world? Lately all they seem to be doing is assisting the Muslim Extremists against America. Also, when did Russia do anything to fix a security risk that didn't come from within their own country? Perfectly content with letting Muslim extremists turn Europe into Eurabia.
    • BamaStangGuy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10and only a fool ignores a growing threat. How would you label them? Shall I just call them Muslims and not distinguish them from the Muslims that do not accept the kind of views that these extremists have taken on? Why is it ok to label someone a neo-con but not label someone who takes the muslim faith to extremes a Muslim Extremists? Why is digg full of idiots that only insist on insulting others?
    • keyrat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's not about ignoring a growing threat, it's about carpet bombing when we should have sent in black ops.

      Can you imagine a war on terror that is actually effective? Imagine a campaign where the terrorists don't see our troops on every corner. Imagine being secretly stationed in allied countries (who were much more willing pre-iraq) just waiting to pounce in the middle of the night, only to disappear by the morning. Imagine intercepting weapons instead of fighting battles in the streets. Imagine being a terrorist and fearing you may get taken away out of nowhere, as opposed to dying in a firefight. This is how you combat terrorism; acting on intelligence with meticulous strikes. You don't occupy a disaster of a country and set up targets for every joe blow "i hate the occupiers" to use for practice.
    • Strd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@ macktwo :
      "dancing Israeli" ???
      WTF you are talking about ?
      I'm Israeli. Jew Israeli never dance on the street. They are walking, jogging, shopping, drinking, eating and shouting on the streets. They sometimes protesting, burning tires and even throwing stones into each other (of Jew only ulthraorthodox are throwing stones). But *never* dance on the streets.
    • Pootle4rthur, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3If you were Iran, and had the US army camped next door, two US carrier fleets in the waters very near your shores, Israel with it's collection of many hundreds of nuclear warheads regularly trying to get it's ally to attack you,
      wouldn't you think it might be time to get some nukes of your own?
      If anything the current strategy of threatening them is showing how much they need bigger weapons rather than encouraging them that they don't

      Much as I'm no fan of Putin, and regard him as having a tenuous understanding of Democracy, he does have a decent understanding of world Realpolitik, and should be listened to
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@strd: Macktwo is jsut another one of those anti-semitic "JEWS DID 9/11" conspiracy theorists. Well, I wouldn't go as far as to call him a theorist. He's just a sheep following the conspiracy theorists as a way to make his pathetic life seem important.
  • valiko75, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6OK, I understand the fact that now everyone has a matter to speculate on... this is fun, trying to guess who poisoned whom and what poison they actually used for it. But don't you think that every single country has intelligence CIA-like agencies, who deal with such 'problems'. Putin is an ex-FSB (I guess everyone knows what this is), and he knows many ways to do something discretely. His past is, actually, the ground for everyone to say that everything bad happening is caused by him. Letvinenko poisoned - Putin, Iran has atomic energy - Putin, USA entering Iraq and Russia isn't - Putin is in coalition with Saddam. It's like 80 years old grandpas sittin' on a bench and having nothing to do.
  • outoforder, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2If not the USA, some other empire would be ruling the world.

    Who would you rather it be?
    • the6thReplicant, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2or maybe there are like...5,000 other possibilities

      sorry for not agreeing to your black and white view of the world. you know you can be a superpower and..like..responsible..or maybe even...benevolent..or even give your power away. imagine how pissed off OBL will be when the last superpower is not acting like a dick, his whole propaganda machine will collapse and his terrorists cells will disappear from a lack of new recruits hating America

      just another thought as legitimate as yours (i.e. not :)

      ciao
    • outoforder, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0"Respectfully submitted - it's NOT the "USA"; America has been subverted by Zionist interests who, actually, wouldn't blink at lobbing napalm at YOUR family. Google "dancing Israelis" to see what's in play and by whom.
      If you think Israelis wouldn't kill Americans, visit the website of the U.S.S. Liberty: The IDF *knowingly* machine gunned injured American sailors in life rafts. The IDF *knowingly* attacked again and again for several hours trying to make sure there were no surviving witnesses. As far as the NeoCons are concerned, *we* are all Palestinians."

      I've heard it before.

      What's your solution?
  • MrSmartypants, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1If only bush would blast russia for very dangerous domestic policy.
    • valiko75, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11bush would better mind some of his own business... like his speech for example
  • TeraForce, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3The deeper you plunge the sword
    The louder the Dragon shrieks and screams...
    We're obviously doing something right
    • Skizmo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0yeah . . but the problem is . .'we' don't know what.. . because 'we' don't really know what 'we' are doing. .
  • preved, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Events chronology:

    1. Feb 9, 2007; Roberts Gates (Pentagon head): "We need a full set of measures to conduct a war, including both special military units necessary for war against terrorists and infantry troops to be able to fight against large regular armies. We do not know what changes can take place in such countries as Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and others". Russia is on the first place.

    2. Feb 10, 2007; Putin responds.

    There is one more important point. During last 15 year this is the first time, when head of Pentagon directly points at Russia as a potential enemy. Putin (and previous presidents of Russia) were always threating US as friends and never did say that Russia should prepare to war with US or be ready "if something happens in US". Putin mentioned Bush in his speech very positively.

    BTW, US spends 25 times more on military than Russia and about to increase this gap.
  • portwojc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2The two countries that are actively defying the UN on the whole nuclear issue are Iran and North Korea. Those are two countries that Russia does a lot of business with. Wait a second could it be that he's upset because of that?


  • dennisbier, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1It's a bit odd to hear such talk from Saint Putin really...Russia is just trying to make itself look good when it actually wants the chaos to remain in the Middle East as its good for their business. Check out this article to see what I mean http://weekendeconomist.blogspot.com/2007/02/29-oil-tsars-part-2.html
  • clyde2801, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2In Soviet Russia, Foreign Policy blasts you!
    • valiko75, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6As already mentioned in one of the comments here on digg "In Soviet Russia we blast those who say 'Soviet Russia'!".
    • clyde2801, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, I know. But I just can't help myself...
  • Hallik, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3The main difference between America and Russia is that American has hegemony and corporate Zionism in its best interest, not giving a crap about anything else. Russia has no interest in global domination, nor is it controlled by the Jewish and big businesses, it always was, and always will be, the unionizer of the Slavic race. Russian diplomacy simply is better due to the simple fact that it's not running around calling people terrorists in it's own interest to capture his country. Nor does it constantly change its diplomacy, one day being friends with, and supporting, a nation (Iraq) then leading it to do a bad thing (attack Kuwait) and instantly change faces, even though it is the one that caused the problem. American diplomacy has always been two-faced. It supported brutal leaders in eastern Europe and South America, personally installing them in the country and supporting them, only to trick them into confrontation, to have an excuse to cause trouble and then enforce their will in that nation. This has been evident in the last century 'till the present. The Day of Pigs invasion of Cuba was purportedly due to the US being threatened, and US military advisers took photographs of the area, saw no concern or imminent threat yet the US still attacked, in it's own best interest. A little while before that, though, the US was hailing Fidel Castro as a new leader to modernize and revolutionize Cuba, at one point sending him aid. But when Fidel Castro became "bad" (made his country stronger, a "security risk" for the US) the US decided to spoof situations for attacking, even using hired help to plant bombs across Cuba. The people of the US need to realize that what the media is telling us is false, and what our country is doing is true terrorism, and that there is a real reason why everyone hates us,and it's not because they are "the Muslim extremists that hate modernization and civilization," rather, they are the ones that see through the facade of America.
    • Dewhead, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1You couldn't be more wrong.
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2As soon as I see someone whining and complaining about zionism, I hit the block button. They're out in force today on digg. Or is it that they're all one guy with an agenda. who knows. it's just as annoying as a creationist spouting off their crap.
  • 1dog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Putin knows that Bush is going to bomb Iran. He's just yelling fire in a crowd theater. Obviously if Putin wanted Iran to have a Nukes he would just give them a hundred of them.
  • alrahman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I'm no fan of the Russian President, but for once, I'm glad to see him speak out against what is nothing more then Imperialism by the US Government, and them desperately trying to implement the Project for the New American Century. I only hope more nations will have the courage to speak out, and not be intimidated by the US Government.
  • unsolicited, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I love my country.- There is no problem.
    I am obsessed with my country. - There is a big problem.
  • jambox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@scheper

    "At least George doesn't kill, poison or torture his opposition."

    Hmmm, Guantanamo Bay? That's two out of three.
    • BabyWookie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When was the last time Zhirinovsky, Zyuganov, Nemtsov or Yavlinsky have been killed, poisoned or tortured, any way?
  • dissident, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8FULL TEXT:

    Speech at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy
    02/10/2007

    (The speech was held in Russian. Find the English translation below.)

    Thank you very much dear Madam Federal Chancellor, Mr Teltschik, ladies and gentlemen!

    I am truly grateful to be invited to such a representative conference that has assembled politicians, military officials, entrepreneurs and experts from more than 40 nations.

    This conference’s structure allows me to avoid excessive politeness and the need to speak in roundabout, pleasant but empty diplomatic terms. This conference’s format will allow me to say what I really think about international security problems. And if my comments seem unduly polemical, pointed or inexact to our colleagues, then I would ask you not to get angry with me. After all, this is only a conference. And I hope that after the first two or three minutes of my speech Mr Teltschik will not turn on the red light over there.

    Therefore. It is well known that international security comprises much more than issues relating to military and political stability. It involves the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and developing a dialogue between civilisations.

    This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all”. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was breaking out: “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.”

    These words remain topical today. Incidentally, the theme of our conference – global crises, global responsibility – exemplifies this.

    Only two decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security.

    This global stand-off pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the margins of the international community’s and the world’s agenda. And, just like any war, the Cold War left us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards and other typical aspects of Cold War bloc thinking.

    The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either.

    The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world supremacy. And what hasn’t happened in world history?

    However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.

    It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

    And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.

    Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.

    I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.

    Along with this, what is happening in today’s world – and we just started to discuss this – is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world.

    And with which results?

    Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. Mr Teltschik mentioned this very gently. And no less people perish in these conflicts – even more are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!

    Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.

    We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

    In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate.

    And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasise this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.

    The force’s dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats – though they were also well-known before – have appeared, and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character.

    I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.

    And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue. Especially since the international landscape is so varied and changes so quickly – changes in light of the dynamic development in a whole number of countries and regions.

    Madam Federal Chancellor already mentioned this. The combined GDP measured in purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is already greater than that of the United States. And a similar calculation with the GDP of the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will only increase in the future.

    There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centres of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity.

    In connection with this the role of multilateral diplomacy is significantly increasing. The need for principles such as openness, transparency and predictability in politics is uncontested and the use of force should be a really exceptional measure, comparable to using the death penalty in the judicial systems of certain states.

    However, today we are witnessing the opposite tendency, namely a situation in which countries that forbid the death penalty even for murderers and other, dangerous criminals are airily participating in military operations that are difficult to consider legitimate. And as a matter of fact, these conflicts are killing people – hundreds and thousands of civilians!

    But at the same time the question arises of whether we should be indifferent and aloof to various internal conflicts inside countries, to authoritarian regimes, to tyrants, and to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? As a matter of fact, this was also at the centre of the question that our dear colleague Mr Lieberman asked the Federal Chancellor. If I correctly understood your question (addressing Mr Lieberman), then of course it is a serious one! Can we be indifferent observers in view of what is happening? I will try to answer your question as well: of course not.

    But do we have the means to counter these threats? Certainly we do. It is sufficient to look at recent history. Did not our country have a peaceful transition to democracy? Indeed, we witnessed a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime – a peaceful transformation! And what a regime! With what a number of weapons, including nuclear weapons! Why should we start bombing and shooting now at every available opportunity? Is it the case when without the threat of mutual destruction we do not have enough political culture, respect for democratic values and for the law?

    I am convinced that the only mechanism that can make decisions about using military force as a last resort is the Charter of the United Nations. And in connection with this, either I did not understand what our colleague, the Italian Defence Minister, just said or what he said was inexact. In any case, I understood that the use of force can only be legitimate when the decision is taken by NATO, the EU, or the UN. If he really does think so, then we have different points of view. Or I didn’t hear correctly. The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN. And we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN. When the UN will truly unite the forces of the international community and can really react to events in various countries, when we will leave behind this disdain for international law, then the situation will be able to change. Otherwise the situation will simply result in a dead end, and the number of serious mistakes will be multiplied. Along with this, it is necessary to make sure that international law have a universal character both in the conception and application of its norms.

    And one must not forget that democratic political actions necessarily go along with discussion and a laborious decision-making process.

    Dear ladies and gentlemen!

    The potential danger of the destabilisation of international relations is connected with obvious stagnation in the disarmament issue.

    Russia supports the renewal of dialogue on this important question.

    It is important to conserve the international legal framework relating to weapons destruction and therefore ensure continuity in the process of reducing nuclear weapons.

    Together with the United States of America we agreed to reduce our nuclear strategic missile capabilities to up to 1700-2000 nuclear warheads by 31 December 2012. Russia intends to strictly fulfil the obligations it has taken on. We hope that our partners will also act in a transparent way and will refrain from laying aside a couple of hundred superfluous nuclear warheads for a rainy day. And if today the new American Defence Minister declares that the United States will not hide these superfluous weapons in warehouse or, as one might say, under a pillow or under the blanket, then I suggest that we all rise and greet this declaration standing. It would be a very important declaration.

    Russia strictly adheres to and intends to further adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as the multilateral supervision regime for missile technologies. The principles incorporated in these documents are universal ones.

    In connection with this I would like to recall that in the 1980s the USSR and the United States signed an agreement on destroying a whole range of small- and medium-range missiles but these documents do not have a universal character.

    Today many other countries have these missiles, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan and Israel. Many countries are working on these systems and plan to incorporate them as part of their weapons arsenals. And only the United States and Russia bear the responsibility to not create such weapons systems.

    It is obvious that in these conditions we must think about ensuring our own security.

    At the same time, it is impossible to sanction the appearance of new, destabilising high-tech weapons. Needless to say it refers to measures to prevent a new area of confrontation, especially in outer space. Star wars is no longer a fantasy – it is a reality. In the middle of the 1980s our American partners were already able to intercept their own satellite.

    In Russia’s opinion, the militarisation of outer space could have unpredictable consequences for the international community, and provoke nothing less than the beginning of a nuclear era. And we have come forward more than once with initiatives designed to prevent the use of weapons in outer space.

    Today I would like to tell you that we have prepared a project for an agreement on the prevention of deploying weapons in outer space. And in the near future it will be sent to our partners as an official proposal. Let’s work on this together.

    Plans to expand certain elements of the anti-missile defence system to Europe cannot help but disturb us. Who needs the next step of what would be, in this case, an inevitable arms race? I deeply doubt that Europeans themselves do.

    Missile weapons with a range of about five to eight thousand kilometres that really pose a threat to Europe do not exist in any of the so-called problem countries. And in the near future and prospects, this will not happen and is not even foreseeable. And any hypothetical launch of, for example, a North Korean rocket to American territory through western Europe obviously contradicts the laws of ballistics. As we say in Russia, it would be like using the right hand to reach the left ear.

    And here in Germany I cannot help but mention the pitiable condition of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.

    The Adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was signed in 1999. It took into account a new geopolitical reality, namely the elimination of the Warsaw bloc. Seven years have passed and only four states have ratified this document, including the Russian Federation.

    NATO countries openly declared that they will not ratify this treaty, including the provisions on flank restrictions (on deploying a certain number of armed forces in the flank zones), until Russia removed its military bases from Georgia and Moldova. Our army is leaving Georgia, even according to an accelerated schedule. We resolved the problems we had with our Georgian colleagues, as everybody knows. There are still 1,500 servicemen in Moldova that are carrying out peacekeeping operations and protecting warehouses with ammunition left over from Soviet times. We constantly discuss this issue with Mr Solana and he knows our position. We are ready to further work in this direction.

    But what is happening at the same time? Simultaneously the so-called flexible frontline American bases with up to five thousand men in each. It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly fulfil the treaty obligations and do not react to these actions at all.

    I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees?

    The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs. But we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice – one that was also made by our people, the people of Russia – a choice in favour of democracy, freedom, openness and a sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family.

    And now they are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us – these walls may be virtual but they are nevertheless dividing, ones that cut through our continent. And is it possible that we will once again require many years and decades, as well as several generations of politicians, to dissemble and dismantle these new walls?

    Dear ladies and gentlemen!

    We are unequivocally in favour of strengthening the regime of non-proliferation. The present international legal principles allow us to develop technologies to manufacture nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And many countries with all good reasons want to create their own nuclear energy as a basis for their energy independence. But we also understand that these technologies can be quickly transformed into nuclear weapons.

    This creates serious international tensions. The situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme acts as a clear example. And if the international community does not find a reasonable solution for resolving this conflict of interests, the world will continue to suffer similar, destabilising crises because there are more threshold countries than simply Iran. We both know this. We are going to constantly fight against the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

    Last year Russia put forward the initiative to establish international centres for the enrichment of uranium. We are open to the possibility that such centres not only be created in Russia, but also in other countries where there is a legitimate basis for using civil nuclear energy. Countries that want to develop their nuclear energy could guarantee that they will receive fuel through direct participation in these centres. And the centres would, of course, operate under strict IAEA supervision.

    The latest initiatives put forward by American President George W. Bush are in conformity with the Russian proposals. I consider that Russia and the USA are objectively and equally interested in strengthening the regime of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their deployment. It is precisely our countries, with leading nuclear and missile capabilities, that must act as leaders in developing new, stricter non-proliferation measures. Russia is ready for such work. We are engaged in consultations with our American friends.

    In general, we should talk about establishing a whole system of political incentives and economic stimuli whereby it would not be in states’ interests to establish their own capabilities in the nuclear fuel cycle but they would still have the opportunity to develop nuclear energy and strengthen their energy capabilities.

    In connection with this I shall talk about international energy cooperation in more detail. Madam Federal Chancellor also spoke about this briefly – she mentioned, touched on this theme. In the energy sector Russia intends to create uniform market principles and transparent conditions for all. It is obvious that energy prices must be determined by the market instead of being the subject of political speculation, economic pressure or blackmail.

    We are open to cooperation. Foreign companies participate in all our major energy projects. According to different estimates, up to 26 percent of the oil extraction in Russia – and please think about this figure – up to 26 percent of the oil extraction in Russia is done by foreign capital. Try, try to find me a similar example where Russian business participates extensively in key economic sectors in western countries. Such examples do not exist! There are no such examples.

    I would also recall the parity of foreign investments in Russia and those Russia makes abroad. The parity is about fifteen to one. And here you have an obvious example of the openness and stability of the Russian economy.

    Economic security is the sector in which all must adhere to uniform principles. We are ready to compete fairly.

    For that reason more and more opportunities are appearing in the Russian economy. Experts and our western partners are objectively evaluating these changes. As such, Russia’s OECD sovereign credit rating improved and Russia passed from the fourth to the third group. And today in Munich I would like to use this occasion to thank our German colleagues for their help in the above decision.

    Furthermore. As you know, the process of Russia joining the WTO has reached its final stages. I would point out that during long, difficult talks we heard words about freedom of speech, free trade, and equal possibilities more than once but, for some reason, exclusively in reference to the Russian market.

    And there is still one more important theme that directly affects global security. Today many talk about the struggle against poverty. What is actually happening in this sphere? On the one hand, financial resources are allocated for programmes to help the world’s poorest countries – and at times substantial financial resources. But to be honest -- and many here also know this – linked with the development of that same donor country’s companies. And on the other hand, developed countries simultaneously keep their agricultural subsidies and limit some countries’ access to high-tech products.

    And let’s say things as they are – one hand distributes charitable help and the other hand not only preserves economic backwardness but also reaps the profits thereof. The increasing social tension in depressed regions inevitably results in the growth of radicalism, extremism, feeds terrorism and local conflicts. And if all this happens in, shall we say, a region such as the Middle East where there is increasingly the sense that the world at large is unfair, then there is the risk of global destabilisation.

    It is obvious that the world’s leading countries should see this threat. And that they should therefore build a more democratic, fairer system of global economic relations, a system that would give everyone the chance and the possibility to develop.

    Dear ladies and gentlemen, speaking at the Conference on Security Policy, it is impossible not to mention the activities of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). As is well-known, this organisation was created to examine all – I shall emphasise this – all aspects of security: military, political, economic, humanitarian and, especially, the relations between these spheres.

    What do we see happening today? We see that this balance is clearly destroyed. People are trying to transform the OSCE into a vulgar instrument designed to promote the foreign policy interests of one or a group of countries. And this task is also being accomplished by the OSCE’s bureaucratic apparatus which is absolutely not connected with the state founders in any way. Decision-making procedures and the involvement of so-called non-governmental organisations are tailored for this task. These organisations are formally independent but they are purposefully financed and therefore under control.

    According to the founding documents, in the humanitarian sphere the OSCE is designed to assist country members in observing international human rights norms at their request. This is an important task. We support this. But this does not mean interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and especially not imposing a regime that determines how these states should live and develop.

    It is obvious that such interference does not promote the development of democratic states at all. On the contrary, it makes them dependent and, as a consequence, politically and economically unstable.

    We expect that the OSCE be guided by its primary tasks and build relations with sovereign states based on respect, trust and transparency.

    Dear ladies and gentlemen!

    In conclusion I would like to note the following. We very often – and personally, I very often – hear appeals by our partners, including our European partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in world affairs.

    In connection with this I would allow myself to make one small remark. It is hardly necessary to incite us to do so. Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign policy.

    We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we are well aware of how the world has changed and we have a realistic sense of our own opportunities and potential. And of course we would like to interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.

    Thank you for your attention.
  • atb12688, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Well, i think its safe to say that even bush cannot match up to the Putin dictatorship...
  • Bloodwine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1If anything, I would think Putin would be happy about this, as it opens more markets to their ... merchandise.
  • empyrius, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1The evil American government must be overthrown before us Americans shall ever have true freedom! We need an elected government that is comprised of us, the people of this nation, not mega-rich lawyers and theri corporate buddies, who have rendered the 'common' man to be no more than a corporate slave.

    Christian Socialitst unite!
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"We need an elected government that is comprised of us, the people of this nation, not mega-rich lawyers and theri corporate buddies" I agree there. But socialism? ***** that. I don't want to be a slave to lazy do-nothing non-working assholes who eat up my tax money with their socialistic crap.

      Work hard, save your money, and take care of your family and yourself, or get out. Don't steal from me (in taxes) so you can pay for medicine or food... And still buy your pimped out Escalade.

      And mega-rich-lawyers... Ever hear of John Edwards. He's a rich bastard of a lawyer. He even "talked to dead babies" in court in order to win large settlements.
  • jsmith39, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0and anyone cares what that pedophile thinks because why again?
  • Rogelito, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Man, I had no idea that the Digg-nation held such extreme left-wing anti-American views! This remind me of reading the BBC forums.
  • sire021, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1this is all talk, no walk.... russia is a land of wussies now

    used to be different, but that's how it is today
  • raskalz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Pardon my "engrish" and few exagirations, i was a little bit drunk last night

    However, i stand by my point. People do not understand the fact that USSR fell apart 15 years ago, and it had to be literally rebuilt from the scratch. Unfortunately till 1999 they had presidents which were too busy destroying and ripping the country of its resources. Since president Putin came, he wooped scumbags asses like Hodorkovsky (who was stealing russian oil and selling it for pennies to other countries). Fox viewers love to scream WW3 , COLDWAR..what the hell is this? Scare Tactics??? Cold War was going on for 60 years and there were no WW3 or end of human civilization. It is good to have some Balance in super powers...It really a big sore in the eyes of United States that Russia is rebuilding, becoming more powerfull, and having over 60% GDP increase each year. Russia rebuild it army industry, right away USA found reasons to "blockade" Russian companies cause they could not cope with competition. And excuses are lame, RUssia sells defence weapons to countries like Iran and Syria..last time i checked this was ligal. Unlike USA, Russia did not sell gas and weapons to Sadam Hussein so that he can Gas Kurds and start a ten year war with Iran...you see my point?
    • andreir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Replace that 60% GDP increase with 6%. But you're correct, Russia's goal is to become a major modern weapons dealer, which does not sit well with the US.
  • Ryuukuro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Putin's right but with his steady drive to destroy the rights of Russian citizens he doesn't really get the right to talk. Putin belongs with Bush in the fraternity of international douche-bags.
  • Rogelito, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0What the news article should have said but was too politically correct:

    “Putin blasts U.S. for 'very dangerous' foreign policies after meeting with Iranian Ayatollah”

    “Russian president Putin criticized US aggression and threatened a new Cold War after senior Russian officials met with the Iranian Ayatollah last week in Tehran (this is true). In return for politically assisting Iran in frustrating US and EU attempts to squelch its nuke ambitions, Russia would gain stronger economic ties with a key international market and solidify its influence in the middle east as a ‘friend of Muslims’. The flagging Russian economy is in desperate need of further trade with Iran and the Middle East, as the sale of nuclear and military technology is a major Russian export. Backed by Russia’s military might weakening US resolve, this agreement would also allow Iran to move forward with its agenda of spreading its Fundamentalist Islamic Revolution throughout the Middle East with no US interference. Iran also got Russian (veto power) assurances of minimizing any UN sanctions arising from its nuke development. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, “This agreement helps both nations - it supports Russia’s failing industrial/military complex and gives Iran the confidence to move forward with our Islamofascist expansionary agenda. Death to the Jews and death to America!”
  • Sneakernets, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Pot, Kettle, Pot, Kettle...
  • stray, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Jesus, *Vladimir Putin* thinks our country is over the top, you know we've got problems. This is the guy who might have ordered the death of a dissident expat through *polonium-210 radiation poisoning* and he thinks we've gone too far?
  • jsatz23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4He is right in almost everything he said about the US. America has not made the world safer and if you think it has, you need an eye exam. Now he is no where near perfect either, but what he said is not blasting, what he said is true.
  • trancebydesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"it's Russia who is stalling the U.N. sanctions on Iran's rogue nuclear program.
    It's Russia who is selling nuclear technology, as well as other hi-tech weaponry
    to Iran. It is the Russian's fault that the Middle Eastern nations fear Iranian
    nuclearization."

    The reason for (eg.) North Korea to have nuclear weapons is (as they say) to protect themselves from the nukes of the usa.
    When does the usa see they are breaking WMD laws set by the NATO?
    When does the usa see that they sent the weapons to the middle east themselves?
    When does the usa see that nobody outside the us (except for some) supports their wars?

    @Scheper:
    "At least George doesn't kill, poison or torture his opposition."
    No he doesn't have to, he has friends who counts the votes..
  • 4wheel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2You don't even realize what you are. America has the best interest of the world at heart. You stab America in the heart. What utter fools you are.
  • Hallik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I'm going to repost my buried comment, because it was buried by some Jew who refuses to see that America and the media is controlled by his people. The original post, actually read it:

    The main difference between America and Russia is that American has hegemony and corporate Zionism in its best interest, not giving a crap about anything else. Russia has no interest in global domination, nor is it controlled by the Jewish and big businesses, it always was, and always will be, the unionizer of the Slavic race. Russian diplomacy simply is better due to the simple fact that it's not running around calling people terrorists in it's own interest to capture his country. Nor does it constantly change its diplomacy, one day being friends with, and supporting, a nation (Iraq) then leading it to do a bad thing (attack Kuwait) and instantly change faces, even though it is the one that caused the problem. American diplomacy has always been two-faced. It supported brutal leaders in eastern Europe and South America, personally installing them in the country and supporting them, only to trick them into confrontation, to have an excuse to cause trouble and then enforce their will in that nation. This has been evident in the last century 'till the present. The Day of Pigs invasion of Cuba was purportedly due to the US being threatened, and US military advisers took photographs of the area, saw no concern or imminent threat yet the US still attacked, in it's own best interest. A little while before that, though, the US was hailing Fidel Castro as a new leader to modernize and revolutionize Cuba, at one point sending him aid. But when Fidel Castro became "bad" (made his country stronger, a "security risk" for the US) the US decided to spoof situations for attacking, even using hired help to plant bombs across Cuba. The people of the US need to realize that what the media is telling us is false, and what our country is doing is true terrorism, and that there is a real reason why everyone hates us,and it's not because they are "the Muslim extremists that hate modernization and civilization," rather, they are the ones that see through the facade of America.

    • 4wheel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not a jew. I buried your comment because you seem to be an idiot. Of course, I could be wrong. It's happened once before.
  • farther, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1So the pot calls the kettle....
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.