jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (125 posts)

Senator Lugar proposes NATO to tap on any country energy resources?

  1. maxoxam41 profile image80
    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago

    for our needs.
    If it is not power superseding over the law what is it? What is it that a little senator can decide who NATO will military aggress for our overconsumption? Is it what is cooking for us in the future? Isn't it a legitimate way to banalize our aggression to countries like Syria? After all, Syria has important reserves of gas and oil (just discovered one year ago)! Thanks to senator Lugar financed by the elite (who else's interest is it?) it will give our so-called economical power (otherwise why would we attack Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria...) the green light to perpetrate crimes in the name of our overconsumption. Whereas in the meantime we could exploit other forms of energy but our elite wants us to suck their tits still! Your opinion?

    1. 60
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Lugar is no longer a Senator, so his opinion only matters to those who will listen to it and act on his behalf, he has no power or authority.  Oil has no substitute, if it did that substitute would replace oil, if it was the reasonable alternative.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image80
        maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        My problem is not much Lugar but the agenda concealed behind Lugar. If we consider our recent history everything tends to make me believe that it is our objective. If oil depletion was announced few years ago, I've also read that gas was the next coveted natural resource. What is the next step? Pass a vote in NATO concretizing Lugar's proposition?

        1. 60
          retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Time and again we have been told that we are running out of oil.  It is an old, tired and wrong story.  We are constantly improving how oil is used, uncovering new sources and discovering that reserves, once thought depleted, have been partially refreshed.  There is even a competing theory about the origin and nature of petroleum that it is not the organic remains of long dead plants and animals but instead a by product of geological processes.

          1. maxoxam41 profile image80
            maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            If it is replenishing itself why are we waging wars?

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Mostly because the West is run by fools - was that too plainly spoken?

              1. maxoxam41 profile image80
                maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Then why is Saudi Arabia saving its production for future hardships? It limited its export.

                1. 60
                  retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Iranian Nukes

                  1. maxoxam41 profile image80
                    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Where is the relationship?

                2. Quilligrapher profile image89
                  Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Hello, Max.

                  Again, I need to ask for a source that says Saudi Arabia is cutting exports to avoid future hardships. Your claim defies today’s reality.

                  Let us look at the facts.

                  Saudi Arabia has for years adjusted its oil exports, up and down, to meet global demand. However, contrary to your claim, a Wall Street Journal headline following the OPEC meeting in Dec. 2013 declared: “Saudis Shy Away from Unilateral Oil Output Cut.” {1}

                  Never the less, OPEC, including Saudi Arabia, may be forced to cut output simply because of the increase in global supplies.

                  “The U.S. will end 2013 as the world’s largest producer of petroleum and natural gas, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia” according to the Energy Information Administration. {2} Under the Obama administration, the United States has eliminated its dependence on foreign oil.

                  Iraq is now producing more oil on an annual basis than it has for 20 years.

                  Iran may soon negotiate its way out from under global sanctions and resume oil exports.

                  Libya is close to reaching an agreement with striking workers that will allow it to resume oil production.

                  OPEC acknowledges that global demand for oil is in a short-term decline and it is pressuring Saudi Arabia to cut production to support market prices.

                  Finally, I should also mention the newly discovered reserves in the Al-Qaeda controlled areas of northern Syria.

                  “Saudi Arabia saving its production for future hardships?” I would be interested in knowing who makes that claim.
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                  {1} http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 … 4031562634
                  {2} http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-tic … -producer/

                  1. maxoxam41 profile image80
                    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Then "current concerns" is wrong and you are right. I will find the quote.
                    Do you mean that the peak oil wasn't reached? I wrote a hub on that purpose and I found the news in 2010/2011. You can't know everything, can you? It is the proof that you don't if each time you need me to go back to my source... And where would be the point for me to lie?
                    If you follow the news, you will tell me that Iraq, Libya, Iran are not novices on the market. Saudi Arabia didn't reduce the volume because those countries, under our control now, increased their volume but we increased their production because Saudi Arabia reduced it. Hadn't we invaded those countries we would have faced troubles? It is exactly the purpose of our invasion.

    2. Quilligrapher profile image89
      Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Good evening, Max.

      I have not found a trace of any proposal by Richard Lunar that suggests NATO should tap the energy resources of another country to satisfy US requirements.

      Do you have a source in English we can all read?
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

      1. maxoxam41 profile image80
        maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Swiss newspaper "Current concerns" from January the 26th, 2014.
        You didn't look much, did you?
        US should let NATO allies tap natural gas exports-Senator Lugar

        WASHINGTON, Dec 12 (Reuters) - The U.S. Congress should give European allies access to burgeoning supplies of U.S. natural gas, Republican Senator Richard Lugar said on Wednesday, proposing a new law that he said would improve energy security in a critical region.

        Lugar, the veteran top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said his bill would advance U.S. interests by helping allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) reduce their dependence on natural gas from Russia, and also would help Turkey wean itself from Iranian supplies.

        "My legislation would place NATO allies on equal footing with free trade partners under U.S. law in providing for automatic licenses for U.S. (liquefied natural gas) exports," Lugar said in a letter to the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee.

        Lugar said increased U.S. exports would augment but not replace the need for the so-called "Southern Corridor" pipeline system to move natural gas from Azerbaijan to Turkey and Europe.

        The bill likely will be the last legislation introduced by Lugar. After 35 years in the Senate, he will retire later this month, having lost a primary race earlier this year to a more conservative rival.

        Lugar, a long-time advocate for the Southern Corridor who traveled its route in 2006, urged his colleagues to try to advance the bill, which would need to find approval from the Democrat-controlled Senate before it would have a chance of becoming law.


        U.S. FACES GAS EXPORT DILEMMA

        Lugar's bill comes as the Obama administration faces tricky decisions on proposals to broaden exports of natural gas beyond countries with which the United States has free trade deals.

        Domestic production has boomed, leading to a glut. But domestic manufacturers argue opening up exports would hike their gas prices, and have attracted some strong supporters for their cause in Congress.

        Lugar's proposal would go part way toward liberalizing U.S. natural gas exports while achieving foreign policy goals, his staff argued in a report to his Senate colleagues.

        The bill would make export licenses automatic for Turkey, which counts on Iran for 20 percent of its natural gas supplies, and would give NATO allies more leverage in supply contract talks with Russia during the next five years, the report said.

        But U.S. exports would not undercut the Southern Corridor, the report said, noting gas from central Asia shipped by pipeline would be cheaper.


        LEVERAGE WITH RUSSIA

        Russia supplies more than 60 percent of natural gas imports for countries like Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Moldova, Turkey and Ukraine.

        But Russia's "astonishingly antagonistic policies" with gas contracts -- including cutting supplies to Ukraine in 2006 and 2009 -- have raised major policy concerns, Lugar's report said.

        The Southern Corridor from Azerbaijan was designed to reduce Europe's dependence on Russian gas, but decisions on the route have been complicated by a variety of national and business interests.

        Russia is planning a competing pipeline project called South Stream. President Vladimir Putin was present for the first ceremonial "weld" on the project last week.

        That project could allow Russia to "tighten its grip on Europe," Lugar's report said, urging the United States to remain a key diplomatic player in advancing the Southern Corridor.


        SANCTIONS EXEMPTION

        Azerbaijan is developing its Shah Deniz 2 offshore gas field with BP, Statoil and a consortium of other companies. The Azeri government and Turkey are building the first leg of a pipeline for that gas to Turkey.

        Lugar's report said U.S. allies would gain more from the Nabucco West plan for the second leg of the Southern Corridor into western Europe than a competing Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) proposal, which would take a more southern route to Italy.

        The National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) has a minority stake in the Shah Deniz project. But, because of the national security interests involved in the project, the U.S. Congress has given the project an exemption from energy-related sanctions on Iran.

        However, if Congress looks at ways to tighten its Iran sanctions in coming months, the exemption could come under scrutiny, particularly if the TAP pipeline route was selected, Lugar said.

        "Selection of TAP as currently proposed would weaken the argument that Shah Deniz II and its ancillary projects are of such immense benefit to U.S. security interests that they should trump further sanctions against Iran," his report said.

        It only shows that attacking Syria is the result of Lugar's proposal. It also shows us that implicitly NATO agreed with the idea. Isn't it what we're doing?

      2. 0
        mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I strongly doubt that such a legitimate source exists.

        What I am seeing is that Lugar in 2006 (yes, 2006) Senator Lugar suggested "that any NATO member whose energy sources are cut off by force should be able to rely on assistance from the alliance."

        He based his comments on Article 5 of the NATO Charter (mutual defense).

        SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/world … .html?_r=0

    3. Quilligrapher profile image89
      Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this


      I thank you for pasting the entire article. After a courteous request, I would have preferred just the link without the sarcasm. I was unable to locate the source because your OP title is a false statement.

      Maxoxam41 wrote:
      “Swiss newspaper ‘Current concerns’ from January the 26th, 2014.”
      To begin, this Reuters article was not published in Current Concerns on January 26, 2014. The Current Concerns articles published on Jan. 26, 2014 are listed on their web site. {1}

      Secondly, the headline you provided, “US should let NATO allies tap natural gas exports-Senator Lugar”, does not lead to the Current Concerns issue published Jan. 26, 2014. Instead, it leads to the Reuters article published over a year ago on Dec. 12, 2012. {2}

      Thirdly, this thread is based on a news article that is a year old and, ironically, this news article totally contradicts the false and distorted claims in the OP statement.
      Maxoxam41 wrote:
      “Senator Lugar proposes NATO to tap on any country energy resources for our needs.” [Emphasis added.]

      The truth is that former Senator Lugar did not say that at all. I wonder why this thread intentionally distorts the Senator’s plan. He proposed we allow our NATO allies to tap our growing reserves of natural gas. Reuters wrote in the opening paragraph:
      “The U.S. Congress should give European allies access to burgeoning supplies of U.S. natural gas, Republican Senator Richard Lugar said on Wednesday, proposing a new law that he said would improve energy security in a critical region.”

      Senator Lugar proposed a bill to share our natural gas reserves with our NATO allies and Maxoxam claims: “It only shows that attacking Syria is the result of Lugar's proposal. It also shows us that implicitly NATO agreed with the idea. Isn't it what we're doing?”

      In addition, Reuters in the same article said this about US natural gas reserves: “Domestic production has boomed, leading to a glut.” Thus, any one who reads the article can see the US has no need for Syrian natural gas.

      It seems to me that this entire thread is a red herring designed to lead Americans to a false conclusion.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=82
      {2} https://www.google.com/search?q=%22US+s … s+exports-

      1. 60
        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        During WWII the US kept its allies supplied with oil, this is not a new idea.

        1. Quilligrapher profile image89
          Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this


          Hi Retief2000. I thank you for your comment.

          The strategy behind Lugar’s bill was to increase the leverage our allies would have with Russia by reducing their dependence on Russia’s natural gas.

          “Lugar, the veteran top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said his bill would advance U.S. interests by helping allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) reduce their dependence on natural gas from Russia, and also would help Turkey wean itself from Iranian supplies.” {1}
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1} http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/ … TP20121212

          1. maxoxam41 profile image80
            maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            And it doesn't bother you that for that to happen, we have to kill people?

            1. Quilligrapher profile image89
              Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Maxoxam41 wrote:
              “And it doesn't bother you that for that to happen, we have to kill people?”{1}

              It bothers me that you claim “we have to kill people” because of this proposal. We do not! It bothers me that you offer no facts to support your luducrous claim. It bothers me that so many lies are disguised as unanswered questions. The questions are an admission that there are NO facts to justify the lies.

              You started this slanderous, misleading thread by distorting a bill that has never passed the US Senate and still you do not admit that your OP statement is untrue.   

              You wrote, “Senator Lugar proposes NATO to tap on any country energy resources for our needs.”{2}

              You claim this bill encourages NATO to tap the natural resources of another country when in fact it will allow our NATO allies to access OUR natural gas surplus.

              Then you said, ”What is it that a little senator can decide who NATO will military aggress for our overconsumption… Thanks to Senator Lugar financed by the elite (who else's interest is it?) it will give our so-called economical power (otherwise why would we attack Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria...) the green light to perpetrate crimes in the name of our overconsumption…
              Whereas in the meantime we could exploit other forms of energy but our elite wants us to suck their tits still!”
              {3}

              Your posts in this thread are filled with baseless, derogatory inuendo totally without merit. The US is producing all the oil and natural gas it now consumes and is selling the excess on the open market. 

              “The U.S. will end 2013 as the world’s largest producer of petroleum and natural gas, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia.” {4}

              You even wrote, “It only shows that attacking Syria is the result of Lugar's proposal. It also shows us that implicitly NATO agreed with the idea. Isn't it what we're doing?”{5}

              Another outragiously false assumption. Neither NATO nor the US attacked Syria. The US does not need Syria’s oil resources. The US produces enough oil and natural gas to satisfy is own consumption.

              The errors shown above in red are refuted by verifiable facts. Before you add more claims, I hope you will provide some facts regarding the many unsupported alligations you have already made.

              I thank you for sharing your opinions with us, Max. Stay well.
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
              {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/119782#post2536497
              {2} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/119782#post2534960
              {3} Ibid.
              {4} http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-tic … -producer/
              {5} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/119782#post2535916

              1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                America and the United States only exist because one group of people came across the ocean from Europe and started killing,raping,slaving, and stealing.That is a "verifiable fact". All of these resources you speak of are stolen resources that have been pilfered by thieves from a stolen continent.What is derogatory here, is that you speak as if these things never happened.

                Either directly or through the use of smallpox,100 million of my people were murdered by the Americans.They have proven over, and over, and over again that they will kill to get what they want.Have you not ever studied history?But even more recently,do you not remember the babies that the government massacred in Waco Texas?Unless you yourself belong to the ruling class,I find it odd that you would defend a system that has enslaved the entire working population; white,black,and all colors inbetween.I also find it odd that you seem to think a Zebra will one day change it's stripes,or that a mad dog hungry for blood will suddenly just turn and walk away.

                1. Quilligrapher profile image89
                  Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Good evening to you, wrenchBiscuit. It is a distinct pleasure to meet up with you here.  I thank you for replying to one of my posts.

                  Your reference to “my people” implies you may be a native North American and some of the points in your reply may be valid to some degree. In my heart, I weep at the thought of the Trail of Tears and at the harsh and cruel treatment shown to other original North Americans. In much same way, I weep for the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and I am deeply saddened by the pain and indignity suffered by slaves as they shouldered the awesome burden of this country’s economic growth. You can not know how I grieve over the knowledge that America’s history is stained by these memories and I truly believe that we should make every effort today to remember that they happen.

                  Otherwise, there is nothing in your post that addresses the topic of access to US natural gas reserves by NATO allies.

                  Meanwhile, we are living in the 21st Century and I would rather spend my life looking to the future rather than feeling I need to chastise others about events in the past that neither they nor I caused or can ever change. If you would like to discuss the plight of native North Americans, why not just write a hub or launch another thread rather than to highjack this one. I, for one, would be happy to discuss the history of killing, rape, enslaving, and stealing between the villages, tribes, and confederations long before the arrival of Europeans.
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                  1. maxoxam41 profile image80
                    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    And what did you learn from your history? Nothing, you pretend to shed a tear and you are ready (cowardly since it is younger kids that are dying for your comfort) to send them to fight NATO's wars!
                    If NATO can tap on US reserves than it also can on Syrian soil, can't it? It is one of the logic behind our so-called generosity. Firstly, we're becoming NATO's first provider meaning we will impose our prices (because one again, any of our moves is a calculated financial gain) and secondly we have the monopoly since we are at its head. We impose our policies to countries that used to be independent, Germany, France...
                    Thirdly, if America "sacrifices" for the benefit of all (sure) so shall the rest of the world. And obviously, the rest of the world will refuse. And to retort, but who are you to speak to us in such a fashion? The invasion follows! It will give us the legitimacy to strike and violate international law.

                  2. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                    wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

                    You claim that I am off topic, and that I have attempted to hijack this thread, but anyone who understands the truth knows better. Let me break it down for you Mr.Quilligrapher: When you negotiate with a thief and ignore the one  who was victimized and dispossessed by said thief,you have attempted to legitimize  a criminal act.I am right on topic my friend.The United States has no legitimate resources to negotiate with.Consequently, NATO is negotiating with criminals.You speak of  past injustices as if it is ancient history,yet,the law of the land states that there is no statute of limitations on murder.

                    Even when drug dealers are arrested,their ill-gotten gains are usually confiscated.Furthermore,you try to distance yourself by claiming your innocence, but such a defense would not stand up in a court of law.Everyone knows, Mr.Quilligrapher, that it is also a crime to knowingly accept ,trade ,and prosper from stolen goods and property.Your previous statement reveals that for many years you have been aware of this thievery.I dare say that your degree of innocence is highly questionable.NATO and the United States have publicly ,with impunity,and malice, flaunted  their ability to stand above the law. I am so on point, Mr Quilligrapher, surely by now, you are starting to bleed.

                2. Quilligrapher profile image89
                  Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Hi again wrenchbiscuit. I hope you are feeling better today.

                  As a preamble, I concede that the aborigines in this hemisphere were treated brutally in many different ways during the past 500 years. Nothing I say will ever mitigate the cruel and inhuman treatment they had to endure.

                  First, there is no consensus among historians about the size of the original population of the Western Hemisphere in 1492, how much it declined over 400 years, or the exact causes for that decline. I can produce a list of scholarly estimates from 8 million to 140 million to any one who wishes to quibble over this insignificant point. The often repeated estimate of 100 million lost is the same number found in American Holocaust by David E. Stannard. It is important to clarify that this estimate includes all deaths across the entire hemisphere across time. If one needs to use a single estimate, this one is as imprecise as any other.

                  Perhaps the most significant fact is that dedicated researchers can not determine how many deaths of Amerindians across the centuries resulted from indictable killings, violence and oppression and how many are from indirect, accidental deaths such as famine and avoidable disease. As Retief stated above, “The 100 million dead she [sic] attributes to Europeans slaughtering indigenous populations is an exaggeration.  Millions of indigenous people perished because pathogens unknown in the "New World" had accompanied men and livestock across the Atlantic.”{1}

                  It is also logical, had the Europeans arrived with good intentions and had they been less prone to use force and violence, unfamiliar diseases and massive epidemics would still have annihilated the Indian population.

                  Aside from recorded cases of the intentional spread of infectious disease, it would be ludicrous for the indigenous population of today’s Indian Country to argue that invading Europeans are to blame for the failure of ancestral immune systems. Likewise, it would be absurd for the non-indigenous population in America today to argue that American Indians are to blame for the 90 million deaths that have resulted from their introducing tobacco to the rest of the world.

                  Stannard’s estimate of 100 million does not differentiate between democide, death by massacre and death by disease. Therefore, if one is to embrace this single estimate of 100 million, a few qualifiers should accompany it:

                  “Borah, possibly the leading authority on the demography of Mexico at the time of the conquest, has also revised the estimated number of persons sacrificed in central Mexico in the fifteenth century to 250,000 per year" That is 25 million sacrificed in one century. {2} Still others estimate 2 to 5 millions per century. {3} No one is sure which estimate is correct.

                  To further weaken the validity of this number, Stannard also includes in his calculations 86,000 deaths among the Powhatans of Virginia before the English even settled in Jamestown in 1607.

                  Finally, no one can count the number of normal, natural deaths along the way. Thus the significance of Stannard’s estimate, as well as any estimate from any source, becomes less valid in an indictment of Europeans unless clear categories can be identified and counted. This number standing alone has little merit.
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                  {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/119782? … ost2537965
                  {2} http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/azt … rifice.htm
                  {3}  William Prescott, History of the Conquest of Mexico (1843)

                  1. maxoxam41 profile image80
                    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Since you were "hardly" searching for my source, I found it few days ago (but since you cried at hubpages that censored me for 3 days), here it is :

                    "...In the 64 years since NATO’s founding

                    international relations have considerably

                    changed. The NATO of 12 states in 1949

                    has turned into the NATO of 28 states in

                    2013. NATO has installed itself increasingly

                    as a global security policy establishment

                    in these years of hyper-linking. “We

                    are prepared to develop political dialogue

                    and practical cooperation with any nations

                    and relevant organisations across the

                    globe that share our interest in peaceful

                    international relations,” reads the NATO

                    strategy of 2010.

                    Furthermore, NATO insists that it is

                    their job to deal with all the major national

                    issues of military and human (!) security.

                    Energy security is a first priority in

                    this sense. US Senator Lugar went a step

                    further when he emphasized that NATO

                    could intervene militarily according to Article

                    5 of its Statute, if some NATO states’

                    access to energy sources was threatened

                    somewhere in the world. However, it

                    would mean a serious violation of international

                    law, if this actually happened.

                    There is not much left of a NATO subsidiarity

                    within the United Nations in the

                    year 2013! The result is a network of 28

                    nations that are linked by “Partnerships

                    for Peace” (PfP) worldwide. A variety of

                    former USSR states is involved. There is

                    a dialogue agreement with Mediterranean

                    states. By means of the so-called “Istanbul

                    Initiative” the countries of North Africa

                    and the Middle East are included in

                    the NATO agenda. Particular connections

                    exist between NATO and the Gulf States

                    plus Yemen. Furthermore there is a lose

                    cooperation between the Israeli navy and

                    the naval forces of NATO. Special agreements

                    were settled between NATO and

                    Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, New

                    Zealand and Australia. The world’s two

                    largest drug producers, Colombia and Afghanistan,

                    cooperate with NATO. Britain,

                    which still owns the San-Diego islands in

                    the Indian Ocean, has leased them to the

                    United States. The local military bases are

                    used by NATO for deployments.

                    On behalf of NATO the US is currently

                    trying to intensify its military relations

                    with Vietnam, Myanmar and East Timor.

                    Similar attempts are made in the area of

                    the five Central Asian states. In Liberia

                    the “US Africom” was recently deployed

                    in Monrovia after having been withdrawn

                    from Stuttgart. In most regions where

                    there are no land bases, NATO is represented

                    by ships of the US Navy. Strategic

                    presence and a visible embrace of China

                    and Russia continue to be perfected. It

                    should not come as a surprise that this

                    brings along serious consequences for international

                    relations!

                    The NATO enlargement is associated

                    with the non-declared goal of weakening

                    others, especially of alliances such

                    as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization

                    (SCO). “Gladio”, the mysterious underground

                    organization of western states,

                    which already existed in the times of the

                    Cold War, is an indication for the means

                    that are used, even if they are not legal.

                    Developments in recent years have

                    shown an ever more expanding, but also

                    increasingly weaker NATO. Defeats in Afghanistan

                    and Iraq, a war against Yugoslavia

                    in violation of international law and

                    an invasion of Iraq that had not been approved

                    by the UN Security Council have

                    become milestones of NATO’s weakening.

                    The serious violation of the four Geneva

                    Conventions and the Hague Conventions

                    by the mistreatment of prisoners at

                    Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo as

                    well as US flights transporting prisoners

                    to secret prisons in order to torture them

                    in other countries, are additional causes of

                    this weakening.

                    The abuse of the Responsibility to Protect

                    (R2P) – handed over to NATO in 2011

                    by the UN Security Council for the welfare

                    of the civilian population in Libya –

                    and the actions of individual NATO states

                    in the Syria crisis have significantly added

                    to resistance against NATO.

                    New provocations such as the establishment

                    of a network of missile defense systems

                    in Spain, Poland, Romania, Turkey

                    and Germany met with Russia’s legitimate

                    resistance and withdrew the NATO-Russia

                    Council’s confidence base.

                    What is the explanation for NATO’s

                    development between 1949 and 2013?

                    The dissolution of the Soviet Union in December

                    1991, the resulting independence

                    of the 12 Soviet republics and the dissolution

                    of the Warsaw Pact – along with

                    the signing of the Charter of Paris for a

                    New Europe following in November 1990

                    – bore the great opportunity of replacing

                    the Cold War by a warm peace. In many

                    places, there was talk of the expected

                    “peace dividend”. It turned out differently.

                    NATO did not dismiss itself to history; it

                    was rather looking for a new raison d’être.

                    The administration of George W. Bush

                    and the other neoconservative circles in

                    the US, inspired by the belief in an “American

                    Century” (Project for a new American

                    Century – PNAC) lying before them,

                    wanted to maintain NATO under US leadership.

                    The 11th September 2001 encouraged

                    the political circles in Washington

                    to justify the American claim to hegemony.

                    This “PNAC psyche”, i.e. the belief in

                    the leadership of the United States, existed

                    across all parties before and after the terrorist

                    attack on the World Trade Center in

                    New York. The European NATO member

                    states and Canada were prepared to act as

                    willing stooges.

                    In parallel, under American leadership

                    NATO has developed continuously from

                    a defensive alliance, protecting those who

                    lived within the community, into an alliance

                    with a global order. The NATO strategies

                    from 1991, 1999 and 2010 prove

                    this in clear language, according to the

                    motto: new threats justify new approaches.

                    “NATO is the most capable and effective

                    political-military alliance in the

                    world” was said in November 2010, when

                    the latest NATO strategy was presented
                    Lisbon...." by Hans Christophe von Sponeck's Quo vadis NATO‏ in "Current concerns".

                    I NEVER create a forum without a source. My only problem is to remember where I found the source once exploited.

          2. maxoxam41 profile image80
            maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            NATO's countries will pay a higher price for our beautiful eyes only! It makes sense. Now we care about the fate of other countries (Turkey), are you joking? We are friends with Turkey because it is the door to the East. without its cooperation do you think that anyone would have penetrated on the Syrian soil? Obviously not.

          3. 60
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I suppose I will have to read the original article now, Lugar is no longer a Senator so any bill introductions would have happened more than a year ago.

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Lugar mentioned this in 2006 during a speech to a group of security experts.

              And, in 2012 Lugar prepared a report (as a preface to a bill) in which he argued that the US should share its natural gas resources with NATO allies as part of a larger effort to reduce our allies dependence on Russian gas.

        2. 0
          mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly. The "Arsenal of Democracy" included more than guns and tanks.

          1. maxoxam41 profile image80
            maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            The point being?

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              The "arsenal of democracy" includes oil---then and now.

      2. 0
        mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly.

    4. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      This is no news as we have started many military actions to protect or secure energy. The Japanese were so pissed at us for our dominance in the Dutch East Indies oil fields and our unwillingness to sell them what they wanted they attacked us and dragged our a#$s in to WWII. The Kuwait battle was for what? A little country that as a part of OPEC brought us to our knees in the '70's oil crisis. We are joined at the hip with these little fiefdoms including Saudi Arabia where the 911 attacks were born. We are whores for the oil as we overlook human rights violations and smooth over relationships with oil bearing countries to preserve our precious resource and refuse to come up with an alternative that will change the relationships with them.

  2. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    The only agenda I see is a blatantly inaccurate hearsay about some guy as an excuse to post a tenuously relevant rant.

    1. maxoxam41 profile image80
      maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      One day you will understand but meanwhile fairy land shall be your only focus since you understand it so well! Let serious matters to serious thinkers!

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Your article says the opposite of what you claim.

        I don't think requiring a citation in unreasonable under circumstances like this.

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly.

  3. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
    wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

    Lugar is simply doing what the colonial powers have always done best.He represents a simple minded breed of people that can only envision superficial short term benefits for the ruling class,regardless of the cost in human life or the damage done to the ecosystem.The evil of elitism is only surpassed by the continued willingness of the majority to allow this Capitalist dance of death to continue.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      When your thermostat clicks on this winter and the furnace comes alive, burning those fossil fuels, do you immediately recognize it as a benefit of the ruling class end ecologically unsound, rushing to turn it back off until the next day?  Do you pretend that the elitism of keeping warm while others are homeless and out in the snow and cold is OK as long as it is you? 

      Or do you ignore the harm it is doing to other people and the planet, basking in the warmth of the home that is keeping the cold at bay?

      1. 0
        mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I hear you.

        You know this is not about concern for the global environment. This is just more of the worn-out and out-dated extremist chorus chanting its anti-America crap and believing its chant to be a marker of some imagined intellectual authority and superiority.

        If Putin had proposed using the remnants of the Warsaw Pact to protect access to natural gas of its allies OR had suggested using specific articles of the Warsaw Pact Charter to make sure that the US could not export its natural gas to NATO nations, then they'd be all FOR it and singing the praises of Putin.

    2. 0
      mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Lugar's goal was to reduce global dependence on Russian natural gas exports.

      Anything that disempowers Putin's Russia is a good thing.

      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
        wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I have no interest in Russia or their politics,but neither will I be a cheerleader for the Capitalists.Capitalism is responsible for far more death and destruction than any other "ism" in the history of the world,including Fascism.The numbers are written in the books that are available for all to see. But I have come to understand that many respondents on this forum are more concerned with parroting popular opinion than embracing the truth.Although I have a great distaste for ignorance,I have an even greater distaste for a Capitalist slave state; a slave state that now nearly encompasses the entire world,and so I continue to speak.

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Whatever.

        2. 0
          mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Whatever.

          But, one question: Why are you on Hubpages---since it is a revenue-driven social medium, it is most certainly part of your so-called "capitalist slave state"?

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
            wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            If you are interested in hiring a tutor,I am sure there are many available here that can help you.The fact that you would ask such a question reveals that I would, at this stage in your development, be wasting my time in providing an answer that you would clearly not understand.

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              And, just when I was going to take you at your word that you didn't resort to insulting people since it is "beneath your dignity".

  4. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
    wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

    It is a myth that we need fossil fuel to keep warm in the winter.I lived in Syracuse New York for over 20 years.It gets very cold there,with three months of warm weather at best.I did several things to keep warm.

    • I used wood in a fireplace.

    The oil industry has spread many lies about wood burning.Obviously if people were focused on trees as a primary source then the oil barons would lose power and control.Here are the facts:

    There is an important difference between wood and fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas.Wood is a renewable source that is part of the natural carbon/carbon dioxide cycle. As a tree grows, it absorbs carbon dioxide from the air and stores it in the wood as carbon, which makes up about half of the weight of wood. When the wood is burned, carbon dioxide is released back into the atmosphere. No additional carbon is released because the same amount of carbon dioxide would be released if the tree died and were left to rot on the forest floor. The carbon in coal, oil and gas, by contrast, are taken from underground stores, usually from overseas, where they were deposited by Nature, and released into the air without means for equal reabsorption.

    • Conservation of body heat.

    I constructed an insulated canopy over my bed with approx.2 ft. of headroom.I also used several layers of thick blankets.I would also usually have a girlfriend over and sometimes she would bring a friend for a sleep over.Needless to say,I never stayed cold for very long.During the daytime I always wore several layers of clothing, including thermal underwear.

    There is no excuse for the continued use of fossil fuels,whether with or without alternative forms of energy.Furthermore,a fireplace is a luxury that you can live without.All you need to do in order to keep warm in a cold climate is a little creativity and a lot of common sense.I have since moved to Florida and have no need for such measures.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      If you burned wood, you contributed more to both local pollution (causing harm to a great many people) and the carbon content of the atmosphere.  Rotting wood, consumed by various creatures and chemical processes, does not release anything like the amount of carbon that burning does. 

      That's great you have no need for heat during winter months to keep warm.  Others do, and I don't think we can all fit into Florida.  Or that Florida can grow even a tenth of the food the country needs; that is the function of the central states, where winter snow brings winter cold and death if no heat is available.

      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
        wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        That's funny,like I said ,what you suggest is one of many myths seeded into the American consciousness and nurtured by their overlords.There is no empirical proof to back up your claim, but there are thousands of years of proof to the contrary.The current levels of toxic pollution have only existed since the beginning of the widespread use of fossil fuels in the early 20th century.

        It is not surprising that many would choose convenience and comfort over a course much less expediant than the destruction of an entire world.It appears more likely that mankind evolved from a termite, rather  than a baboon.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          When you say the pollution is worse in the last century, did you consider the number of people?  Or the amount of energy being produced?  Just possibly that has something to do with it.

          But as far as thousands of years to the contrary, that is foolishness.  Never have there been so many people, never has there been so much energy produced, never has there been the variety of pollutants being let go.  There are just a few things to consider when you start claiming that rotting wood makes as big a carbon footprint as burning that same wood.

          You might start, for instance, by wondering and questioning why cities often prohibit the burning of wood for heat.  That's common in my area, where winter inversions often trap the pollution for days or weeks at a time.  Let the wood burners crank up and the air becomes nearly unbreathable, but the power plants not far away don't have much affect.  Unrestricted burning of wood or other living materials (leaves, grass, field stubble, etc.) is far worse than what modern power plants produce, given the amount of energy being produced.

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
            wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I knew you were going to fall back on population density.That is a very old argument.It is only an opinion that you are expressing.Furthermore ,you are attempting to spin and embellish my original comment.You are the one who has created the fictional scenario of everyone replacing their central heat with wood burning stoves and fireplaces,and then cranking them up at full blast!

            I shouldn't have to explain this but I will anyway.You seem to imagine that I burned wood on a daily basis.Let me enlighten you. When you are using wood for heat, the idea is to make a little bit stretch through the season.If you attempt to keep your house at a constant 65 degrees everyday you will run out of wood very quickly.Sometimes I went for days during the dead of winter without making a fire in order to conserve my fuel.This is where having a girlfriend, or two, really comes in handy.

            It is not a requirement that human beings live at a comfortable temperature all year round.It is a luxury that capitalists have lead the masses to believe in as a necessity;  written somewhere in the Bill of Rights . But I will end here:

            The current population density is a direct result of capitalistic greed.Capitalism is what originally brought the populace en masse to the cities in order to work in  the factories; the lure of money! Had the government focused on education,morality,and responsible parenting,instead of corporate profits and world domination,there wouldn't be a problem of poverty and over population.Consequently,any fuel would now be less harmful to the environment.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              If you think it is so easily ignored, why don't you go into a room with a rotting log, followed by a room with a burning log.  And if you knew population density was the bugaboo of your theory, disproving it immediately, why did you bring it up?

              I know how burning wood works: I heated my home in Virginia with wood for 4 years.  And burned just 1 cord of wood each year, while keeping the house quite comfortable (above 65 degrees, for sure) all day.  Nights we allowed to cool to around 60 by early morning.  I did NOT go without heat, and don't believe you did either if in the snow belt.

              Funny, I thought population density (total population numbers) was a result of liking sex.  Still think so, too.  Cities came about because they are more efficient at supporting human populations, not because factories were there.  Think back a couple of hundred years, before factories; cities existed then, too.  Because they are more efficient.

              What morality would you suggest the government "focus" (read: enforce) on?  Sharia Law?  The morality of slavery, as taught by our forefathers or biblically?  The wife swapping of the Innuit?  Or just what you personally find "right"?

              1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You have proven in your own words that you are a defender of the Status Quo,and that your morality is the morality of the dollar.You have also proven that you cannot tolerate someone who has an outlook other than your own. Otherwise you would not have so politely called me a liar.I will not return the insult because it is beneath me.I will end our conversation here because I take no pleasure in your discomfort.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  lol  OK - you may go now.  You might want to have a few facts at hand before starting a debate next time - they are much more useful than nonsensical claims about decaying wood.

                  1. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    wink

                  2. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Hey wilderness:

                    How come you are just a promoter of the "status quo" and motivated by capitalist immorality, but I get to be ignorant, in need of a tutor, and at some early (or perhaps late) stage of arrested development?

                    wink

            2. 0
              mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              NEWSFLASH: Human beings without capitalism and without the intervention of capitalists cannot survive in cold temperatures.

              1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I am sure you will have another inane response, but I couldn't help it.I am laughing as I type this because you speak as if Capitalism was invented before Adam and Eve! Obviously people lived and thrived in the colder climes of Europe and Cemanahuac thousands of years before the scourge of Capitalism reared it's putrid head.

                Since you don't understand history,I will enlighten you.Capitalism and racism as we have come to know these two"isms" today, did not exist prior to the 15th century.Capitalism was a natural development of colonialist aggression and expansion.The West African slave trade was necessary in order to support such expansion.Racism was developed as a means to pacify the moral sensibilities of Europeans who were not entirely comfortable with the institution of slavery.

                Of course you didn't know these things because you would rather comment on forums and illustrate your lack of education,instead of  getting one. Obviously, based on your own uninformed statement,you have been defending something you know nothing about.You will find that rowing the boat with two oars is much,much, easier.

                1. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I would find your attempt to lecture me utterly amusing if it were not a personal attack.

                  1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                    wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh! I see,it's a personal attack when someone disagrees with you and offers an irrefutable argument  to your  assertions, which have no basis in reality? You behave like a true American,and if you are not ,you should consider moving here.You would fit right in.

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Of course capitalism existed before Adam and Eve.

                  Any culture smart enough to bury their dead with trinkets, tools and weapons for use in the afterlife is smart enough to trade amongst themselves or with other peoples.  Capitalism in a nutshell, and Neanderthals (long before A&E) were doing just that.

                  1. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Exactly.

                    It is quite telling that capitalism is "understood" by some as a late 18th century imperial contrivance. Convenient, I suppose.

                  2. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                    wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Why do you insist on making yourself look foolish? The mere act of trading does not define Capitalism.Why don't you take a little time and read a book.A basic definition (according to many sources) of Capitalism is as follows:

                    "Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by "private owners" with the goal of making profits in a market economy."

                    Historians agree that such a system as we know it today began to develop in the 15th century.
                    Have another beer.

        2. 0
          mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Really...and now, in your imagined world, there is not such thing as wood smoke and/or the particulates that populate wood smoke?

          Interesting.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I assume he means that bacteria and bugs somehow release all the Carbon into the air instead of ingesting it.  They only want the any heavy (and poisonous) metals, along with gases like oxygen or nitrogen.  Bugs need nitrogen to grow, don't ya know?

            Living organisms, eating the decaying wood, don't eat the organic parts of it, I guess.  Just spit all that into the air as pollution.

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Right...wow!

              We old-timers learn something new every day!

              1. maxoxam41 profile image80
                maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Most of the time those same old timers don't want to see the reality and comfort themselves in their illusory past. We, the new generation, can see through our leaders' lies.

                1. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  That is just too funny.

                  I can remember saying the SAME thing forty years ago.

                  Young people, virtually by definition, think that the "old timers" are full of crap conservatives and conventionalists, lacking engagement with the real reality AND that only the "new generation" can understand or get things right.

                  And you need to stop using your thesaurus. "Illusory" is not the right word to describe the real life that anyone has lived---whether or not you agree with their assessments of their lives and times.

                  1. maxoxam41 profile image80
                    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Your statement implies that there's no progression in the way people are thinking and it is false. When we killed Indians with smallpox, it is common knowledge now, not before. Your generation thinks that Al-Qaida triggered Sept 11, I believe Bush did.
                    If you didn't understand the context I used "illusory" in, then it is your problem. To think that my vocabulary is limited (versus whose, yours?), I will ask who do you think you are? You come here with your pseudo historic background to fumigate the forum with your lies and with Alexander the Great's arrogance intentionally belittles anyone who will oppose your pseudo argumentation. For me, you crossed your Rubicon. I humiliated you already in another forum. You're a small fish.

  5. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
    wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

    Take a deep breath....now exhale.It is a fact that the indigenous as well as the Africans,as well as the poor white European,have all in their own special way been victims of Capitalism, and Colonialist expansion.If you review the transcript you will see that  not once have I spoke of "lack of agency" or"lacking capacity to navigate a complex world".Not once.And so,you have once again attempted  to put a spin on my words.

    Being a victim does not by default  bring with it all of the baggage you are suggesting  here.On the contrary,it has made many of us stronger and wiser. But the problem you are really having ,as well as the rest of your little band of merrymen, is that I have demonstrated a superiority of intellect.For hundreds of years the Capitalists have exploited the poor working class whites;  leading them to believe that they are superior to blacks and natives.This false sense of white supremacy has been used to motivate poor whites into furthering the agenda of the ruling elite.Consequently,the poor and the working class whites have proven to be indispensable pawns in a most serious game of life and death.

    Everything you have said only confirms the ignorance, the apathy and the racism that exists in America today.It is a very foolish man who would stand on a sinking ship and defend those across the way who just fired the torpedo! Hafa Adai !

 
working