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

1. 64

   maxoxam41posted 9 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?

   replyreport
   1. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 64

         maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin 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?

         replyreport
         1. 57

            retief2000posted 9 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 64

               maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

               If it is replenishing itself why are we waging wars?

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

                  replyreport
                  1. 64

                     maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

                     replyreport
                     1. 57

                        retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Iranian Nukes

                        replyreport
                        1. 64

                           maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Where is the relationship?

                           replyreport
                     2. 77

                        Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin 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.
                        
                        {1} http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 … 4031562634
                        {2} http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-tic … -producer/

                        replyreport
                        1. 64

                           maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin 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.

                           replyreport
                           1. 77

                              Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Hello again, Max.
                              
                              I have no idea if “Current Concerns” is right or wrong. You never provided us with a link to their article. Instead, you pasted another article from Reuters published over a year ago that said Richard Lugar’s bill would authorize selling US natural gas to NATO allies. You wrote, “Senator Lugar proposes NATO to tap on any country energy resources for our needs.”{1} This claim is untrue.
                              
                              You also wrote, “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...”
                              
                              This is 2014, Max, and not 2011/2012. No, I do not know everything. In fact, I know very little. That is why I try to state only facts and I provide links to sources that support those facts. Perhaps, you should revisit your hub and bring the contents up to date. As for my asking for proof, a person who makes a statement of fact should be prepared to prove that statement is true.
                              
                              Obviously, you did not read or you did not understand the Wall Street Journal article dated Dec. 12, 2013. It provides compelling evidence that Saudi Arabia is not expected to cut exports unless approved by OPEC. {2}
                              
                              You then said, “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.” [Emphasis added.]
                              
                              Clearly, I have not failed to keep up with current events when you are the person who said Iran and Libya are “under our control now.” It is true Iraq is now producing more oil on an annual basis than it has for 20 years. Iran’s oil exports will flow once again if it succeeds with negotiations to lift global sanctions while Libya is on the brink of settling a strike by oil workers. Yes, Saudi Arabia may be forced to cut back oil exports to keep under the caps established by OPEC but certainly not because of your claim, “Saudi Arabia [is] saving its production for future hardships.”
                              
                              Finally, you believe, “Hadn't we invaded those countries we would have faced troubles? It is exactly the purpose of our invasion.”
                              
                              We did invade Iraq, Max, occupied the country, and took control of law and order by force. However, we did not invade Iran and Libya. Your perceptions are not reliable.
                              
                              Have a great day, Max.
                              
                              {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/119782#post2534960
                              {2} http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 … 4031562634

                              replyreport
                              1. 64

                                 maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Did I refer to Iran? No. As for the Wall Street Journal, it is a pro neocon instrument. In what way is it a trustworthy source?
                                 I won't update it since it would be a lie. To deny that we've reached the peak oil and that Saudi Arabia is protecting its resource would go against objectivity. You have your source and I have mine. You have no precedence right over mine!
                                 "Certainly not because of my claim", then why is it so, since you are so emphatic? Oh, yes Wall Street said it, the same ones who stole from the US not a long ago. The same ones who told us that our economy would collapse if we didn't inject billions to save them whereas Island let its bankers drown, and since it's thriving!
                                 Thank you for telling me that we didn't invade Iran (I didn't know that). By the way I wrote Hubs about Iran so if there's one of us that knows about facts, it is me and not the wanderer of hubpages deigning time to time giving a biased opinion about what he doesn't know.
                                 And we DID invade Libya. Again a flagrant lie.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 77

                                    Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    Golly Max. Don’t you read what you write in this thread? Of course you refered to Iran when you made the incredibly uninformed claim that Iraq, Libya, and Iran increased their volume because those countries are UNDER OUR CONTROL NOW.
                                    
                                    You wrote, “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.” {1} [Bold font added.]
                                    
                                    Now, tell us once more that you did not refer to Iran and you did not say the US controls its oil output.
                                    
                                    {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/119782#post2536505

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 64

                                       maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       Show me where I wrote that we INVADED Iran? Let see that!

                                       report
                                       1. 77

                                          Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          Hi again, Max.
                                          
                                          I can not show you where you wrote that we INVADED Iran because you never wrote that and I never said you did!    
                                          
                                          You DID, however, write that Iraq, Libya, and Iran increased their volume because those countries are UNDER OUR CONTROL NOW.
                                          
                                          First, you wrote Iran was under our control:
                                          “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.” {1} [Bold font added.]
                                          
                                          Then, you claimed you did not refer to Iran when in fact you did:
                                          ”Did I refer to Iran? No.”{2}
                                          
                                          To avoid admitting your gaffe, you fabricate a red herring about invasion:
                                          "Show me where I wrote that we INVADED Iran? Let see that!"
                                          
                                          It is time to end the duplicity. You did refer to Iran and you did say it was "under our control now". 
                                          
                                          {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/119782#post2536505
                                          {2} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/119782? … ost2536985

                                          report
   2. 77

      Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin 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?
      

      replyreport
      1. 64

         maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin 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?

         replyreport
      2. 0

         mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin 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

         replyreport
   3. 77

      Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin 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.
      
      {1} http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=82
      {2} https://www.google.com/search?q=%22US+s … s+exports-

      replyreport
      1. 57

         retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin 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}
            
            {1} http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/ … TP20121212

            replyreport
            1. 64

               maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin 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.
                  
                  {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

                  replyreport
                  1. 68

                     wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin 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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin 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.
                        

                        replyreport
                        1. 64

                           maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin 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.

                           replyreport
                           1. 77

                              Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Greeting, Max. I hope you are doing well today.
                              
                              You still do not understand the contents of the proposal submitted to congress by Former Senator Lugar in December 2012. You do not understand his proposal because YOU have not read it! Instead, you have followed the lazy path and relied upon others to read and interpret its contents. What they told you is wrong.
                              
                              Read the proposal yourself and do not rely on others to tell you what to think.
                              
                              Here is what I learned from reading this bill MYSELF. The US is offering to sell LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) to any NATO ally who chooses to buy it. If Congress ever authorizes it, it will keep our NATO allies from becoming dependant on Russia for LNG. There is no generosity indicated or implied in this offer and the US certainly does not have a monopoly since LNG is available from Russia. There is nothing in the proposal that says NATO should steal natural resources from Syria or from any other country. If someone told you this they are badly misinformed. EVERY statement you have posted about NATO allies buying LNG from the US simply proves you do not understand what Lugar hoped to accomplish. Read the bill yourself and you will learn what it contains.
                              
                              I wish you a pleasant and peaceful night.
                              

                              replyreport
                        2. 68

                           wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin 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.

                           replyreport
                           1. 64

                              maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              You definitely made your point. He hides behind his false genuineness, politeness and professes absurdities that we critical thinkers can't accept as truisms.
                              It is true that the massacre of the native Indians was the highest quantitatively do you have any idea why it is NEVER used as a reference whereas we have to CONSTANTLY mourn the deaths of the jews? How many movies were/are made yearly reminding us of this sordid page of our history? How many movies do refer to the NAZIS implying the jews "extermination"?
                              Quilligrapher will ALMOST makes me believe that everything you said afore NEVER happened! Ah, sweet naivety of foolishness! Shall we forgive him?

                              replyreport
                              1. 68

                                 wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Yes,we must forgive them all; not because of some lofty altruistic virtue,but because of the reality of reincarnation.We are building a collective soul.If we allow men to destroy the Earth with avarice and shortsightedness,we will only become homeless spirits.Consequently,without our birth,death,and renewal,the collective soul , still cradled in the womb,will perish of hunger and of thirst.

                                 replyreport
                              2. 60

                                 Silverspeederposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 You are right of course, why focus on the Jews when China have starved or put to death over 73 million of their own people since 1949 or the fact that Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did the same with over 58 million of their people since 1922 or the fact that even before that the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic managed to kill 3.7 million people between 1910 and 1922.
                                 What was it Stalin said? "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."
                                 
                                 Oh yes those nasty little capitalists.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 68

                                    wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    You have used a lot of words to say nothing at all.One wrong, or two wrongs,or even one hundred wrongs, will never make a right.Who told you that such a thing was possible? If I told you that the cup you were holding was filled with poison ,would you still drink the poison,all the while claiming that people in China and Russia were drinking the same poison; just before you fell over dead? Not very sound logic.All of you who read these pages have the power to stop the evil ; an evil that even Woodrow Wilson recognized and acknowledged before he died.But you cannot succeed as long as you glorify and help to perpetuate a malignant cancer.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       Silverspeederposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       You still haven't set out how you would stop it (whatever IT is).
                                       Would you be prepared to kill to make your ideal world (which would just make you as bad as the IT's you are complaining about) and how many people would you be prepared to oppress if they didn't agree with you?`
                                       Just because you identify a problem that you see as a problem doesn't mean someone else see's it as a problem, maybe they see you as the problem.
                                       There is nothing you or anyone else could do to change the course of the future without doing the same as your opponents will do.

                                       report
                                       1. 68

                                          wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          Yes ,I told you very clearly.Are we both speaking English? You are so intent on defending the indefensible that you aren't even reading my words.I will say it again in another way : The "It" is the Capitalist system that was founded on slavery; which was sanctioned by the Catholic Church during the papacy of Pope Nicholas V in 1452.The "It has continued to destroy life and disrupt the world ever since 1492.
                                          
                                          The majority of the countries in the Western Hemisphere were born of "IT". The "IT" is a gigantic Ponzi Scheme,and in order for "IT" to work, there must be  classes at the bottom to support the upper levels of the pyramid; these being the poor and the working classes.If what I say is not true,then how can it be explained that during over 200 years of "IT", here in the United States; there have always been poor and starving people,there have always been ghettos and violence; there have been two World Wars and numerous other conflicts which have caused the deaths of millions. The fact that other world systems may also be flawed does not make the failure of "IT" any more acceptable.
                                          
                                          Furthermore,are we to understand that all of the poor and starving people over the last 200 plus years have simply been too lazy to better themselves in the land of  opportunity?Are we to believe that all of these wars were someone else's fault? What about the Civil War? Can we blame the Russians for that? Can we blame the Chinese for the massacre and dispossession of the Indigenous in order to fulfill the mandate of Manifest Destiny?  The "It" is Capitalism, and it is as evil as any system that has ever existed in the history of the world.
                                          
                                          As far as a solution,I have already provided it for you.I will explain again: You and everyone that reads these pages are the solution.You are the government.The people in Washington have bullied you into thinking that "they" are the government when"they" are only your representatives; when "they" are supposed to be your servants.Since when did a servant live in a better house than his master?Since when did a servant drive a more expensive car and wear more expensive clothes than his master?Since when did a servant send the masters son overseas to die in a war that was not sanctioned by the master? Are you simply asleep, or have you been in a coma?
                                          
                                          You cannot destroy the system through violent means because the ruling elite own the industrial military complex.The only way to bring such a system down is through non-participation.Without participation the pyramid will collapse upon itself.If I can find the time I will detail  the necessary steps in a future Hub.But there is no hurry, since most of you who have responded here have indicated that you could care less.

                                          report
                                          1. 96

                                             wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                             "If what I say is not true,then how can it be explained..."
                                             
                                             I'm sorry, but if you wish people to accept that capitalism (IT) has caused all these maladies you list you need to provide proof.  Not try to require others to prove it isn't so; things don't work that way.  Personally, I find that capitalism has given this country the highest average standard of living the world has ever seen, and allowed it to feed nearly twice its own population.  Something never before seen on such a large scale.  Certainly neither the standard of living nor the food supply was seen 500 hundred years ago in this land.
                                             
                                             That's quite a copout there: "I told you how to get rid of it - the answer is YOU".  Not much of an answer, is it?  As capitalism has always resulted in the greatest good for the greatest number, I would find your methodology a little suspect, especially when no particulars are forthcoming.

                                             report
                                             1. 68

                                                wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                                It appears that you have totally missed the boat on this one.My goal has not been to enlighten you or anyone else who has chosen your particular path.All of the proof and the numbers have been out there since before I was born. Do you honestly think that I would waste my time giving you a long history lesson? Instead I will make this as brief as possible.
                                                
                                                First of all,you have provided the proof that I was seeking.Your own words,and the words of the other "scholars" here  have provided a public confirmation.
                                                
                                                You have proven that nearly 400 years of human bondage is not enough to convince a mind infected with evil, that something is wrong with this picture.You have proven that the murder of over one hundred million Indigenous is not enough to wake a man who has been hypnotized by a dollar bill.You have confirmed that in your mind,even the deaths of millions of young white Americans,and the continued struggle of the working class to make ends meet, has not been enough to tarnish the evil veneer of Capitalism .
                                                
                                                Concerning what you said about the "high standard of living" ,as if it were bestowed upon us by the benevolent hard working Capitalists,you have parroted yet another myth.Here is what Columbus himself, said about our standard of living upon his arrival.These words were written in his own journal over 500 years ago:
                                                
                                                "They ...  brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned... . They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features.... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane... . They would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want. "
                                                
                                                Columbus does not appear to be describing a people who are hungry or destitute by anyone's definition.Neither are they unfriendly or warlike.It actually sounds like he is describing a happy people who enjoy a high standard of living.This is a truth that many of the arrogant racists that comment on these pages would prefer to ignore.The Europeans did not bring freedom and prosperity to these shores.We were already free and prosperous.They came to take away our freedom and steal our wealth ,and now the same evil has turned upon the poor and working class white man; relegating him to the status of an "upper class Indian" in the mind of the ruling elite.Welcome to the club my friends!
                                                
                                                But I am done with you now.My words have not been for you, but only to encourage and provide an example to those with hearts and minds,so that they will not to be afraid to speak out against the evil and the lies that have held us hostage for too many years.Finally, I will reiterate what I stated earlier concerning NATO and Lugar: The United States has no legitimate resources or wealth to offer anyone or to negotiate with.The wealth they have stolen and now claim as their own, belongs to the legitimate owners of this continent. It belongs to the Haudenosaunee, Aniyunwiya,Hopi,Aztec,Mayan and many other Indigenous nations.
                                                
                                                The Emperor has no new clothes.He now stands before us: ugly,foul,and naked.

                                                report
                                                1. 96

                                                   wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                                   Sorry, although you will of course claim otherwise, I have subjugated no one.  I keep no slaves, I have murdered no one.  I don't even force anyone to work for their food.  You're barking up the wrong tree.
                                                   
                                                   But capitalism; there are lots of reservations, can I presume you live in a teepee on one, collecting buffalo chips for your fire to harden the end of your spear used to hunt with?  I rather doubt it; you enjoy the fruits of capitalism even while complaining.
                                                   
                                                   So yes, it's best you end it here, for there just isn't much more to say about anyone claiming the life of the Indian of 400 years ago was easier than what can be had today.

                                                   report
                                          2. 60

                                             Silverspeederposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                             Non participation by the masses will only give the elite a free run to total domination of the political system (if they don't already have it).
                                             You are not talking about capitalism in its true sense you are talking about the corporatism that has flourished within the American system. The richer you are the more you get away with, this is what has happened to America. So maybe the people should stop participating in the commerce of the nation.
                                             
                                             What political ideology do you think could work? Would you get rid of government altogether? How would you chose your politicians? How do you know that you would be choosing the right ones? And what will you do with those who don't agree with your ideology?

                                             report
                                 2. 64

                                    maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    Those same capitalists developed Eugenics, flirted with Hitler in the name of greed, we put Japanese people in concentration camps, we "napalmed" Vietnamese, we "irradiated" Japanese and they were the uncivilized, Leopold 2 of Belgium killed 10 million Congolese, we killed 100 million Indians, our government killed 3,000 people in a day to wage war on Iraq... Much better those capitalists that you are defending.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 77

                                       Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       Hey Max, I am back.
                                       
                                       I am sorry to be a pest but I must jump in when I read a post that twists, mutilates, or misrepresents facts. Suppose we examine your false accusation that Capitalist governments are mass murders while non-capitalist regimes are benign protectors of the people they rule. Please examine the following facts to learn the truth.
                                       
                                       During the 20th Century, governments killed roughly 262 million people: {1}
                                       
                                       1. More than 34% (90.2 million) deaths occurred in China under KMT, Mao Soviets, or in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), over a 64 year period ending in 1987. Nearly half, (38 million) are attributed to Mao’s famine during the four-year period from 1958 through 1962.
                                       
                                       2. Another 61.9 million deaths (24%) occurred in Russia and the USSR up until 1987. This includes about 8 million deaths resulting from the Soviet government's planned and administered starvation of the Ukraine begun in 1932 as a way of breaking peasant opposition to collectivization and to destroy Ukrainian nationalism.
                                       
                                       3. The fascist German government murdered another 20.9 million from 1933 through 1945.
                                       
                                       4. European colonialism added 50 million more.
                                       
                                       When we add them all together, roughly 223 million deaths, i.e. more than 85% of the total estimated 262 million deaths during the 20th Century, were caused by the non-capitalist, totalitarian governments you are defending today.
                                       
                                       Sorry, Max, to be so wordy. I thank you for your patience.
                                       
                                       {1} http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

                                       report
                                       1. 57

                                          retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          Well said sir, well said.

                                          report
                                          1. 77

                                             Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                             ty, Retief.
                                             Q.

                                             report
                                          2. 64

                                             maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                             What is the source? Another mainstream media? China, Russia, at least, we know that they are dictatorship but bothers me is to make us BELIEVE that we are different. We are EXACTLY the same. I am against so-called democracies that want me to believe that they are! It is the difference between you and I, you will defend blindly a fake democracy and point a finger at a dictatorship!
                                             And where is the amount of our democracies? Occulted?
                                             What are Japan, Indonesia... doing there? Now, among those murderers which one did we financially, logistically support?

                                             report
                     2. 77

                        Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin 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.
                        
                        {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)

                        replyreport
                        1. 64

                           maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin 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.

                           replyreport
                           1. 77

                              Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Hello, Max, welcome back from your hiatus.
                              
                              Just like the OP statement, most of your posts are prone to include accusations without justification or evidence. I had nothing to do with your three-day suspension. Ironically, your post implies others are to blame when it is likely your own words that caused the suspension. Your posts are often filled with rude personal attacks, false accusations, and insulting comments. Look at today’s posts. Fresh back from a ban, you write Wilderness thinks “like an uneducated American.” {1} {2} Wilderness is in fact well educated and he deserves an apology from you.
                              
                              Anyway, I am glad you are back. You have so much to catch up on.
                              
                              {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/119782? … ost2537856
                              {2} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/119782? … ost2538981

                              replyreport
                              1. 64

                                 maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Widerness is educated for your eyes only.

                                 replyreport
                           2. 77

                              Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Hello again, Max. It is nice of you to finally post the source for your distorted statements. It would help us all if you included links to your sources in every post. Then you and your readers would not have to go searching later just to verify your claims.. 
                              
                              For your information, I did not say I was “hardly” searching for your source. Why twist my words by placing “hardly” in quotation marks? I said, “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.” {1}
                              
                              Never the less, you now post the entire Hans Christophe von Sponeck's Quo vadis NATO from "Current concerns.” Only a link to the article is necessary. {2}
                              
                              There is only one relevant sentence in the entire article about NATO and Richard Lugar. Clearly, you did not bother to read it.
                              
                              It says, “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.” {3}
                              
                              Read it again, Max: “NATO could intervene militarily…if…energy sources were threatened.”
                              
                              Now take notice that you began this thread by distorting this sentence into a false statement: “Senator Lugar proposes NATO to tap on any country energy resources…for our needs.”
                              
                              You then pasted a year old Reuters article about former Senator Lugar that completely contradicts your own OP statement. {4}
                              
                              The OP statement aims to criticize US foreign policy but it presents a distorted and confused perspective of current events. Many Americans disagree with some US foreign policy. It is my hope that they rely on verifiable facts and not just on unsupported journalistic opinions.
                              
                              {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/119782#post2535856
                              {2} http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=2618
                              {3} Ibid
                              {4} http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/ … TP20121212

                              replyreport
                              1. 64

                                 maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 I didn't twist it, it was my judgment. And as you can read it (can you do that) nothing was distorted.
                                 I guess you don't read between lines.
                                 The Reuter's note was definitively a precipitate move. I didn't even read it. That explains the contradiction. When I make mistakes, I always take the responsibility.
                                 As for the move of Saudi Arabia, I maintain my assertion.
                                 By unsupported journalistic opinions do you include the New York Times and all mainstream media? If, yes, then whose opinion is factual?

                                 replyreport
            2. 64

               maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
            3. 57

               retief2000posted 9 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin 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.

                  replyreport
         2. 0

            mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

            replyreport
            1. 64

               maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

               The point being?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

                  replyreport
      2. 0

         mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Exactly.

         replyreport
   4. 72

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
2. 81

   psycheskinnerposted 9 years ago

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

   replyreport
   1. 64

      maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin 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!

      replyreport
      1. 81

         psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Exactly.

            replyreport
3. 68

   wrenchBiscuitposted 9 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.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin 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?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Whatever.

            replyreport
         2. 0

            mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin 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"?

            replyreport
            1. 68

               wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin 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".

                  replyreport
4. 68

   wrenchBiscuitposted 9 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.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 68

               wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin 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"?

                  replyreport
                  1. 68

                     wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin 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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                          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.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           

                           replyreport
                        2. 0

                           mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin 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?
                           
                           

                           replyreport
                           1. 96

                              wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              I guess you just don't have your heart in the right place.  Get with it, instill some greed and begin chasing the almighty dollar - you'll make it yet!
                              
                              Kind of funny, being motivated by capitalist immorality while retired and not working, living off SS and savings (plus HP, whoo hoo!), but I guess that's life.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 I hear you.
                                 
                                 But, I am right in that greedy and capitalist almighty dollar chasing world  too. After all, I work part-time as an adjunct instructor to supplement my state teacher's retirement pension.
                                 
                                 Alas, I will try harder...

                                 replyreport
               2. 0

                  mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

                  replyreport
                  1. 68

                     wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin 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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

                        replyreport
                        1. 68

                           wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin 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.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              As a professor of history, and an American whose life has spanned seven decades, let me reassure you that I have forgotten more as I write this than most people will ever know and let me also inform you that I thank God every day that I was born and raised and live in the United States.

                              replyreport
                              1. 64

                                 maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Being a history teacher/professor doesn't make you de facto objective!

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    Of course not, as a professional historian I understand that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in this world---no people, no history, no facts, no nothing that is objective.
                                    
                                    Everything is subjective.
                                    
                                    Everyone is subjective.
                                    
                                    History is interpretative of events and documents.
                                    
                                    Historians are interpreters of events and documents; interpreters who try to make sense of the world in terms of the contexts into which they were born and raised, educated, live, work, etc.

                                    replyreport
                     2. 96

                        wildernessposted 9 years agoin 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.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

                           replyreport
                        2. 68

                           wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin 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.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Your definition, it seems, proves our point.

                              replyreport
                              1. 68

                                 wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Osiyo!
                                 
                                 Your comment is hilarious.Thank you for that one.I realize that ...buggish is not your real identity,but somewhere in the world you do have a real identity.Unless what you are doing here is a complete act for your own amusement,which I am hoping for your sake it is,you have some real serious issues that I am sure people around you also notice.
                                 
                                 You seem to have a working grasp of the English language.I would recommend taking some time off to study world history,philosophy, and religion.But be careful when studying history not to spend all of your time reading from a one-sided Eurocentric perspective.Arizona  banned a bunch of books recently that give a more accurate depiction of American history than you probably got in school.I suggest you seek them out on the internet.I'll see you on the other side!

                                 replyreport
                           2. 96

                              wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Does that mean that Indian tribes 500 years ago, that traded at "holy" or "safe" sites, had a government committee making the spears, blankets, etc. that they traded?  Or were individual citizens responsible for both production and trade?
                              
                              I was going to offer you a beer, but maybe you should lay off the beer for a while.

                              replyreport
                              1. 68

                                 wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 First of all ,you freely use the word "Indian" which applies to no one at all,since "Indians" never existed on this continent.It is a European term used as part of a system of genocide to destroy the identity and culture of the Indigenous people.As far as the rest of your comment,you're not even making sense.How much clearer can it be stated? Trading goods and services,whether through a system of barter or even within a monetary system does not by default define Capitalism.I guess you'll never get it.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    For your information on the use of the word "Indian": As a graduate student, was educated by a Seneca, Mohawk, Lakota, and Yamassee scholars. They referred to themselves as "Indians".

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 68

                                       wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       Why do you insist on casting yourself in such a negative light? I am well aware that for many years many Indigenous people have referred to themselves with the derogatory term of "Indian",which to the educated and enlightened mind is as poison and destructive as the N-word is to the African.What you have pointed out is a perfect example of how effective brainwashing can be as part of an overall genocidal policy.You view the word as harmless because you have seen Indigenous people using the word themselves.
                                       
                                       But the fact that many have identified with this word only further demonstrates how a simple word can easily infect and destroy a culture, and an entire civilization.Many blacks have historically referred to each other in conversation  using the racial epithet bestowed upon them by their miscreant kidnappers,but through education over the last 20 years, that has begun to change.Since the term "Indian" has never been seen by the white majority to be a racial epithet,it will take longer for the "working class whites" and the Indigenous to understand the destructive force of such a word.Genocide is not only about killing, but it is also about erasing cultural identity.As a teacher you should already know this.I highlighted "working class whites" because the ruling elite have always been aware of the power of  these destructive words, and they have seeded them well.
                                       
                                       The scholars that you cited were either in error,or they gave you what they knew you expected to see and hear.In the former case,they were behaving as victims of oppression.In the latter,it is not  uncommon among oppressed groups to disguise their true feelings and intentions, which can provide a certain advantage.From your comments I can tell that the history you taught was from a Eurocentric perspective. And let us not forget that there have also been many Indigenous who have desired to assimilate into the mainstream, and willingly become caricatures of themselves.But assimilation is just another word for Genocide.We are not Indians, and we are not Americans,and we are certainly not Native Americans.We are who we are,this is our land, and we will not go away. You have embraced and fallen in love with the killer of children,the rapist,and the thief.Everything you claim as your own,except for what lives inside your skin,was stolen from someone else.The good fortune of America is only through the misfortune of others.And of this,you say you are proud?
                                       
                                       It will be a great day of celebration when this evil nation; pretending Jesus,finally destroys itself with it's own cancerous greed.

                                       report
                                 2. 96

                                    wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    No, I'm not very PC.  Particularly when the entire reason for it is to allow someone to take offense at a perfectly innocuous term, a term widely used and without malice or intent to offend.  That you are jumping to take offense when none is offered bothers me not one whit, and neither does the silly claim that the term is part of a system of Genocide even though that claim is absolutely meant to be as offensive as it is false.
                                    
                                    And finally, yes, I understand that a free market trade, whether via a medium of exchange or not, is capitalism.  Do you?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 68

                                       wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       You think like a European! You do not have the power or force to offend me.I am not the one who is in need of  good council. I have  simply spoken a truth which you are obviously not accustomed to hearing.It is an innocuous term to you because within the circles that you travel, the people you encounter are just as uninformed and misinformed as yourself.
                                       
                                       You assume that I think like you but we are nothing alike.I would not walk among the Jews and say glorious things about Hitler and the Nazis.The Nazis exterminated at least 6 million Jews.But the European and the American exterminated over 100 million of my people.If the Jews swear they cannot forget 6 million,how can I not remember 100 million? You have a computer.The truth is all over the internet, look it up.While you're looking, stop by here and get an education: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMexicaMovement Compared to these guys, I'm considered a moderate.
                                       
                                       It is your choice to remain in darkness.Things are changing in this country.We no longer are allowing Europeans to define us, and tell us who we are, and how we should think, and feel, and worship.You say that you are an American,but to us you are a European.America is just as invisible to us, as we are invisible to you.This thread is about NATO and Lugar, and resources that neither have a right to.No one else on this thread has pointed this out because they have subscribed to the evil premise of Manifest Destiny.
                                       
                                       The only right the U.S. government has to any resources here is the right that a rapist has to his victim,or the right a thief has to his plunder.The truth taints your pretty illusion of Democracy and Freedom. But here is the greatest irony: The white European American is, and has always been, a pawn of the ruling elite.But you would probably  die trying to defend them. Why do you challenge me, when it is they who have made a fool of you? It is their representatives who will come around every year until the day you die. They will come demanding tribute,and if you should be unable to pay,they will take all that you own and have worked for.I have taken nothing from you, nor do I harbor such a desire. Follow the link I have provided; with new eyes  you will better see your true enemy.

                                       report
                                       1. 68

                                          wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          P.S. I forgot to add that it is hilarious that after I have provided you with the standard accepted definition of Capitalism, you still insist that it existed long before the 15th century! Apparently all of the historians I have studied are wrong and you are right.You cannot conjure one website to back up your claim.I already know this ,so why do you persist with your foolishness? Cheers!

                                          report
                                       2. 96

                                          wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          No, I think like an American, probably because I am an American.  So are you (if you live in the western hemisphere) regardless of how much you may dislike the label.  Calling an apple an orange doesn't change it.
                                          
                                          Why would I wish to offend or force you?  Even though you have been intentionally offensive in your posts, there is no reason to return the same.
                                          
                                          Sure - the Europeans centuries ago killed some Indians, and a great many died of disease (mostly unintended, but they died).  But the only way you can get to that figure is to count all the Indians that died from any cause, including old age, for centuries.  Meaning that you are grossly exaggerating any true figure for the homicide of Indians - it is ill becoming of your argument and does nothing to promote belief in anyone.
                                          
                                          And the only right the American Indians had to the land or resources of the American continents is exactly the same right the hated white man has.  After all, not a single tribe alive when the Europeans showed up was the original tribe of Asians crossing the land bridge into Alaska.  The all split politically and all fought over the millenia, killing just as the Europeans did for more land, more women, more food, more whatever.  So you have no more right to anything here than I do; your ancestors claimed territory, but so did mine.
                                          
                                          As far as capitalism, it really is getting a little comical, yes.  You provide a definition, I suggest that the old Indian tribes, trading hand made artifacts for other things follow that definition exactly but you don't like the idea so reject it without ever saying why.  Funny!

                                          report
                                          1. 57

                                             retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                             Dude, you are in a battle with a fanatic.  Her understanding of Indigenous American History is deeply flawed.  Her perceptions are tainted with emotion and hate.  You need no more evidence than her lumping the Aztecs in with the Hopi and calling them both peaceful. 
                                             
                                             The 100 million dead she 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.  There is a tainted history of European expansion at the expense of indigenous populations.  The history of Aboriginal Americans  is as tainted.  Precolumbians practiced the same brutal excesses that every other people in the world have practiced.  The notion of a idyllic paradise spoiled by Europeans is a fantasy.
                                             
                                             Barbarism and savagery are nothing new, anywhere in the world and it was not brought by Europeans.  There were inter-tribal wars that lasted, without end, until new contagions swept through the two continents.  Murder, rape, warfare, even cannibalism, were not uncommon among the people in this hemisphere.  It was easy for Cortez to raise an native army to attack the Aztecs because the Aztecs were brutal conquerors.
                                             
                                             The wonders of the pre-colombian world are many, not the least of which is the GREAT Mississippian city of Cahokia  http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/ … odges-text  Everyone in America should know about Cahokia as a cautionary tail and as a Wonder as great as the pyramids.
                                             
                                             How sad when people permit their own hatred to color their vision, but it is all too common.

                                             report
                                             1. 96

                                                wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                                I quite understand that she has an extremely twisted and romanticized view of Indian culture.  I also understand that the 100 million is not possible; I doubt there were that many Indians in the hemisphere, and certainly not in North America, when Europeans showed up here. 
                                                
                                                I know that the excesses of the Europeans, the killing of indigenous people, is nothing new anywhere in the world, including in North America.  The biggest difference between them and the Indians was the level of technology; the Europeans had technology the Indians couldn't come close to matching, which kind of wrote the end of the story before it even began.  Had it been the other way around, there is little doubt the Europeans would have been chased home and the conquest would have happened in Europe rather than North America.

                                                report
                                                1. 57

                                                   retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                                   That 100 million is probably close, though there is no way of knowing with any certainty.  What we do know is that vast communities, even complex cities were emptied and with little evidence of war or famine.  The diseases to which Europeans and their live stock had developed immunity would have been a new infection in the new world.  We do know  there were thriving, vibrant cities that were empty and lost it the jungle and folk lore within a century of Columbus landing in the Caribbean. 
                                                   
                                                   There is a legitimate point to be made about the REAL wonders of precolombian AMERICA but hatred and blindness will keep people from discovering those wonders.  Much like listening to 21st Century Americans of Irish extraction complaining about the Potato Famine or the Easter Uprising and ignoring the Book of Kells.
                                                   
                                                   (As a side note, if you haven't ever heard of Percy Fawcett you should read about him. )
                                                   
                                                   http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/feature … isode/808/

                                                   report
                                       3. 64

                                          maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          He doesn't think like a European but like an uneducated American. Europeans know better. When countries that perpetrated crimes and genocides easily forget them, the victims still remember. Europe knows that America belongs to its Natives, that Palestine belongs to Palestinians... Both were invaded for their geographical space, both indigenous populations were almost exterminated...
                                          Europeans have a more realistic view of our country than we do.

                                          report
                              2. 0

                                 mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 I just want to say to wrenchBiscuit:
                                 
                                 I will not name the scholars with whom I studied as their names would probably mean nothing to you as you clearly have not read and/or studied authentic First Nation scholarship, but I will say that they would, likely, point out to you---as they often did to those who thought of Indians as victims lacking agency and lacking the capacity to navigate the complex world that became the so-called New World:
                                 
                                 America is a world we made TOGETHER. It was not a world imposed on Indians by Europeans. It was a world we made TOGETHER for better and for worse. And a world in which we still---as it should be, find ourselves making and navigating TOGETHER even today.

                                 replyreport
                           3. 0

                              mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              A Wikipedia definition---really...

                              replyreport
                              1. 64

                                 maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 In what way, Wikipidia should have less credibility than any other encyclopedia? Who are you to accept one and reject the other?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    Oh please. Wikipedia is open source, user edited database. Wikipedia ain't scholarship.

                                    replyreport
         2. 0

            mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 9 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Right...wow!
                  
                  We old-timers learn something new every day!

                  replyreport
                  1. 64

                     maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin 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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin 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.

                        replyreport
                        1. 64

                           maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin 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.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              I find it very telling that you take pride in thinking that you have humiliated someone. You are incapable of humiliating me. And I suspect, are equally incapable of humiliating most of the people you attempt to humiliate.
                              
                              That said, humiliation is the goal of a bully. Bragging about having humiliated is the undoing of the bully.

                              replyreport
                              1. 57

                                 retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Humility is the goal of the wise, humiliation is the goal of one afraid that his foolishness will be discovered.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    I hear you.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 64

                                       maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       Humiliation is the answer to arrogance.

                                       report
                              2. 64

                                 maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 I challenged you with a question and you NEVER answered, I know why. You were wrong and you didn't want to be humiliated, I understood, however you lost face.
                                 I am everything but a bully. However I will NEVER let anyone step on me by asserting that I am wrong and he's right.

                                 replyreport
                           2. 77

                              Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              
                              Good night, Max. Feeding time is over.
                              

                              replyreport
                              1. 64

                                 maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Feeding would mean that you brought enlightenment, unfortunately it was only obscurantism.

                                 replyreport
5. 68

   wrenchBiscuitposted 9 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 !

   replyreport