Gorbachev warns world of ‘cult of force,’... all recent conflicts could have had peaceful...

RT QUESTION MORE:

Published time: 3 Jun, 2016 23:45

FULL TITLE:
Gorbachev warns world of ‘cult of force,’ says all recent conflicts could have had peaceful solution
.
www.rt.com...
.

“Problems and conflicts of the last two decades that could well be solved through peaceful political and diplomatic ways… were dealt with through the use of military force. That was the case in former Yugoslavia, in Iraq, in Libya, and Syria,” Gorbachev said in an address to the participants of a conference in Moscow on Friday. The event was dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the Reykjavik meeting between the former Soviet president and his US counterpart, Ronald Reagan, in 1986.
.
. . .
.
The former Soviet leader expressed deep concern about the growing militarization of politics, calling it “a departure from the… principles that allowed us to end the Cold War.”
.
“There has been a collapse of trust in relations between the world’s leading powers that, according to the UN Charter, bear primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security,” he said. The speech has been published on the official website of the Gorbachev Foundation.
.
. . .
.
Gorbachev said preventing nuclear war and reducing nukes should still be a priority for world leaders, while other pressing global problems include fighting terrorism, poverty and underdevelopment, as well as dealing with environmental problems.Gorbachev said preventing nuclear war and reducing nukes should still be a priority for world leaders, while other pressing global problems include fighting terrorism, poverty and underdevelopment, as well as dealing with environmental problems.
.
. . .
.

.
Wellllllllllllllllllll . . . it sounds like he's still trumpeting the globalist oligarchy's priorities.
.
Though I agree with him that talks are better than throwing nukes around . . . by far.
.
It's interesting that he's trotted out just now saying these things. What role are they calling on him to play? Warning? Exhorting? Chiding?
.
It sounds a bit like a wistful call to a more benign style of international relations vs the overt building toward WWIII that seems to be so much the style recently.
.
Then with the current WH imposter-in-chief with his blood lust for destruction of the USA . . . it's like the international leaders--particularly him--are enjoying yet again, playing with fire works in a dynamite factory.
.
Sigh.
.
Any other analysis on his message etc?
.

“Problems and conflicts of the last two decades that could well be solved through peaceful political and diplomatic ways… were dealt with through the use of military force."

Now he tells us.



Sounds like the NWO is getting desperate and impatient.

a reply to: BO XIAN

I believe he is right, peaceful solutions were always the first thing presented at the table.. But the peaceful solutions always comes with a prize, some believe war in the answer to a never ending machinery.

a reply to: xuenchen

"ah crap the usual stand still trick didnt work"

We can thank social media and the Internet in general for that - too many people are waking up. Maybe they've realized after Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Bhopal, Fukushima, Deep Water Horizon BP Oil Spill, - that dirt stays around forever. They need time to refine further the art of killing & enslavement with minimal "ecological footprint". They want a smorgasbord buffet style dinner but no one want to stay around and clean the dishes.

a reply to: LauGhing0ne

I don't think they are interested in peaceful solutions.

1. They WANT WAR--the more massive the better:

A) It furthers their depopulation goals better.
B) It helps re-arrange the geo-political landscape more toward the global tyranny they have long been working toward.
C) Their boss loves death, suffering, destruction--it's his recreation, hobby, avocation, passion, goal, job.

2. War seems to persistently enrich their bank accounts. I think money is just Monopoly money to them but they are still not above enjoying piling more into their laps. Power is their main addiction, now.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I don't think they are THAT worried about the deaths being complicated by poor ecological stuff--AT PRESENT. I think they figure they'll have plenty of time to clean things up after they reduce the population to 200-500 million globally.

a reply to: BO XIAN

I agree with him 100% but then war is so far anyway, the most effective depopulation tool there is. Vaccines may become the most effective tool in not to distant future.

I'm sure ISIS would have responded to diplomacy and offerings of free peace

a reply to: BO XIAN

Strange, I always thought his name was Gorbachov not chev

As for the article, yes peace is the logical approach but in times of peace there's less fuel (money) for the war machine so those who orchestrate these conflicts don't make as much money. So those who pull the strings behind the scenes will always aim for conflict over peace because conflict brings in more money!

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: BO XIAN

I agree with him 100% but then war is so far anyway, the most effective depopulation tool there is. Vaccines may become the most effective tool in not to distant future.

Plenty of truth, to that. Sadly.

What prepping, therefore, do you encourage?

Thanks.

originally posted by: Kalixi

I'm sure ISIS would have responded to diplomacy and offerings of free peace

as in !!!NOT!!!

Good point.

Nevertheless . . . it's nice that such a bloke would even say such a thing at his level.

a reply to: Discotech

INDEED.

GorbaCHEV: You triggered an "Oh, Dear me--did I mistype it or something?"

Glad I got it right. LOL.

Sure he does support peaceful solutions, like the annexation of Crimea. What a hipocrit he is.

a reply to: gmacev

I think Putin's personality is very different from Gorby's.

Is he more of a Communist than a globalist stooge? I don't know that there's a great deal of difference between the 2.

Would he feel bold about taking an unpopular stance on Crimea? I doubt it.

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: BO XIAN

I agree with him 100% but then war is so far anyway, the most effective depopulation tool there is. Vaccines may become the most effective tool in not to distant future.

War has never had much of any effect on global population growth. It can effect regions for short terms but, over all the population is simply two large and well spread across the globe.

a reply to: MrSpad

I was told something similar by nuke experts when I was in the Navy . . . . more or less that geographies are vast etc.

Nevertheless, with the vast bulk of the populations around the planet in a number of large cities, I wouldn't think it too far fetched that a vast nuclear exchange could destroy 1/3 of the prior global population.

However, we have never experienced a full fledged global war with all sides flinging nukes around.

And, I was told by another high tech black ops sort of bloke that we have

11 . . . ELEVEN DIFFERENT technologies--each one of which are FAR WORSE in destructiveness than nukes.

Time will tell, in any case.

Gorby's talking about resources and that sharing is a more survivable option for everyone on the planet...?

a reply to: loveguy

I think it could be construed that way. I don't recall any specific sentences to that effect, however.

He's always seemed like a higher level oligarchy stooge, to me. Even back in Reagan's era.

Yeah. We'll just pretend this country didn't really start to go to hell in a handbasket until the supposed collapse of the Soviet Union. Almost immediately that's when the trouble really started. Coincidentally, that would have probably been the same time when Russians fanned out all over the planet without having to worry about explaining their travels and migrations any longer. Where do communists go when communism ceases to exist? Are we to believe they simply stopped being communists and embraced their mortal enemies?