It's a Russian source so after the first three paragraphs here, it's best
read as 'Russian perspective' than anything else but nothing there I'd
disagree with.

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=13099215&PageNum=0

<quotes>

BRUSSELS, September 22 (Itar-Tass) -- NATO has no plans to create an easily
deployable force to protect Russia's neighbours from possible aggression,
the alliance's deputy spokesman Carmen Romero said

She responded to the Los Angeles Times' report claiming that the alliance
support the U.S. President George Bush administration's plan to create a
rapid reaction force to be deployed in the countries fearing Russia's
aggression.

Nothing of the kind was discussed at the ministerial meeting in London. NATO
is not considering the possibility of creating any new military units now,
Romero said.

The U.S. proposal to create so-called rapid deployment forces on the Russian
border is a purely election move of the American administration that has
bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, Russian permanent representative to
NATO Dmitry Rogozin said earlier in the day.

"The proposal to create rapid deployment forces is pure politics in the
worse meaning of this word. This is the whipping up of passions. This is a
proposal that, by the way, was not accepted by the defence ministers of the
NATO member states. Their reaction was, 'we will see', 'we will discuss it'
or 'we will consider it'. They don't want to do that because they think that
it's not the time to unnerve Russia. That's how Europeans think in the first
place," Rogozin told Ekho Moskvy radio on Monday.

"It is extremely important for the present administration to preserve the
state of confrontation with Russia. This creates an environment for
aggressive rhetoric, in which John MaCain has succeeded so well. This is why
in its fight against Barack Obama the White House is ready to continue
confrontation with Russia even though this is at odds with the interests of
their NATO allies and the interests of the United States," he said.

"No one knows what exactly the United States wants when it puts forth its
proposal. NATO has about 50,000 troops in Afghanistan and it is obviously
not enough. The same problem is in Iraq. They do not have enough soldiers
even to solve the tasks that are most pressing at the moment. So where are
they going to take the troops for their rapid deployment forces?" Rogozin
asked.

"I think U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates is grudgingly making this
proposal because he American military are generally against an escalation of
tensions with Russia. They need our help on Afghanistan," Rogozin said.

</quotes>

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> It's a Russian source so after the first three paragraphs here, it's best
> read as 'Russian perspective' than anything else but nothing there I'd
> disagree with.
> 
> http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=13099215&PageNum=0
> 
> <quotes>
> 
> BRUSSELS, September 22 (Itar-Tass) -- NATO has no plans to create an easily
> deployable force to protect Russia's neighbours from possible aggression,
> the alliance's deputy spokesman Carmen Romero said
> 
> She responded to the Los Angeles Times' report claiming that the alliance
> support the U.S. President George Bush administration's plan to create a
> rapid reaction force to be deployed in the countries fearing Russia's
> aggression.
> 
> Nothing of the kind was discussed at the ministerial meeting in London. NATO
> is not considering the possibility of creating any new military units now,
> Romero said.
> 
> The U.S. proposal to create so-called rapid deployment forces on the Russian
> border is a purely election move of the American administration that has
> bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, Russian permanent representative to
> NATO Dmitry Rogozin said earlier in the day.
> 
> "The proposal to create rapid deployment forces is pure politics in the
> worse meaning of this word. This is the whipping up of passions. This is a
> proposal that, by the way, was not accepted by the defence ministers of the
> NATO member states. Their reaction was, 'we will see', 'we will discuss it'
> or 'we will consider it'. They don't want to do that because they think that
> it's not the time to unnerve Russia. That's how Europeans think in the first
> place," Rogozin told Ekho Moskvy radio on Monday.
> 
> "It is extremely important for the present administration to preserve the
> state of confrontation with Russia. This creates an environment for
> aggressive rhetoric, in which John MaCain has succeeded so well. This is why
> in its fight against Barack Obama the White House is ready to continue
> confrontation with Russia even though this is at odds with the interests of
> their NATO allies and the interests of the United States," he said.

Interesting, this last seems to be a tacit endorsement of Obama.
The leftist Obama camp has been just as, if not more, forceful on the 
need to "defend against Russia" ect, same as McCain.
I guess the Russians must see through this as just electioneering talk 
by a weak, inexperienced candidate who is completely lost away from his 
  advisers and teleprompters.

"Jesse"  wrote ...

> > "It is extremely important for the present administration to preserve
the
> > state of confrontation with Russia. This creates an environment for
> > aggressive rhetoric, in which John MaCain has succeeded so well. This is
why
> > in its fight against Barack Obama the White House is ready to continue
> > confrontation with Russia even though this is at odds with the interests
of
> > their NATO allies and the interests of the United States," he said.
>
> Interesting, this last seems to be a tacit endorsement of Obama.

Huh ? It's criticism of Republican and NeoCon mindset.

Of course to someone with no comprehension abilities plus a black and white
and binary view of the world like yourself, criticism of Republicans equates
to support for Democrats. It's that same nonsense of "you're either with us
or against us".

Given that you consistently cannot understand that opposing one doesn't
imply supporting the other, have you considered taking up remedial classes ?
I think we'd all benefit from your doing that, not just yourself.

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote ...
> 
>>> "It is extremely important for the present administration to preserve
> the
>>> state of confrontation with Russia. This creates an environment for
>>> aggressive rhetoric, in which John MaCain has succeeded so well. This is
> why
>>> in its fight against Barack Obama the White House is ready to continue
>>> confrontation with Russia even though this is at odds with the interests
> of
>>> their NATO allies and the interests of the United States," he said.
>> Interesting, this last seems to be a tacit endorsement of Obama.
> 
> Huh ? It's criticism of Republican and NeoCon mindset.
> 
> Of course to someone with no comprehension abilities plus a black and white
> and binary view of the world like yourself, criticism of Republicans equates
> to support for Democrats. It's that same nonsense of "you're either with us
> or against us".
> 
> Given that you consistently cannot understand that opposing one doesn't
> imply supporting the other, have you considered taking up remedial classes ?
> I think we'd all benefit from your doing that, not just yourself.

Oh, back again to your well worn "no comprehension abilities", are we ?

Making a reference to "the white house fighting against Barack Obama" in 
the context of those paragraphs is an explicit endorsement, which all 
but the dullest of minds will see ... Which explains why you can't, I guess.

Whats the problem ? I hear that most of the world is rooting for Obongo, 
are you saying that just ain't so ?

"Jesse"  wrote ...

> The Happy Hippy wrote:
> > "Jesse"  wrote ...
> >
> >>> "It is extremely important for the present administration to preserve
> > the
> >>> state of confrontation with Russia. This creates an environment for
> >>> aggressive rhetoric, in which John MaCain has succeeded so well. This
is
> > why
> >>> in its fight against Barack Obama the White House is ready to continue
> >>> confrontation with Russia even though this is at odds with the
interests
> > of
> >>> their NATO allies and the interests of the United States," he said.
> >> Interesting, this last seems to be a tacit endorsement of Obama.
> >
> > Huh ? It's criticism of Republican and NeoCon mindset.
> >
> > Of course to someone with no comprehension abilities plus a black and
white
> > and binary view of the world like yourself, criticism of Republicans
equates
> > to support for Democrats. It's that same nonsense of "you're either with
us
> > or against us".
> >
> > Given that you consistently cannot understand that opposing one doesn't
> > imply supporting the other, have you considered taking up remedial
classes ?
> > I think we'd all benefit from your doing that, not just yourself.
>
> Oh, back again to your well worn "no comprehension abilities", are we ?
>
> Making a reference to "the white house fighting against Barack Obama" in
> the context of those paragraphs is an explicit endorsement, which all
> but the dullest of minds will see ...

Sorry Jesse, but you're just banging nails in your own coffin and proving me
right. "Explicit endorsement"; you make me laugh as I can read exactly what
you think you can. Mind you, perhaps you don't know what "explicit" or
"endorsement" mean and I really shouldn't mock the afflicted ?


> Which explains why you can't, I guess.
>
> Whats the problem ? I hear that most of the world is rooting for Obongo,
> are you saying that just ain't so ?

More trying to go off at a tangent with a bit of racism thrown into the mix
for good measure.

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote ...
> 
>> The Happy Hippy wrote:
>>> "Jesse"  wrote ...
>>>
>>>>> "It is extremely important for the present administration to preserve
>>> the
>>>>> state of confrontation with Russia. This creates an environment for
>>>>> aggressive rhetoric, in which John MaCain has succeeded so well. This
> is
>>> why
>>>>> in its fight against Barack Obama the White House is ready to continue
>>>>> confrontation with Russia even though this is at odds with the
> interests
>>> of
>>>>> their NATO allies and the interests of the United States," he said.
>>>> Interesting, this last seems to be a tacit endorsement of Obama.
>>> Huh ? It's criticism of Republican and NeoCon mindset.
>>>
>>> Of course to someone with no comprehension abilities plus a black and
> white
>>> and binary view of the world like yourself, criticism of Republicans
> equates
>>> to support for Democrats. It's that same nonsense of "you're either with
> us
>>> or against us".
>>>
>>> Given that you consistently cannot understand that opposing one doesn't
>>> imply supporting the other, have you considered taking up remedial
> classes ?
>>> I think we'd all benefit from your doing that, not just yourself.
>> Oh, back again to your well worn "no comprehension abilities", are we ?
>>
>> Making a reference to "the white house fighting against Barack Obama" in
>> the context of those paragraphs is an explicit endorsement, which all
>> but the dullest of minds will see ...
> 
> Sorry Jesse, but you're just banging nails in your own coffin and proving me
> right. "Explicit endorsement"; you make me laugh as I can read exactly what
> you think you can. Mind you, perhaps you don't know what "explicit" or
> "endorsement" mean and I really shouldn't mock the afflicted ?

Of course you are right [in your own mind], have you ever been wrong ?

>> Which explains why you can't, I guess.
>>
>> Whats the problem ? I hear that most of the world is rooting for Obongo,
>> are you saying that just ain't so ?
> 
> More trying to go off at a tangent with a bit of racism thrown into the mix
> for good measure.

Obongo is racist ? Since when .. ?