Everything Mark writes here is only plausible if one forgets....or conveniently refuses to acknowledge....that the overriding issue here is the legitimate Russian fear and outrage over the consistent efforts of the United States to move NATO to the border of Russia.

That is the relentlessly Unstated background to this entire controversy.

The demise of the Soviet Union was negotiated away. The USA did not “win” the Cold War. The Russians and the USA ended it,

But you needn’t take my word for that. Just read the book by Jack F. Matlock, JR., Reagan’s Ambassador to the Soviet Union, “Autopsy on an Empire”.

In addition, at that time, US secretary of State Baker assured the Russians that the USA would not seek to move NATO further East from Germany. Baker kept his word, but Clinton and Bush 2 did not.

Mark and others here need to understand that the only issue here is that the Russians very understandably do not want thousands of “NATO” tanks and war planes and divisions sitting on their border.

Think if the Warsaw Pact tried to camp out on the Rio Grande !

All the Putin and Russia bashing deliberately or ignorantly overlooks the main issue in this dispute. The provocative American strategy of ringing Russia with the American war machine, i.e., NATO.

It is most noteworthy Mark’s post and all Russia critics shrewdly or ignorantly fail to even mention what is the true issue in this matter.

I believe in the right of citizens to bear arms within reason (by "within reason" I mean I do not believe in a right to keep a thousand howitzers in my garage)

But I don't like threats !

Including threats from belligerent, posturing, tough-guy, sissy-macho jerks.

Did John Brown threaten Harper's Ferry ?

Did the Japanese threaten Pearl Harbor ?

Did the Germans threaten Poland ?

Did the Germans threaten the Soviet Union ?

Guys that talk spit (euphemism) arouse themselves and only impress other weaklings who get aroused by sissy macho threats.

Okay, tough guys....just remember.....there are tough guys on the other side too.

Some great Yanks you are.....talkin' spit and threatening people on websites.

Real Heroes.

Great advertisements for America.

While I agree with Ron Paul that there is a legitimate case that can made for the right of states to secede....I think he is cavalier in his denunciations of the encroaching federal government on the states whose residents Sarah Palin describes as "real Americans".

I invite readers to consult the distribution maps of the relative amounts of money that gets redistributed back to the individual states for each dollar they pay in federal taxes. People may be shocked to learn that the southern and western states get back an average of about $1.30 for each dollar they pay in federal income tax, while the "liberal" northeastern states get back about 80 cents in services for each dollar they pay in federal income tax.

More importantly, if Texas were to secede the impact (completely ignored by Ron Paul) would be catastrophic. Bear in mind that the Texas economy is largely a dependent on huge United States military bases that would be immediately closed upon secession, in addition to gigantic United States military contracts to private Texas companies that would be terminated.

And don't forget that immediately following secession, all social security and medicare recipients in the former state of Texas would be terminated.

It is one thing for local "patriots" to talk tough; and it is another thing entirely for them to live with the consequences of talking spit.