Thread: Putin's menace

Well the NY Times is really starting to go to town on our dear Vladimir Vladimirovich.
Check out the multimedia report at the bottom of this page, if you have the bandwidth:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/opinion/
15kristof.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials
%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists

I chopped up the link because I hate scrolling across the page.
You need to register at www.nytimes.com, but it's free.

I was a little shocked at the tone of this ... perhaps the winding up of the Yukos saga is the straw that broke the camel's back? Along with Yushchenko's little 'problem'.

At the same time, VM is rolling new flick "Don't be a menace to Russia while drinking your juice in the New York times".

Originally Posted by BETEP

At the same time, VM is rolling new flick "Don't be a menace to Russia while drinking your juice in the New York times".

VM this VM that. I see VM's becoming quite a household name. Good. Would you vote for him if he ran for president in your country?

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

Would you vote for him if he ran for president in your country?

Why did I know you will be here?
The most interesting question is, "Why didn't I confuse of your ignorance?" The reason is simple; the situation is typical for Russian politicians. Then they spread their thoughts by mass media, and the thoughts are coming to people's minds.

Let me explain how my words are connected with your question.
1. There is no president's election in Latvia. President of Latvia is elected by Saema*. To elect president I have to become deputy in Saema first.
2. President of Latvia has no such power as president of Russia has, because Latvia is parliament republic. Actually, president of Latvia is just an official face of Latvia.
3. Even if I am a deputy it would be impossible to vote for Putin because I have to make so many suppositions to make that possible.
4. OK. It was hard, but I've made the suppositions (many of them are really stupid). I would not vote for this politician, because he is going to be disgrace of Latvia. I don't give an excuse the politics we really have (actually they are ours disgrace), but I can explain the difference.
Putin used to work in environment which has no single and clear politics. It's so called "кто в лес, кто по дрова". I bet you don't even recognize hundreds of mistakes even in unimportant details. Take a look at "Western" politicians; they have some unbreakable concepts (democracy, money, free market and etc) as a basement for their politics. They lie only about things which are important for their politics. Sometimes it's just a bunch of facts constructed as a single right opinion; sometimes it's a semi-truth which is used as a basement.
Now you can take a look at Putin in Netherlands as an example. He supports democracy in Ukraine, and in the next phrase he convicts "oranges" because they express their opinion.

Another example of typical Russian politician:

"В наших отношениях произойдет прорыв, если главы балтийских государств приедут в Москву в мае следующего года, — сказал он. — И я искренне надеюсь, что они приедут". Он подчеркнул, что "это было бы окном возможностей для наших отношений". Вместе с тем, глава думского комитета отметил, что "если они (президенты Латвии, Литвы и Эстонии) откажутся, то это будет совершенно другой жест, который будет прочтен соответственно". "Замалчивать дату окончания второй мировой войны было бы кощунственно", — подчеркнул Косачев**. Он выразил надежду, что лидеры трех балтийских стран "не совершат такой ошибки".

Trust me it's not a typo; this man don't even think his looks like an idiot. Almost all articles from Russia have a lot of mistakes or lies in every little detail. Do you want me to trust in other words? That's the reason why I don't want the type of politicians present me in the world.

* Parliament of Latvia.
** Константин Косачев - председатель Комитета Госдумы по международным делам.

ВЕТЕР, please re-read my post, by "he" I meant muggins 'ere, numero uno, yours truly, myself! Geddit?

Anyway, ВЕТЕР, do you really say whatever you feel like saying no matter what? You can't just do that. That's really savage, man. You can't just go round thinking whatever thoughts you feel like thinking, let alone vocalizing them. It's not right, mate. Don't you think that a man's gotta keep his thoughts in check? Can you imagine what would happen if I became irresponsible and started to express my honest opinions here? Chaos would ensue. Think about it, mate. I'd really hate to see you become a rogue element. I know you can do much better than that.

Here's my take. It's super-brief and slightly glib because I don't have the time or inclination to write an essay

When the SU collapsed America saw a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to put Russia, an empire that had been knocking around in one form or another for centuries, out of the geo-political race for good (in line with the US' general policy of being so powerful that no-one else will ever have a chance of becoming a threat). While Russia was falling apart under the world-class miss-management of that cretin Yeltsin (which was, of course, just fine as far as the US was concerned), and everyone else was busy singing We Are The World, the US was quietly undermining (in the litteral sense) Russia's power base still further (by getting her own troops into the Stans, Georgia et al, and inviting the former Eastern bloc nations and little Soviets into NATO).

Putin is wise to this, and because he feels Russia has recovered far enough to do something about it, he's not affraid to spell it out, so America is in turn wise to the fact that Putin is on to them, so he has become a problem. Cue the immediate instigation of Putin-bashing across the 'free' western press.

The issue with Yukos is just one of many side-shows in this game, as is the election in Ukraine, the war in Chechnya, the (percieved) persecution of Berezovsky, the "we've got some new nukes" sabre-rattling on both sides, and so on...

Now, how much of that summary is gospel truth and how much of it is erroneous conclusions drawn from coincidental circumstantial evidence is certainly open to debate, but what is absolutely clear is that Putin sees it like that. He's actuallly said as much in several speeches this year alone (you can find all of his speeches at www.kremlin.ru, have a look for yourself. The two examples I can think of straight off the top of my head are his address to the nation in the wake of Beslan, and his summit speech on his recent visit to India, but there are many more, both in pre-written speeches and in interviews)

So, taken in that context, while many of Putins actions since becoming President may be undesirable on first-principle, how-we'd-like-things-to-be terms, they are entirely understandable. He may well be nostalgic for the past power of the Soviet empire, but that is no different to the way a great many Brits are nostalgic for the British empire. Russia was unassilable when it was part of the union, now it is vulnerable. Nobody likes to feel vulnerable, especially those who were previously strong.

Personally, I have a hard time shedding a tear for Khodorkovsky considering he stole everything he has from Russia in the first place (the fact that the theft had a presidential (Yeltsin) rubber-stamp doesn't make it any less of a theft). From Putin's point of view, he is just righting an historical wrong. The fact that he's righting that wrong using similar underhand tactics to those that allowed Khodorkovsky to build his fortune only adds a wee touch of tasty irony into the mix. Tough sh1t, Misha. Of course, if I had shares in Yukos, I might feel differently

With the election in the Ukraine, Putin's interference was stupid, clumsy, and almost certainly counter-productive, but I fully understand why he did it given the political and historical context outlined above. From his, and more importantly Russia's, point of view he had to try something.

As for that article itself...:shrug:...I reckon it's pretty mild, I've seen plenty harsher critiques of Bush in the UK press.

Fascist? If that's so I'd take Putin's state fascism over America's in-denial corporate fascism any old day of the week.

Originally Posted by BETEP

Take a look at "Western" politicians; they have some unbreakable concepts (democracy, money, free market and etc) as a basement for their politics.

May I correct you: these "unbreakable concepts" always seem to be base for their rhetorics, not their politics.
The deeds disagree with the words, and it happens too frequently.
For example, talking about "democracy" the most western politicians actually talking about "pro-western regime". They just can't admit, that such thing like "not pro-western democracy" can exist.
Talking about "free market" don't stop them from conducting protectionists policies to close their economics from cheap imports.
Et cetera.

Originally Posted by BETEP

They lie only about things which are important for their politics.

Nice statement. Don't ever need commenting.

Originally Posted by BETEP

Now you can take a look at Putin in Netherlands as an example. He supports democracy in Ukraine, and in the next phrase he convicts "oranges" because they express their opinion.

So, look at western media convicting Putin, because he expresses HIS opinion.

Western politicians don't give a crap about democracy, they give a crap about capitalism and access to markets and hide all of that behind the lie that it's democracy that is important.

Communistic, economically isolated, anti-democratic, totalitarian China = Bad Bad Bad ("because they have no democracy!")

but

Free Market, economically exploitable, anti-democratic, totalitarian China = Good Good Good ("just don't mention their human rights record, you might offend them")

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

ВЕТЕР, please re-read my post, by "he" I meant muggins 'ere, numero uno, yours truly, myself! Geddit?

No, I don't.

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

Anyway, ВЕТЕР, do you really say whatever you feel like saying no matter what? You can't just do that. That's really savage, man. You can't just go round thinking whatever thoughts you feel like thinking, let alone vocalizing them. It's not right, mate.

I can, and it's right. The freedom of expression is the one thing which makes us not stupid.

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

Don't you think that a man's gotta keep his thoughts in check?

Men have to check everything. That's the reason I don't let you keep my thoughts in your check.

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

Can you imagine what would happen if I became irresponsible and started to express my honest opinions here?

You are always irresponsible because you had never explained your opinion.

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

Chaos would ensue.

Exchange of opinions would ensue. It is even worst then a chaos for you.

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

I'd really hate to see you become a rogue element.

Wan't you to exile me to Sebiria?

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

I know you can do much better than that.

Do you want me join "Единая Россия"?

Originally Posted by scotcher

US was quietly undermining (in the litteral sense) Russia's power base still further (by getting her own troops into the Stans, Georgia et al, and inviting the former Eastern bloc nations and little Soviets into NATO).

IMHO, it was not so complicated for US. The weirdest fact is the expansion became possible only because of Russian politics.

Originally Posted by scotcher

Putin is wise to this, and because he feels Russia has recovered far enough to do something about it, he's not affraid to spell it out, so America is in turn wise to the fact that Putin is on to them, so he has become a problem.

Putin was as a God's gift after Yeltsin; but isn't a work for head of state to be wise? I see the Yeltsin's heritage was a real mess. I remember Putin made some attempts to put Russia to rights, but it will not work without good laws. Russian courts have to work and follow the laws. It's only way to give state protection to people from criminals and swindlers, and only way to be respectable for the state.

Originally Posted by scotcher

Personally, I have a hard time shedding a tear for Khodorkovsky considering he stole everything he has from Russia in the first place (the fact that the theft had a presidential (Yeltsin) rubber-stamp doesn't make it any less of a theft). From Putin's point of view, he is just righting an historical wrong.

It's absolutely clear that Khodorkovsky is a thief, and the end of his risky game could be predicted. I don't care about him, but aren't the possibilities to steal stopped by law?

Originally Posted by scotcher

With the election in the Ukraine, Putin's interference was stupid, clumsy, and almost certainly counter-productive, but I fully understand why he did it given the political and historical context outlined above. From his, and more importantly Russia's, point of view he had to try something.

He is a president not to do something, but he did. There are too many idiotic moves.

Originally Posted by scotcher

Fascist? If that's so I'd take Putin's state fascism over America's in-denial corporate fascism any old day of the week.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

May I correct you: these "unbreakable concepts" always seem to be base for their rhetorics, not their politics.
The deeds disagree with the words, and it happens too frequently.

Yes and no. Let's stop at rhetorics which you can see at TV. US bombs Iraqi but that always conforms to democracy. It has to look good. It's important, don't mess these things.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

For example, talking about "democracy" the most western politicians actually talking about "pro-western regime". They just can't admit, that such thing like "not pro-western democracy" can exist.

Nope. The first thing they have is "Democracy is the set of rules we play good (of course, we can beat you up following the rules)". Feel the difference.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Nice statement. Don't ever need commenting.

This is the most important thing you didn't get. Politician is like a lawyer; he protects your interests and uses some tactics. Just compare politicians and lawyers, and you will see how many they have in common. Don't blame the rules; just pick good lawyers.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

So, look at western media convicting Putin, because he expresses HIS opinion.

There is huge difference between official's opinion and an opinion. Don't you think?

Originally Posted by BETEP

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

ВЕТЕР, please re-read my post, by "he" I meant muggins 'ere, numero uno, yours truly, myself! Geddit?

No, I don't.

How come you don't get it?

[quote:2gqv9r69]I can, and it's right. The freedom of expression is the one thing which makes us not stupid.

I disagree. I think people should be encouraged to control their thoughts. Mind you, I'm not saying that people should be forbidden from speaking their minds, on the contrary, people should be encouraged to speak their minds, but they should be either rewarded or punished, depending on how much control over their thoughts they exercise. Imagine I spoke my mind without filtering it first - you lot would be wading knee deep in profanity. However, being a responsible forum member, I regularly will those filthy thoughts away.

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

Don't you think that a man's gotta keep his thoughts in check?

Men have to check everything. That's the reason I don't let you keep my thoughts in your check.

I don't want to keep your thoughts in check. I don't have that many disposable surgical gloves.

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

Can you imagine what would happen if I became irresponsible and started to express my honest opinions here?

You are always irresponsible because you had never explained your opinion.

I forgive you. Everyone is entitled to the occasional blunder. (As long as he doesn't make a ruddy 'abit of it.)

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

Chaos would ensue.

Exchange of opinions would ensue. It is even worst then a chaos for you.

Exchange of opinions is chaos. Ideally all people should have the same opinion. People with different opinions are like computers with incompatible interfaces.

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

I'd really hate to see you become a rogue element.

Wan't you to exile me to Sebiria?

Whatever for? Are you a good lumberjack?

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

I know you can do much better than that.

Do you want me join "Единая Россия"?

[/quote:2gqv9r69]I couldn't care less which party you join.

[quote:2p3etn86]

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

Can you imagine what would happen if I became irresponsible and started to express my honest opinions here?

You are always irresponsible because you had never explained your opinion.

I forgive you. Everyone is entitled to the occasional blunder. (As long as he doesn't make a ruddy 'abit of it.)[/quote:2p3etn86]Thanks for another evidence.

Originally Posted by BETEP

Thanks for another evidence.

Evidence of what? BTW, that grimace looks menacing - reasonable grounds enough for a preemptive strike among us fellow primates.

Originally Posted by BETEP

Originally Posted by Scorpio

May I correct you: these "unbreakable concepts" always seem to be base for their rhetorics, not their politics.
The deeds disagree with the words, and it happens too frequently.

Yes and no. Let's stop at rhetorics which you can see at TV. US bombs Iraqi but that always conforms to democracy. It has to look good.

Please explain, how aggression against formerly independent country conforms to "democracy". And why it does look good (because, as for me, it definitely looks bad).

Originally Posted by BETEP

Originally Posted by Scorpio

For example, talking about "democracy" the most western politicians actually talking about "pro-western regime". They just can't admit, that such thing like "not pro-western democracy" can exist.

Nope. The first thing they have is "Democracy is the set of rules we play good (of course, we can beat you up following the rules)". Feel the difference.

Yes, yes.
"Democracy is the set of rules we play good -- and, of course, if we're going to lose, we'll just change the rules, so we shall win anyway."
This seems to be closer to reality. Feel the difference.

Originally Posted by BETEP

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Nice statement. Don't ever need commenting.

This is the most important thing you didn't get. Politician is like a lawyer; he protects your interests and uses some tactics. Just compare politicians and lawyers, and you will see how many they have in common. Don't blame the rules; just pick good lawyers.

Again, no good lawyer can help you in situation, when the brute force is the only law remaining.

Originally Posted by BETEP

Originally Posted by Scorpio

So, look at western media convicting Putin, because he expresses HIS opinion.

There is huge difference between official's opinion and an opinion. Don't you think?

Putin expressed his own opinion; the street mob in Kiev expresses opinion of the people supporting them. Obviously, these opinions are different.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Please explain, how aggression against formerly independent country conforms to "democracy". And why it does look good (because, as for me, it definitely looks bad).

It doesn't look bad to some of the Iraqis who had to put up with Saddam. I did not see any one else willing to help them. The aggression was not against the country anyway, if it was we would have levelled the whole place with no risk to our own soldiers lives. Our soldiers are dying to protect Iraqis. Do you really think they have to?

Do you honestly believe that Iraqis were not praying to God for someone to get them out of their miserable mess? They may go through hell for while but they will in the end get their wish and people like you are only making it harder for them. The UN was sitting on their fat ass just like they did with Rawanda. While Rawandans were begging for help, instead of increasing troop strength the UN pulled out the last of the Belgian troops who were there, who cut up their blue berets in protest when they had to leave. THe US should have gone in there but did not thanks to Clinton and Albright who refused at the UN. They are still burying their dead there 10 years later.

I suppose with your logic, if your nieghbours in your appartment building were under attack by murderers and theives and you could hear their cries comming through your walls, you would just turn the volume up on your television.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Please explain, how aggression against formerly independent country conforms to "democracy".

There is no democracy in Iraq, and it's wrong!

Originally Posted by Scorpio

And why it does look good (because, as for me, it definitely looks bad).

Are you killing Chechen people and suppressing their will of independence, or you are keeping a peace in the region and fighting with terrorists?

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Yes, yes.
"Democracy is the set of rules we play good -- and, of course, if we're going to lose, we'll just change the rules, so we shall win anyway."
This seems to be closer to reality. Feel the difference.

No, no.
The basement never can not be compromised (Мне легче тебе штраф заплатить, чем руку сбивать ) Anyway, many things could be done according to the rules, and breaking the rules gives you a political disadvantage (unless others might call that even ).

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Again, no good lawyer can help you in situation, when the brute force is the only law remaining.

Why do you mess everything up? Politics is just one of the tools which can help you out or reach your goals. Winter tyres also could be useful unless you drive like a donkey.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Putin expressed his own opinion;

Putin may not express his personal opinion; he always express government's opinion whatever situation he talk. That's why ex-president's opinion is always interesting.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

the street mob in Kiev expresses opinion of the people supporting them.

They play by the rules.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Obviously, these opinions are different.

It could be by the rules, but it was not. Putin might talk something about choice of Ukrainian people, US political invasion, protection of Russian people in Ukraine and etc; but he could not convict people who express their opinion. It was one of the huge stupid mistakes in the row.

Originally Posted by DDT

The aggression was not against the country anyway, if it was we would have levelled the whole place with no risk to our own soldiers lives...
Our soldiers are dying to protect Iraqis...
Do you honestly believe that Iraqis were not praying to God for someone to get them out of their miserable mess...

What a familiar logic.
"To save this village from communism, we were forced to destroy it."

-- some american official after Songmi (aka My Lai) massacre.

Originally Posted by DDT

Do you honestly believe that Iraqis were not praying to God for someone to get them out of their miserable mess? They may go through hell for while but they will in the end get their wish and people like you are only making it harder for them. The UN was sitting on their fat ass just like they did with Rawanda. While Rawandans were begging for help, instead of increasing troop strength the UN pulled out the last of the Belgian troops who were there, who cut up their blue berets in protest when they had to leave. THe US should have gone in there but did not thanks to Clinton and Albright who refused at the UN. They are still burying their dead there 10 years later.

Now, definitely you must be happy, whence UN is practically eliminated as global political force.
So, now, when genocide happens in Darfur, Sudan (death toll close to 50,000, IMHO) I wonder, what are USA doing, without this nasty UN to hinder them. Sitting on their fat asses as well???

Originally Posted by DDT

I suppose with your logic, if your nieghbours in your appartment building were under attack by murderers and theives and you could hear their cries comming through your walls, you would just turn the volume up on your television.

I suppose with YOUR logic, if your neighbours in your appartment building were abusing each other too loud in the night, you'll break into their appartment, slaughter everyone inside with 12mm machine gun, and say "Didn't I make really *great* job defending them from themselves???"

Originally Posted by BETEP

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Please explain, how aggression against formerly independent country conforms to "democracy".

There is no democracy in Iraq, and it's wrong!

Really? 1,5 years of american occupation -- and still no democracy?!!
Obviously, you should be spending more time reading WSJ and watching "Fox News".

Originally Posted by BETEP

Originally Posted by Scorpio

And why it does look good (because, as for me, it definitely looks bad).

Are you killing Chechen people and suppressing their will of independence, or you are keeping a peace in the region and fighting with terrorists?

Chechen problem is internal problem of Russia, Iraq is not...

Originally Posted by BETEP

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Yes, yes.
"Democracy is the set of rules we play good -- and, of course, if we're going to lose, we'll just change the rules, so we shall win anyway."
This seems to be closer to reality. Feel the difference.

No, no.
The basement never can not be compromised (Мне легче тебе штраф заплатить, чем руку сбивать ) Anyway, many things could be done according to the rules, and breaking the rules gives you a political disadvantage (unless others might call that even ).

So, the point of your little speech seems to be something like: "We never violate rules -- well, only if we want to violate them very much. And, even in this case, we must face "political disadvantages" and other horrible things. Ooohh, poor we! "

Originally Posted by BETEP

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Putin expressed his own opinion;

Putin may not express his personal opinion; he always express government's opinion whatever situation he talk. That's why ex-president's opinion is always interesting.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

the street mob in Kiev expresses opinion of the people supporting them.

They play by the rules.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Obviously, these opinions are different.

It could be by the rules, but it was not. Putin might talk something about choice of Ukrainian people, US political invasion, protection of Russian people in Ukraine and etc; but he could not convict people who express their opinion. It was one of the huge stupid mistakes in the row.

Hmm, either I missing your point, or you're missing mine.
I'll try to make it clear: Putin did expresses his opinion about ukrainian elections. So did: Bush, Powell, Schroeder, Kwasnevski, Adamkus... whom did I miss? Because all of them are obviously officials, their opinions can be called "official". Don't argue with it.
Street meeting in Kiev expressed some opinion too. So did meetings in Lvov, and in Donetsk, and in many other places. Their opinions are totally inofficial, I guess. So?
What is your point?

Originally Posted by DDT

It doesn't look bad to some of the Iraqis who had to put up with Saddam.

Actually it looks awful to almost all of them ... find the independent media around the world - there are a few people bravely operating outside "embedding" and telling the truth about life in Iraq. Find out, don't listen to the b******t in the American mainstream.

Originally Posted by DDT

I did not see any one else willing to help them.

You have a very sick, and moreover, illegal, definition of "help". Let me help Australia to find "freedom" by sending a "shock-and-awe" campaign on Sydney and blasting the limbs off Australian children.
Those of us who remember, or at least have parents who remember WWII should know exactly why this kind of war has been classed as illegal. WMD? Unbelievable hypocrisy - only one country has used nuclear weapons to deliberately kill civilians and holds a huge arsenal of them.

Originally Posted by DDT

The aggression was not against the country anyway, if it was we would have levelled the whole place with no risk to our own soldiers lives.

This is a typically ridiculous argument I hear from many Americans. It is sloppy thinking. The main reason why this would never happen is that this act of genocide would immediately identify America as a fascist state, even worse than Nazi Germany. This would immediately turn the entire world against them. After that point there would be no turning back, the only way to survive would be to nuke everyone prepared to resist. In such a world war there would be no winners.
There is a subsidiary reason for not flattening Iraq totally - it would interrupt the oil supply.

Originally Posted by DDT

Our soldiers are dying to protect Iraqis. Do you really think they have to?

"Have to"? They are not conscripts, but they chose to join an imperial army of aggression. Most of them are probably not smart enough to see the American war machine for what it is (they are mostly from the poorest stratum of society), and personally I sympathize with them. But not nearly as much as Iraqis because: a) they are getting paid to take risks b)they have a lot more protection than the civilians they regularly spray with bullets when they perceive any threat and c)they are not defenseless children like many of the people their bombs kill.

Originally Posted by DDT

Do you honestly believe that Iraqis were not praying to God for someone to get them out of their miserable mess?

The mess was entirely the creation of Britain and the US. Britain created the state of Iraq, America propped up Saddam the dictator, and America and Britain forced the UN to impose the sanctions which created a life of destitution for the ordinary Iraqis and killed 500,000 of their children. The same two countries are now waging an illegal war of occupation and killing ever more.
If the US' reason to invade was to oust their previous puppet Saddam then, congratulations, you got him - now get the hell out. Not going to happen - guess why.

This mess creation was not a result of ineptitude. It was an inevitable corollary to the US administration's long term strategy of power-grab. Power in the modern world means oil. There is only one big oil bonanza left in the world, and that is in Iraq. Saudi's reserves are greater, but the corrupt relationship between the House of Saud and the White House is exactly in accordance with the plans, plus there are US bases all over the Muslims' holy land (hence 9-11, if we are to believe the evidence that is made freely available), so there is no need for war there. Saddam had signed or tried to sign over a trillion in contracts with non-US partners to extract that oil as soon as the US imposed sanctions were lifted. Whoops, can't have that. Hence, as Paul O'Neill reported, the Adminstration debating invasion of Iraq immediately after coming into office, before 9-11.

Originally Posted by DDT

They may go through hell for while but they will in the end get their wish and people like you are only making it harder for them.

I'm sure they will be grateful that you finally told them what their wish is. It's a little like how the American media and government congratulated the Spanish, British and Italian Governments for telling their populations what their wishes were, despite figures of 70-90% against war. America sure does love democracy!
Not nearly as much as it loves oil, though.

I hope you aren't as naive as you seem.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Really? 1,5 years of american occupation -- and still no democracy?!!

Iraqis have no idea about Western rules and there are no problems to elect "right" government. But the question was about US. Where have you seen a break of democratic rules in US politics? US government was elected by US people (twice!!!). That means the US people support the war. You could point the fact of lie about mass destruction weapon and etc; but anyway they trust in Bush and vote for him.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Obviously, you should be spending more time reading WSJ and watching "Fox News".

Have you ever seen TV8?

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Chechen problem is internal problem of Russia, Iraq is not...

Wrong answer, but it's not the object we're talking about. The same event or process could be explained by many ways. The politicians just protect interests of their state and make the situation "looks well". Compare the explanations I wrote above and feel the difference.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

So, the point of your little speech seems to be something like: "We never violate rules -- well, only if we want to violate them very much. And, even in this case, we must face "political disadvantages" and other horrible things. Ooohh, poor we!

So, it's time for an example.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

What is your point?

The point was written above and underlined "he could not convict people who express their opinion", but he did. Nobody of your list did the same.
Just to compare in Soviet terms. Do you feel the difference between critique of bureaucracy and critique of socialism ideology?

Well Mr Waxwing, oil or not, we are there now (Iraq).
What do you propose we do next? Just leave?
Perhaps it was just plain foolish to think a democracy could be established amongst these people.
Here is a prophecy concerning them written several thousand years ago:

He will be a *wild ass of a man
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone's hand will be against him
And he will live in hostillity against all his brothers.
Gen.16

* Meaning wild and free like the desert asses that roam the region.