Whispered in Russia: Democracy Is Finished

[bunge]

I'm on the border of livid because of this (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20040919/ts_latimes/whisperedinrussiademocracyisfinished):

In a sunny garden outside the Kremlin, not far from the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, workers quietly hammered into place 10 squat black letters to commemorate one of the bloodiest battles of World War II: Stalingrad.

Until Friday, the memorial bore the name the city has had since 1961 — Volgograd — reflecting modern Russia's reluctance to honor a Soviet dictator famed and feared for a legacy of repression. President Vladimir V. Putin had long resisted pleas by war veterans to correct the historical record, saying it "could trigger suspicion that we are returning to the times of Stalinism."

Then, without fanfare, the 10 new letters appeared on the wall, and below them, a bright wreath of autumn flowers. Coming just days after Putin announced one of the most sweeping consolidations of presidential power since the fall of communism, the move evoked far more than the memory of war.

On Sept. 13, he announced a plan to eliminate the general election of regional governors and of independent seats in parliament, essentially removing the last real checks on his personal dominion over the largest nation on Earth.

In an office at the parliament building Friday, one official broke from Russian into English and lowered his voice to barely a whisper, nodding his head toward the wall, as if it might be listening.

"Democracy is finished in this country," he said. "It is over. It ended on the 13th of September."

Asked whether his caution and pessimism were not extreme, he shook his head firmly. "Many have already been given very severe and hard instructions," he said. "Not to comment. Not to criticize. And real threats. All of us are in a state of shock. We are in the middle of 1937."

If this happens under Bush's watch then he will be the biggest failure of a President, possibly ever.

[MarcUK]

Im beginning to wonder if we are in the last 50 years of civilization as we know it.

[Gavriel]

Could you post a link to this article, bunge?

[Scott]

Originally posted by bunge
I'm on the border of livid because of this:

If this happens under Bush's watch then he will be the biggest failure of a President, possibly ever.


God damn you don't waste time. Everything in the world goes though the "Blame Bush" filter for you huh?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Scott
God damn you don't waste time. Everything in the world goes though the "Blame Bush" filter for you huh?

Hey remember : " The buck stops here! ";)

[Aquatic]

Well gee Scott, if Reagan responsible for "winning" the Cold War this makes perfect sense. I took a class on the Cold War. He wasn't.

Go CCCP!

[bunge]

Originally posted by Gavriel
Could you post a link to this article, bunge?


Whoops (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20040919/ts_latimes/whisperedinrussiademocracyisfinished).

I meant to put it in the original as well.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
God damn you don't waste time. Everything in the world goes though the "Blame Bush" filter for you huh?

What are you talking about? If you can't see any connections with Bush and Putin then that's your failing, not mine. If you need people to explain it to you, ask kindly.

[faust9]

According to Cheney, the fall of the Russian "democricy" is a direct result of Russia NOT joing the US in invading Iraq. Weird how that works.

Here's the linky-poo: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5990614/?#040914b

[ghost killa]

Putin is a very popular leader by any measure. This is a signal to the Islamists and their allies in the Duma that he seriously intends to clean haus.

[SDW2001]

I read this thread with the little joke in my mind that someone was going to blame Bush for this.

Then I stared at the screen, my eyes wide. bunge, I think you blaming Bush for this is the most self-discrediting thing you've every said. If this is not utter desperation, I don't know what is.

On the topic: I've never trusted Putin. I always suspected something like this was up his sleeve.

Off the topic: How could Bush POSSIBLY have prevented this? Such a claim is just utter stupidity. I'm sorry, it is.

[bunge]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I read this thread with the little joke in my mind that someone was going to blame Bush for this.

Then I stared at the screen, my eyes wide. bunge, I think you blaming Bush for this is the most self-discrediting thing you've every said. If this is not utter desperation, I don't know what is.

On the topic: I've never trusted Putin. I always suspected something like this was up his sleeve.

Off the topic: How could Bush POSSIBLY have prevented this? Such a claim is just utter stupidity. I'm sorry, it is.

I'm disappointed by you SDW2001. Your statements show that you're as incapable (or unwilling) of critical thought as Scott. Did Bush pass these laws? No. Is that what I claimed? No.

If you can't work it out for yourself then maybe if you ask nicely (instead of just attacking me) someone will explain it to you.

[Neø]

Excuse me, but what does Bush have to do with all this?

-Neø

[bunge]

Originally posted by Neø
Excuse me, but what does Bush have to do with all this?

-Neø

How about Scott, SDW2001 and you Neø, all start to formulate an argument as to why Bush has no responsibility in this situation.

[ghost killa]

Remember democracy is a western construct alien to the local population. It was doomed to fail from the get go.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by bunge
How about Scott, SDW2001 and you Neø, all start to formulate an argument as to why Bush has no responsibility in this situation. No double standard.

You can't claim the fall of Communism in Russia as one of the great Republican accomplishments of the 1980's, without listing the rebirth of Russian Communism under GWB's presidency as a failure of his.

You can't have it both ways!

[Towel]

Actually, the explanation is simple. Bush I helped guide Russia onto the path of Democratization and liberalism (economic and otherwise) after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Bush II, being the anti-Bush I, is required by the Fifth Law of Thermodynamics to do the opposite.

[ghost killa]

Hi, I'm Jimmy Carter.


If you were as smart as me and had a Nobel Peace Prize, you would have the answer: Give Putin billions in food and loans so he can continue his war on capitalists.

If necessary, validate his fraudulent elections.


Now stop your warmongering, it's giving me malaise.

[bunge]

Originally posted by ghost killa
Putin is a very popular leader by any measure.

If he's so popular, why the need for this (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10817155%255E2703,00.html)?

And from the original article:

A poll by the Public Opinion Foundation in August found that the president's support for the first time slipped below the 50% mark, and that he would attract only 49% of the vote if new elections were held now.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
No double standard.

You can't claim the fall of Communism in Russia as one of the great Republican accomplishments of the 1980's, without listing the rebirth of Russian Communism under GWB's presidency as a failure of his.

You can't have it both ways!

Ummm...actually.

1. Reagan helped bring down the Soviet system by building up the military and relying on our superior system to support that spending. He refused to negotiate away our advantages when relations turned warmer with Gorbachev.

2. Bush is not responsible for Putin revoking the people's control in certain areas. He does not make Russian Law. He has no say over it whatsoever.

One more thing: Loss of freedom does not necessarily equal communism.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by bunge
How about Scott, SDW2001 and you Neø, all start to formulate an argument as to why Bush has no responsibility in this situation.

Now, now bunge. You're not asking us to prove a.....negative are you!

LOL!
:lol:

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Now, now bunge. You're not asking us to prove a.....negative are you!

LOL!
:lol:

Edit: This thread is worthy of my signature changing

[ghost killa]

Originally posted by bunge
If he's so popular, why the need for this (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10817155%255E2703,00.html)?


Sa’alam alleikum bunge:

You see bunge, it's kind of irrelevant what percentage Putin is able to pull. When you control the media, your opponent will always get less, because no one will ever have heard anything positive about him/her. Isn’t fun to be a Commie with the Stalinist media to back you up.

[bunge]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Bush...does not make Russian Law. He has no say over it whatsoever.

Are you saying...the president of the United States doesn't have any influence over democracy in foreign countries?

[Towel]

Originally posted by bunge
Are you saying...the president of the United States doesn't have any influence over democracy in foreign countries? He's just saying it's not our duty to spread Democracy around the world.

originally posted by SDW2001
One more thing: Loss of freedom does not necessarily equal communism.If I'm not mistaken, he's also saying that while he abhors Communist authoritarianism, Fascist authoritarianism is A-OK.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
Are you saying...the president of the United States doesn't have any influence over democracy in foreign countries?

Are you saying influence = ability to control a foreign country and foreign leader?

Nick

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
Are you saying influence = ability to control a foreign country and foreign leader?

No, but some really shallow minded people without the ability to think critically seem to think so. I recommend they learn how to reverse the direction of their thought processes. The conclusion should come last, not first.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by ghost killa
When you control the media, your opponent will always get less, because no one will ever have heard anything positive about him/her. Isn’t fun to be a Commie with the Stalinist media to back you up.

Wait. I thought we were talking about Russia, not America.

[tonton]

Originally posted by bunge
If he's so popular, why the need for this (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10817155%255E2703,00.html)?

And from the original article:

Well, Putin is certainly popular compared to Bush.

[ghost killa]

Originally posted by midwinter
Wait. I thought we were talking about Russia, not America.

It's the same everywhere. But at least now you know why GWB believes in God as strongly as he does.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by Towel
He's just saying it's not our duty to spread Democracy around the world.
Funny, 'cause GWB keeps saying exactly the opposite WRT Iraq.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by ghost killa
Hi, I'm Jimmy Carter.


If you were as smart as me and had a Nobel Peace Prize, you would have the answer: Give Putin billions in food and loans so he can continue his war on capitalists.

If necessary, validate his fraudulent elections.


Now stop your warmongering, it's giving me malaise.

haha :lol:

[midwinter]

Originally posted by tonton
Well, Putin is certainly popular compared to Bush.

Well, hell. So am I.

[Kirkland]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
You can't claim the fall of Communism in Russia as one of the great Republican accomplishments of the 1980's, without listing the rebirth of Russian Communism under GWB's presidency as a failure of his.

What's being born in Russia is not Communism, but an autocratic police state, or on the outside chance a cult of personality that will rebuild the government around Putin.

While Bush hasn't done enough in the face of this trend in Russia to condemn it, he's not to blame for what was an almost inevitable collapse of the Russian democratic experiment. Post-Communist Russia suffered from so many negatives that its survival would have been a miracle.

1. The population had no experience with self-rule, and had no concept of the Rule of Law. Even the United States, having broken away from Great Britain, had a functional understanding of both in the 1780s.

There is nothing Bush, Clinton or Bush could have done about this.

2. The country has no middle class. Without a middle class, you cannot have democracy. Note, this is a big red alert warning re: American outsourcing of middle class jobs. T

he first Bush and Clinton did what they could to foster economic investment in Russia, the second Bush less so -- regardless, it wouldn't have been enough.

3. Russia is still an empire: the forced integration of a multitude of various nationalities of people, most of whom resent Russian rule and do not want to be part of greater Russia (Chechnya is the most violent example of this). Empires fall. Always.

Nothing Bush, Clinton or Bush could do about this.

4. Russia is in the beginnings of a demographic crisis. Not only is the birthrate collapsing, the number of healthy births is dropping, too. Due to inadequate environmental protections, Russian air and water is literally poisoning its unborn fetuses, producing a staggering amount of birth defects.

Nothing Bush, Clinton or Bush could do about this.

5. Russia has not had a stable government. First Yeltsin, and now Putin, have routinely rewritten the Constitution to thwart the efforts of political opponents and consolidate executive control over the nation. The legislature has become a rump, a weak arm of the executive branch. Now the same fate is befalling the interior departments and republics. Many of these actions were illegal. But once again, Russia has no experience with The Rule of Law, and thus did not hold their president accountable.

Nothing Bush, Clinton or Bush could do about this.

6. Yeltsin cheated in the 1996 election. Putin didn't need to cheat in 2000 or 2004 because of state control of the media.

Clinton could have done something, I suppose, but the extent of Yeltsin's subterfuge was not immediately clear.

7. Most of Russia's internal power is held either by the president and his cronies, or the mob. Given the choice between the two, Russians cede to the president, as would anyone, I'd imagine. Corruption is rampant, but the president is not corrupt. He's just an evil autocrat.

Nothing Bush, Clinton or Bush could do about this.


8. Russia forces all able-bodied men (despite the steady drop in the percentage that is able-bodied) into the army for a tour of service. They also do not always pay their soldiers, or properly feed or care for them. This ingrains poverty, illness, apathy and despair into what should be the bright, young, adventuresome youth of Russia.

Nothing Bush, Clinton or Bush could do about this.


Over the next 20-30 years, Russia will collapse. Provinces will break away, usually violently. China will likely move north and seize the Siberian oil fields. In two decades, birth rates and birth defects will have depleted Russia of the means to protect its borders, and its nuclear arsenal will not be properly functional, if it still even exists.

Russia as a world power is gone. Russia as a regional power is fading. Russia as a nation is dying. Let it die.

[ghost killa]

Originally posted by Kirkland
Russia as a world power is gone. Russia as a regional power is fading. Russia as a nation is dying. Let it die.

You had me sold untill here.

There's a reason Russia is helping Iran in its nuclear adventure. You see, Russia has huge reserves of oil and and natural gas. And when Iranian supplies become "constrained" because of the Mullahs' miscalculations, guess who Europe is going to be running to? You guessed it.

[crazychester]

Thank you Kirkland for demonstrating that someone here has some genuine knowledge of Russian history and politics. I would add that Reagan was not the driving force behind the collapse of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev was. What a waste of a brilliant mind that was. Gorbachev knew the Soviet system would collapse but also realised Russia could not make a successful leap to democracy overnight.

Unfortunately, as much as I admire them, the Russian people have often been their own worst enemy. Hence we got the very mediocre Yeltsin and the rest is history as they say. Russia will revert to a totalitarian regime just as it did after Lenin's death and Stalin had Trotsky "removed".

And just by the by, if you think Russia under Stalin was Communist all you are doing is demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of what Communism is - as either Marx or Lenin defined it. That the Soviet Union was "Communist" or that China is "Communist" is just a myth that has been propogated by those countries and the US for more than half a century.

By it's very definition, Communism can only emerge in a highly industrialised country with a mature and dominant middle class. And it must be followed by world wide revolution. Marx would have been rolling in his grave when Stalin announced the doctrine of Socialism in one country. Just because people call it Communism doesn't make it so. Marx was very specific about the necessary conditions under which Communism would develop. It is yet to happen.

If Bush makes any contribution to what unfolds in Russia, it will be through legitimising unilateral action and the pre-emptive strike.

[pfflam]

reminder: policy of Containment, which is also known as 'the Cold War' and is responsible for the downfall of Communism, was established by a Democratic President.

Russia was lost when the transition to a Capitalist system went from Communism one day to privatized Shock Therapy the next: they did not have any transition no civil structure . . . they were decimated before Stalin offed all the Kulacs . . . the closest thing to a middle class Russia ever had.

--note: the first thing that Bremer did in Iraq was to implemnent the same 'Shock Treatment' form of radical privatization

So with 'Shock Treatment': forget the Chinese style transition which we have seen works just take the state industry and throw it to the fastest and biggest sharks swimming in the pool . . . . hell, we've seen that it 'worked' so well in Russia hunh? the Prostitutes are said to be very beautiful . . . :(

.

I will admit that I too found it funny that Bush was blamed in post #1 . . . .

I could imagine a suave, kennedy-esq
gentlemanly Prez talking smoothly over these 'rough patches' . . . . naw . . . its deep and structural

I will say that when you look back in history you can see that there have been waves of right-wing authoritarianism that swept over the globe and no single thing seemed to be the reason, and nothing seemed to be able to stop them from arising . . . and the consequences have been, in the past, absolutely devestating for the world . . .
Blame the Islamic Fanatics for being the spur (as I thnk they have been in a functionalist explanatory way) but I also see that they too are part of the equation . . . they are also one of the dominoes, their coming into being is part of the rise . . .

Marshal McLuhan had this theorem that stated that any truly new technology would have an enormous impact on the human sensorium, changing our sense ratios (the relationship of how we stress vision to audio for instance) and thus changing our world . . . he said that this change was profoundly sociological as well and had a kind of traumatic effect on our individual psyche and our collective bodies' psyche (he was a Catholic and thoght in terms of a collective body . . if that makes sense to any of you)

Anyway, one of the corrollaries of the idea that every new technological change in human life changed our sensorium, was that it changed our world views (both literally and abstractly) abruptly and traumatically. And that this trauma caused siasmic shifts in identity and perceptions . . . ultimately it causes psychic scars and shifts on a collective and structural level that necessitate 'cauterization' but also warfare.
He said that 'every new technology necessitates war' . . .

Pretty bleak, but perhaps, looking structurally at the global rise of right-authoritarian and fascistic thought is related in some way . ..
and I do think that it is on the rise globally not just in Islam and Russia . . .

don't get me wrong, ultimately I do blame Islamic Fanaticism for the current crop of misseries . . . but I also think that there are deeper things at play than we can ever understand

anway, 2 cents

[bunge]

Originally posted by crazychester
If Bush makes any contribution to what unfolds in Russia, it will be through legitimising unilateral action and the pre-emptive strike.

And unfortunately this is part of what unfolded on September 13th.

[SpcMs]

Is Bush to blame for the Russian situation? Of course not. But Putin's moves of recent weeks in response to the terrorist attacs would probably not have been as bold and anti-democratic if Bush didn't react as he did to terrorist attacks in the US. Sure the context may be totally different, but the overall tone (unilateral, preemptive, stronger and more centralised leadership, direspect for (international) law and (personal) freedom, ...) was heavily influenced by US actions IMO. And it was rather funny to see Powell's reaction when another nation copies US rethoric.

[Aquatic]

Kirkland that was a pretty good analysis except for one thing that REALLY FUCKING PISSES ME OFF. :mad:

4. Russia is in the beginnings of a demographic crisis. Not only is the birthrate collapsing, the number of healthy births is dropping, too. Due to inadequate environmental protections, Russian air and water is literally poisoning its unborn fetuses, producing a staggering amount of birth defects.

Nothing Bush, Clinton or Bush could do about this.


WRONG. WRONG . How come no one gets this? Just because countries and states are different colors on a geopolitical map they think the environments aren't connected? An example of how this thinking can be destructive is the poor regulation of watersheds in the US, which is beginning to change.
We have a tremendous impact on Russia's environment. And their approval of the Kyoto Protocol (or not) will have tremendous global impact. We get oil from them, we make CO2 with that oil, and it heats up Russia. Just for a simple example. There are thousands of others.


I'm not ranting at you just people in general. The environment is one of the most important concepts I think for everyone to be educated about, and pretty much everyone has no fundamental knowledge of it. And people like Fellowship iBook make it worse even though they are well meaning when they refuse to acknowledge important scientific aspects of the environment like evolution.

Ummm...actually.

1. Reagan helped bring down the Soviet system by building up the military and relying on our superior system to support that spending. He refused to negotiate away our advantages when relations turned warmer with Gorbachev.

2. Bush is not responsible for Putin revoking the people's control in certain areas. He does not make Russian Law. He has no say over it whatsoever.

One more thing: Loss of freedom does not necessarily equal communism


SDW you need to take a class in the Cold War. The Soviet Union was more responsible fro the fall of the Soviet Union than Reagan was, by a long, long shot.

[bunge]

Originally posted by SpcMs
Is Bush to blame for the Russian situation? Of course not. But Putin's moves of recent weeks in response to the terrorist attacs would probably not have been as bold and anti-democratic if Bush didn't react as he did to terrorist attacks in the US. Sure the context may be totally different, but the overall tone (unilateral, preemptive, stronger and more centralised leadership, direspect for (international) law and (personal) freedom, ...) was heavily influenced by US actions IMO. And it was rather funny to see Powell's reaction when another nation copies US rethoric.

Thanks for putting that more eloquently and accurately than I could myself.

[Kirkland]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Kirkland that was a pretty good analysis except for one thing that REALLY FUCKING PISSES ME OFF. :mad:



WRONG. WRONG . How come no one gets this? Just because countries and states are different colors on a geopolitical map they think the environments aren't connected? An example of how this thinking can be destructive is the poor regulation of watersheds in the US, which is beginning to change.

Neither of the three presidents mentioned could do anything to fix the problem because the issue stems from the 1960s and 1970s. Russia's birthrate and healthy baby issues are decades old. It's only now, as people who've been drinking contaminated water all their lives begin to have children, that it's getting the attention it deserves. But there's nothing we can do in this country to restore the probably unsalvagable Russian water table.

Going forward, of course the US has a role. But Russia's environment was raped by the Soviets long before the Bushes or Clinton came along.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Kirkland that was a pretty good analysis except for one thing that REALLY FUCKING PISSES ME OFF. :mad:



WRONG. WRONG . How come no one gets this? Just because countries and states are different colors on a geopolitical map they think the environments aren't connected? An example of how this thinking can be destructive is the poor regulation of watersheds in the US, which is beginning to change.
We have a tremendous impact on Russia's environment. And their approval of the Kyoto Protocol (or not) will have tremendous global impact. We get oil from them, we make CO2 with that oil, and it heats up Russia. Just for a simple example. There are thousands of others.


I'm not ranting at you just people in general. The environment is one of the most important concepts I think for everyone to be educated about, and pretty much everyone has no fundamental knowledge of it. And people like Fellowship iBook make it worse even though they are well meaning when they refuse to acknowledge important scientific aspects of the environment like evolution.




SDW you need to take a class in the Cold War. The Soviet Union was more responsible fro the fall of the Soviet Union than Reagan was, by a long, long shot.


Here we go again. Reagan did nothing. Jesus.

What Reagan did was realize that yes, the Soviet System was doomed. He helped expedite the process by negotiating froma position of strenght...in other words he mae people like Gorbachev realize it too.

The point is though, that what's happening in Russia isn't Bush's fault. How the fuck did we get onto the environment? If we're on that topic now, let's talk about the fact that Kyoto is nearly unanimously opposed in the Senate. It will NEVER pass, because it excludes certain developing economies that are polluting in the extreme.

[pfflam]

Reagan did plenty . . . . he ramped up military expenditure and that maybe did help expedite the speed of the Soviet collapse. . . . however, the collapse was inevitable when such a closed and controlled economic system faced a policy of containment.


BUT, and get this through your head, every president since Truman "did something" . . . it was the policy of containment set in place that dictated the terms of the cold war . . . to look at that history and then simply pull Reagan out of the much and lay the laurels on his head is willful distortion.

Communism inherently depends upon expansion in order to maintain economic strength, (through wresting the means of production from the hands of managers and owners and competing states) . . . . in a different manner than Capitalism
Capitalism also expands through prying open markets . . . with or without direct force

But both systems demand 'growth' - Capitalism had plenty of space to take within the boundaries of the other side of the 'Iron Curtain' . . . the Soviets did not . . .
There are also many other inherent reasons for its failure . . . none of them Reagan's responsibility . .

But make this clear: it failed because it is a system inherently bent on failure . . . . we are Capitalists, in part, because we understand that . . . to say Reagan was responsible is to belie the fact that the Soviet System sucked fom within and was bound to collapse.

Also, I was going to say what Kirkland allready pointed out: the Soviets completely ravaged the country-side: nuclear polution scattered all over who knows where?, industrial waste dumped directly into the water . . .
There was a good National Geographic article about it where it showed people skimming fuel off of the top of their well-water to use at home, then, getting to the water beneath it for drinking
:wow:

[Neø]

Originally posted by ghost killa
It's the same everywhere. But at least now you know why GWB believes in God as strongly as he does.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I believe in god too, just as strongly as Dubuya:)

while so, i'm just a troll here, and all those dumbasses think that all the flame-bait things i say are true:lol: i, mean it just cracks me up!

I'm not lying about my age.
I'm a Conservative Republican.
I'm a Christian, and i don't advocate violence against innocent civilians (homosexuals included), but i don't think that it would be possible to put murderous dictators like Saddam Hussein out of power without the adequate use of force. I support our President in the battle against Evil (terrorism)...and yes, with a capital "E"

-Neø

[quagmire]

Originally posted by Neø
I believe in god too, just as strongly as Dubuya:)

while so, i'm just a troll here, and all those dumbasses think that all the flame-bait things i say are true:lol: i, mean it just cracks me up!

I'm not lying about my age.
I'm a Conservative Republican.
I'm a Christian, and i don't advocate violence against innocent civilians (homosexuals included), but i don't think that it would be possible to put murderous dictators like Saddam Hussein out of power without the adequate use of force. I support our President in the battle against Evil (terrorism)...and yes, with a capital "E"

-Neø

You know Neø he/she can't post since he got banned.

1. You are really 18.;)

2. Do you consider yourself a Radical Republican?

3. Agreed there. There was no way to take out Saddam without force. But, Bush didn't have a plan after removing Saddam from power.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Neø
I believe in god too, just as strongly as Dubuya:)

while so, i'm just a troll here, and all those dumbasses think that all the flame-bait things i say are true:lol: i, mean it just cracks me up!

I'm not lying about my age.
I'm a Conservative Republican.
I'm a Christian, and i don't advocate violence against innocent civilians (homosexuals included), but i don't think that it would be possible to put murderous dictators like Saddam Hussein out of power without the adequate use of force. I support our President in the battle against Evil (terrorism)...and yes, with a capital "E"

-Neø Tajikistan, Uzbeckistan (http://hrw.org/editorials/2003/uzbek-032703.htm), Azerbaijan, Kirghistan, Ukrain . . . . why are we not only tolerating these tyranies but dealing with them, supporting them and aiding them?

You moral outrage at Iraq is misguided..or these too should be included in your outrage . .

BTW three of those who we now support, we became fast friends with, IMEDIATELY after 911!!

[Rick1138]

You forgot to mention Lukashenko.

[bunge]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
I just read in the Talk of the Town section of the New Yorker that 80,000 Chechen civilians died in the Russian-Chechen War. :( That's like a September 11th every day for a month.

Unfortunately that means some people believe that there are 80,000 fewer terrorists in the world.

EDIT: We should figure out what that means per capita, because it's probably dozens of times larger than a 9/11 every day for a month.

[bunge]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Somebody do the math!

I think my math is correct, but it looks like the deaths in Chechnya would be the equivalent of 21,239,923 U.S. Civilians being killed. Nearly 10% of the population.