Putin the Magnificent

Putin the Magnificent

It seems to be the case for many leading politicians that after a period of about 7 years in power, they begin to get grandiose ideas about their own importance and fallibility. In the UK we have had fairly recently Thatcher and then Blair; The US is enjoying Bush II. The French have had a few. Russia has Putin.

Putin is being a bit aggressive. As examples, he has presided over threatening postures to the Ukraine over Oil, and there are echos of that with the European Union. He has shown indifference to the murder of a British Subject by, quite clearly, Russian persons unknown. And now he has apparently decided to reignite the Cold War by suspending the Arms Control Pact

One clumsy and brutish move after another. But is he a simple-minded as he appears?

Putin is not allowed under the Russian Constitution to serve a further period as President. He claims to be against the idea of serving a third term. But it's a hot topic in Russia.

But now, if there was an international crisis then would it not make Russian sense for that rule to be waived in the interests of Russian Security.

The whole thing stinks.

Where would you suggest, Krake?

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Where would you suggest, Krake?

Putin had suggestion to deploy elements of anti-missile system in Azerbaijan (former republic of USSR): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabala_Radar_Station#33rd_G8_summit

As I remember, there was also suggestion to use newer radars on territory of Russia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armavir_Radar_Station

Both mentioned radar systems are already built, observe all territory of Iran, and much closer to Iran than anything in Europe. For unknown reason both suggestions were declined.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

But Mr. Pfaltzgraff said the fact that Moscow is thinking in these terms proves Russia is not a U.S. ally

This sounds like correct note. But there are also no signs that US is an ally for Russia.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Where would you suggest, Krake?

It's a dangerous game NATO is playing.

A missile defense shield planted in the Czech Republic and Poland are NATO's new futures plans whereas NATO’s pledge not to expand the Alliance is history...

the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.
NATO General Secretary Mr. Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990

Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?

Good article, Krake! (Of course, Der Spiegel often has good articles...) But please note the question mark in its title. And this:

Positive Light

The political leaders of the day are now elderly gentlemen who don't necessarily always find it easy to remember exactly what happened back then. Besides, they are all eager to be portrayed in a positive light in the history books. Gorbachev doesn't want to be the one who failed to tightly close the door to the eastward expansion of NATO. Genscher and Baker don't want to be accused of having made deals with Moscow over the heads of the Poles, the Hungarians or the Czechs. And Shevardnadze came to the conclusion long ago that there is "nothing horrible" about NATO expansion -- not surprisingly, given that his native Georgia now wants to join NATO.

Their interests were different back in 1990. Bonn and Washington wanted to expedite German reunification. A few days after the talks at the Kremlin, Genscher, Baker and Shevardnadze met again, this time all together and with all of the foreign ministers of the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries present, at a disarmament conference in a converted former train station in the Canadian capital Ottawa.

At the conference, the two German foreign ministers (the East German foreign minister at the time was Oskar Fischer, who had been close to the former East German leader Erich Honecker) came together in the corridors and conference rooms, met with the foreign ministers of the four victorious powers in World War II and, in various configurations, discussed the future course of Germany. By the end of the conference, it had been decided that the external aspects of German unity, such as the alliance issue and the size of the German military, were to be resolved in the so-called "two-plus-four" talks.

[...]

Absurd Notion

In late May 1990, Gorbachev finally agreed to a unified Germany joining NATO. But why didn't Gorbachev and Shevardnadze get the West's commitments in writing at a time when they still held all the cards? "The Warsaw Pact still existed at the beginning of 1990," Gorbachev says today. "Merely the notion that NATO might expand to include the countries in this alliance sounded completely absurd at the time."

Some leading Western politicians were under the impression that the Kremlin leader and his foreign minister were ignoring reality and, as Baker said, were "in denial" about the demise of the Soviet Union as a major power.

On the other hand, the Baltic countries were still part of the Soviet Union, and NATO membership seemed light years away. And in some parts of Eastern Europe, peace-oriented dissidents were now in power, men like then-Czech President Vaclav Havel who, if he had had his way, would not only have dissolved the Warsaw Pact, but NATO along with it.

No Eastern European government was striving to join NATO in that early phase, and the Western alliance had absolutely no interest in taking on new members. It was too expensive, an unnecessary provocation of Moscow and, if worse came to worst, did the Western governments truly expect French, Italian or German soldiers to risk their lives for Poland and Hungary?

Then, in 1991, came the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the war in Bosnia, with its hundred thousand dead, raised fears of a Balkanization of Eastern Europe. And in the United States President Bill Clinton, following his inauguration in 1993, was searching for a new mission for the Western alliance.

Suddenly everyone wanted to join NATO, and soon NATO wanted to accept everyone.

The dispute over history was about to begin.

I don't find the resolution of that question in the article... I guess we disagree?

I think Gorbachev was in a sense in denial. He was obviously surprised at the collapse of the USSR.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

I think Gorbachev was in a sense in denial. He was obviously surprised at the collapse of the USSR.

I think everyone was in shock that the motherland that was both great, and formidable, lost an inner struggle to stay together. While Gorbachev was shocked, i think it was more of a slap to the face by reality, then anything else. The US did sigh a giant wave of relief, but again at the same time had this look of"OMG it happened, WTF!". No one expected it.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

On the other hand, the Baltic countries were still part of the Soviet Union, and NATO membership seemed light years away. And in some parts of Eastern Europe, peace-oriented dissidents were now in power, men like then-Czech President Vaclav Havel who, if he had had his way, would not only have dissolved the Warsaw Pact, but NATO along with it.

If this had happen, about how many issue would have been avoided.

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

I heard nothing from you.

Hear this from me then; your women are great in bed.
No wonder you Ruskies never get cold in your harsh winters.

(I am an American, fwiw)

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Where would you suggest, Krake?
I don't find the resolution of that question in the article... I guess we disagree?

Neither it's up to me to come up with a solution nor to change your views
Nevertheless it is in behalf of Europe that the main protagonists, the USA and Russia, find a viable compromise solution to the issue. For the time being I miss any willingness for a viable compromise solution on US side. This might be the main point we probably disagree. OK, it is election time in the USA, not the best moment for compromises with "the number one geopolitical foe". However pointing the finger at Putin and trying to depict him as paranoid is shady.
(anti-) Missils of a foreign military alliance on your doorstep is hardly an acceptable scenario for any government be it Russian or US.

Missile Defense in Central Europe: The View from Moscow

It looks like a game to test how far NATO can go before the Russians will draw the red line, or if they dare to draw it at all. As I told before it is a dangerous game, probably less disturbing if watched from the American continent.

As a side note.
Many Poles and Czechs have been rejecting the anti-missile shield plans from the very beginning.
Opposition to U.S. Missile Shield Grows in Poland.
Czechs to host US missile shield amid public opposition.

Originally posted by Krake:

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Where would you suggest, Krake?
I don't find the resolution of that question in the article... I guess we disagree?

Neither it's up to me to come up with a solution nor to change your views
Nevertheless it is in behalf of Europe that the main protagonists, the USA and Russia, find a viable compromise solution to the issue. For the time being I miss any willingness for a viable compromise solution on US side. This might be the main point we probably disagree. OK, it is election time in the USA, not the best moment for compromises with "the number one geopolitical foe". However pointing the finger at Putin and trying to depict him as paranoid is shady.
(anti-) Missils of a foreign military alliance on your doorstep is hardly an acceptable scenario for any government be it Russian or US.

I suggest sending some russian (anti-)missiles to Cuba - of course that's purely for defense against North Korea

Originally posted by Krake:

As a side note.
Many Poles and Czechs have been rejecting the anti-missile shield plans from the very beginning.
Opposition to U.S. Missile Shield Grows in Poland.
Czechs to host US missile shield amid public opposition.

I can well imagine why. Czechoslovakia and Poland don't rate high on the target list in war between Russia and the US by nature. Put an anti-missile shield there, though, and those countries become the target the Russians take out first. Nobody likes wearing a target on their backs, and especially if that target is to benefit someone who is seven thousand miles away from the action.

Myself, I've always had a slight problem with the "If you won't let me kill you, you're being aggressive" line... (Not to mention the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction. Mutual Assured Survival still seems a more sane policy, no?)

Gorbie thought he could adapt the dictatorship but the influences in the world elsewhwere as people became more challengable proved the winner. Russia does have the chance to gradually get on and not just rest on oil but continue to widen and diversify reather than wanting to be like the USSR or the USA. There were those in America that clapped hands and mused they had banrupted the USSR re the mintary competition and look at that same US now. In a worse situation and yet still wanting to run a corporate and military empire over the world. Russia has had the general sens not to go down the same route militairliy and thus overspending itself like the warped democracy across the pond. Good luck to them (the Russians).

Whose could possibly have foreseen this ?
Vladimir Putin inaugurated as Russian president --- for six years.

The answer, of course, is Putin.

All Hail the Emperor!

Let's hope that we get more than stodgy self-obsession.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Gorbie thought he could adapt the dictatorship but the influences in the world elsewhwere as people became more challengable proved the winner. Russia does have the chance to gradually get on and not just rest on oil but continue to widen and diversify reather than wanting to be like the USSR or the USA. There were those in America that clapped hands and mused they had banrupted the USSR re the mintary competition and look at that same US now. In a worse situation and yet still wanting to run a corporate and military empire over the world. Russia has had the general sens not to go down the same route militairliy and thus overspending itself like the warped democracy across the pond. Good luck to them (the Russians).

only because the USSR had a sense of Mortality near the last ten years and was prepping for an event to lead to today. The US however, fate won't be so kind to.

It wasn't leading to today at all. It had failed and was gradually falling aprt. The decline in the Eastern European satellites started the fall. Where have you been? The USA has never been kind to it! Even during the Russian Civil War the US was making behind-the-scenes- financial deals with the Bosheviks Reds. And that at a time Bt Britain, US, France (Japan in the East) had troops there supposed to be helping the White Russians (although we didn't do fighting). Talk about being two-faced stabbing the rest of us in the back for any chance to make a corporate dollar.

Unlike the USA wanting to maintain an overseas military and money empire with a quarter of a million soldiers and 200 nases the Russians are moving to have a stable economy and not just on oil. Ask yourself why the US needs all this mind-blowing hardare and soldiery dragging down their economy. One of the biggest countries in the world Russia had no intention in these modern days of following the example of the land of the free and home of the brave. Look to at Communist China (that the USA is in financial hock to) it is making tremendous commercial growth in Africa, etc rather than trying to prove how great a military emoire they have. Seems to me to be a bit more visionary than the mindset that rules America. Your comment on America not liking Russia is part of the braining here in the West that we are as guilty as the Americans of assuming we know better than the rest of the world. When Russia is a fully fledged member of the G5 and some strong credence the US lot will be even more pet-lipped as they go down the plug-hole of history.

Putin has made some negatives to his CV but he is moving Russia and in his first, early steps had massive backing. Of course he has opponents why that should be found odd shows ignorance abroad. However I suspect in this new stage he will learn more to widen things even further because the population is more savvied and expressing themselves including electroncially and he has seen this.

Putin is nothing now

Originally posted by JoshL:

Putin is nothing now

Hardly "NOTHING". He is top man in Russia and won the election.

He may not be popular with everyone in Russia but that's not the same as "NOTHING".

Originally posted by rjhowie:

It wasn't leading to today at all. It had failed and was gradually falling aprt. The decline in the Eastern European satellites started the fall. Where have you been? The USA has never been kind to it!

rj, i meant Russia knew it implosion was coming, and the way america is going it'll happen to us soon as well. only on a more cataclysmic level.

Originally posted by JoshL:

Putin is nothing now

umm Putin is the leader Russia deserves. he has done things that have helped Russia move forward, like string said, he's not popular. He is however, giving Russia is reputation it deserves.

#canhearTheInternationalebeingsunginRussiaevennow

At first I assumed you were being humourous rather than falling for the usual braining Americans get regarding Russia. If anything, it is looking in part to the past before the time of the Internationale. You can see it in the insignia, coat of arms, flag, dress uniforms, etc. Your joke doesn't equate to that. It's going somewhere whereas you aren't, except down the way. You could actually learn instead of trying to rule the world and get bankrupt doing it. They are an awful lot less dangerous than your country too!

Originally posted by rjhowie:

You could actually learn instead of trying to rule the world and get bankrupt doing it.

I my friend, would rather seal away our country than mingle in the moron's of the world.

I wish you would do that Virusboy and we would all be a lot more safer considering your country has helped increase terrorism. Howevere a wee touch of that native arogance shows. Morons are not confined to those outwith the borders as you are not immune by some racial exceptional pedigree that isn't there!

Originally posted by rjhowie:

You could actually learn instead of trying to rule the world and get bankrupt doing it. They are an awful lot less dangerous than your country too!

it's a phase, Rj. We'll grow out of it. Some much more arrogant than we got Jesus and repented. We started down the road to perdition by meddling in Europe's problems, c. 1940ish.

British Empire - a former empire consisting of Great Britain and all the territories under its control; reached its greatest extent at the end of World War I; it included the British Isles, British West Indies, Canada, British Guiana; British West Africa, British East Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand; "the sun never sets on the British Empire"

British West Indies - the islands in the West Indies that were formerly under British control, including the Bahamas, Saint Lucia, Antigua, Grenada, Jamaica, Barbados, and Trinidad

Canada - a nation in northern North America; the French were the first Europeans to settle in mainland Canada; "the border between the United States and Canada is the longest unguarded border in the world"

Australia, Commonwealth of Australia - a nation occupying the whole of the Australian continent; Aboriginal tribes are thought to have migrated from southeastern Asia 20,000 years ago; first Europeans were British convicts sent there as a penal colony

British Isles - Great Britain and Ireland and adjacent islands in the north Atlantic

British East Africa - the former British territories of eastern Africa, including Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda, and Zanzibar

British West Africa - the former British territories of western Africa, including Nigeria, Cameroon, Gambia, Togo, Sierra Leone, and the Gold Coast Bharat, India, Republic of India - a republic in the Asian subcontinent in southern Asia; second most populous country in the world; achieved independence from the United Kingdom in 1947

British Guiana, Co-operative Republic of Guyana, Guyana - a republic in northeastern South America; formerly part of the British Empire, but it achieved independence from the United Kingdom in 1966

New Zealand - an independent country within the British Commonwealth; achieved independence from the United Kingdom in 1907; known for sheep and spectacular scenery

Now, that's a real empire! What happened?

I'd not post this reminder to any D&Der but Your Silliness, the Regnant Scot.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Myself, I've always had a slight problem with the "If you won't let me kill you, you're being aggressive" line...

Who wants to kill whom? You mean bad Putin intends to kill you and your fellow countrymen? The (anti-) missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic have the purpose of protecting you from those Russian monsters?

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

(Not to mention the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction. Mutual Assured Survival still seems a more sane policy, no?)

Neither your leadership nor NATO seem to share your Mutual Assured Survival policy. Maybe you could do something about changing their mind.
Escalation by Default: The Future of NATO Nuclear Weapons in Europe

Russia asked NATO for legally-binding guarantees that its AMD system would not target Russia. The USA and NATO are refusing such guarantees.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

I wish you would do that Virusboy and we would all be a lot more safer considering your country has helped increase terrorism. Howevere a wee touch of that native arogance shows. Morons are not confined to those outwith the borders as you are not immune by some racial exceptional pedigree that isn't there!

terrorism has always existed(cults of extremists more like it). as for those morons, i'd rather work on educating our morons before dealing with those that want something from me...

Originally posted by string:

Hardly "NOTHING". He is top man in Russia and won the election.

There've never been elections this year. By law.

Originally posted by string:

He may not be popular with everyone in Russia but that's not the same as "NOTHING".

Nothing! Just scum on the sewage of roguish degradation amongst the majority of Russia's population. The more foetid a piece of shit is - the upper it floats in the drainage.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

umm Putin is the leader Russia deserves. he has done things that have helped Russia move forward, like string said, he's not popular. He is however, giving Russia is reputation it deserves.

It has sunk Russia. You know nothing.

Originally posted by JoshL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nqfJMcJmj8&feature=colike

yet russia right now, is not only stronger, but more stable than America. you sir, know nothing. you post a video of his motor coach, for what to prove nothing? If you have proof, please present it.

A pointless video that means nothing. Has JoshL never watched the US equivilant? Russia will continue to do better than the US because it won't spend billions running damn military bases everywhere. As for the protests so what, it's part of wider franchise situation isn't it? The same kind of police action happens in the US too! Would we have seen this happening in USSR dictatorship days? We know what would have happened even if people had tried to attempt it! Putin may be less popular than his earlier time but he is still the most popular politician in the Federation but that gets up JoshL's nose being an opposition man. Understandable but not very credible in practice. I think that Russia will continue to modernise, increase the standard of living and much more. Something that could happen across the pond but don't expect such any time soon.

Originally posted by Krake:

Russia asked NATO for legally-binding guarantees that its AMD system would not target Russia. The USA and NATO are refusing such guarantees.

In other words, "We might agree that other's nuclear missiles might be a problem… But unless you can assure us that we can nuke you and your allies anytime we want, we think you're anti-Soviet anti-Russian! How can you think otherwise?"
Please explain what I'm missing…

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Please explain what I'm missing…

I wonder if you bothered to read the report. My first impression, you didn't.
Your question denotes that you perceive the issue from the one sided perspective of an US resident.
Someway understandable and I don't blame you for it.
Most people here want a nuclear free Europe and not an escalation of nuclear arms race.
You might (re)read the report for better understanding (V, VI).

Last but not least
An Europe protected by the USA seeems to be a terrific unselfish act. It also is, at least as long as we are at peacetime. Russia isn't perceived as a military threat from here. Furthermore it can't be of any Russian interest to transform Europe in a moon landscape.
On the other hand, imagine the worst case scenario, an US/Russian nuclear showdown.
A nuclear ally Europe would be used and sacrificed first...

Originally posted by Krake:

I wonder if you bothered to read the report. My first impression, you didn't.

this report is a bit on the biased side in the end. The report stated that an arms war is possible, when we've move on from such(by means of biological means of warfare). While there are parts i agree that Russia might re launch a cold war, I don't see it happening with what the report saying that Russia is not helpful in cooperating with NATO, by means of they are building arms of mass wipe out. Yes some of it does hit the nail on the head, the report is a bit of a propaganda tactic if anything.

Russia is more inclined to build on it's internal matters. The standard of living which has increased, modernisation which I mentioned and playing a more diplomatic role than having troops all over the globe like the US which cannot afford it but determined to hang on to it's empire. It wasn't Russia that created the mess in Libya or Iraq. Why we still have NATO is a real no-no. It was essentially to counter the Warsaw Pact but now it wants to find excuses to go to places for some kind of desperate validity. If it is so needed why not have Russia in it?! The recent nonsense ofver strategic missile defence near the Borders of Russia was hardly likely to please it. It is too handy to blame Russia for any possible Cold War return.

So the economy and improving it's people is the main aim and as a member of BRICK shows a positive direction which is more than can be said of the USA up to it's neck in a disastrous economy and plight of it's people. For all it's faults, Russia will continue to improve and make a positive place in the world for it's people and reputation.

Oh, and a postscript to Jaybro in passing.

Yet again returning to history and make a weak excuse for the present day. You won't ever reach the thousand years. Trouble is that your country is reluctant not to be an empire. It will be dragged and screaming from the position. As for it being a passing phenomena - bunkem. The attitude has been there for decades and the ignorance of the outside world helps to foster the mythology. You need to grow up as a race of people. Unfortunate that you are in danger of joining them. Miscall all you like it takes the heat of the practical.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Yet again returning to history and make a weak excuse for the present day. You won't ever reach the thousand years. Trouble is that your country is reluctant not to be an empire. It will be dragged and screaming from the position. As for it being a passing phenomena - bunkem. The attitude has been there for decades and the ignorance of the outside world helps to foster the mythology. You need to grow up as a race of people. Unfortunate that you are in danger of joining them. Miscall all you like it takes the heat of the practical.

1. At 75 (later in the month), I figure a thousand is out of reach.

2. My country is reluctant? Who, specifically? I'm not an empire kind of person. My family isn't. None of my friends are. I'm at a family reunion the week, and nobody has mentioned our empire even once.

3. You know precious little about this country...far less than you think you do. One or two visits, and you're an expert on all things American? I don't think so.

4. All of that said, our military is vastly over-deployed, and I want it pulled back. It's silly beyond belief. I'm not holding my breath, however, because our Republican contingent is brimming with nut cases. Not all, mind you, but too many.

4. Race of people?! What are you smoking?

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

I'm at a family reunion the week, and nobody has mentioned our empire even once.

Course not, at 75 you are The Elder. It's up to you to teach them the tales and legends of Family's grandeur...

Still, you might give the below a perusal:

In reality, it’s not so hard to imagine what we increasingly look like to those others: a Predator nation. And not just to the parents and relatives of the more than 160 children the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has documented as having died in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan. After all, war is now the only game in town. Peace? For the managers of our national security state, it’s neither a word worth mentioning, nor an imaginable condition.

Taken from http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175541/tomgram%3A_engelhardt%2C_predator_nation/#more
...
This nonsense grates on me.

Would-be intellectual hogwash there Jaybro.

I don't have a problem with you wanting to defend your country that isn't an issue but all that superficial stuff about not discussing having an empire. When I was wee we had an Empire but "we" didn't sit talking about it as it was there just likes yours is now so you can wallow out retirement and noit give a fig about the world should you wish. You know fine damn well that your empire is a combined military and corporate one. It's a different type of empire from having to pay the cost of colonial admin. Instead push the commercial money-making corporate interests. If a nation doesn't like it or is unfriendly, weaken them and try to make unstable or find an excuse to invade. A far cheaper way of doing imperialist. Naturally, you will say I know nothing much about your country but we live in a modern time and visiting is not in itself a blanket stance. We see all the time the way you (as a country) go about things in the world. We see the hundreds of thousands of troops to make sure your corporate side gets the dollars. Having modern ways of seeing and communicating, one doesn't have to make visits to note the effects of your global attempts at control by any means. There have been many people who sat out in dictatorships and then make cosmetic and superfical comments about them not being too effected. You are also the biggest creators of terroism on the globe. So frown on, sigh and mentally groan.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

4. All of that said, our military is vastly over-deployed, and I want it pulled back. It's silly beyond belief. I'm not holding my breath, however, because our Republican contingent is brimming with nut cases. Not all, mind you, but too many.

you and every american. If it wasn't for the lies of *Cough*American*cough*President, they would not be like this sadly.

If the military lobby was reined in then more attention could be turned inward regarding the millions who have lost so much and who were very loyal to their country. However as said holding one's breath will be pointless as the situation is too deep rooted now?

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Originally posted by JoshL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nqfJMcJmj8&feature=colike

yet russia right now, is not only stronger, but more stable than America. you sir, know nothing. you post a video of his motor coach, for what to prove nothing? If you have proof, please present it.

Now I can clearly see you...
No more words :shit:

Originally posted by rjhowie:

A pointless video that means nothing. Has JoshL never watched the US equivilant? Russia will continue to do better than the US because it won't spend billions running damn military bases everywhere. As for the protests so what, it's part of wider franchise situation isn't it? The same kind of police action happens in the US too! Would we have seen this happening in USSR dictatorship days? We know what would have happened even if people had tried to attempt it! Putin may be less popular than his earlier time but he is still the most popular politician in the Federation but that gets up JoshL's nose being an opposition man. Understandable but not very credible in practice. I think that Russia will continue to modernise, increase the standard of living and much more. Something that could happen across the pond but don't expect such any time soon.

Yes, you'll be clearly right in the case if the US's police detain people for nothing, judges defy evidencies and close people for nothing, if Obama takes 146% in Alabama and so on.
Why not!

Originally posted by rjhowie:

The standard of living which has increased...

Erm.. What?

You are deluded about America JoshL but there again Dr Goebells could delude the simple minded and patriotic nuts. There have been continual harrassments of people in the USA and the Courts often used to silence progressive minded spirits who wonder where the country is going apart from down the tubes. You can be sure that if you are radical the FBI and all the other agencies will be watching you like the Gestapo. It has been one ,llong steady control after another. One day people will come to wonder how they ended up with a ne-police State. Considering people are taken from that stolen bit of Cuba to stand trial in miltary courts rather than normal ones that torture is part and parcel just like the fascists and the Communists what price democracy? Have no money? - Then no chance of getting elected to the Hill because that is apart of an extended mioney machine that pulls the strings of Senators and Congressmen. The rest of the world can see this even if the beknighted cannot. Rendtion - another wonderful addition to the freedoms and rights claims of the ex-Colonies. Recently a Russian was taken from Thailand to the USA for trial on arms charges. Rather interesting as he had been in Court in Bankok twice and found innoccent of charges as the US wanted him extradited. However in usual style leabing on pals they still got him against the legal system! Utter hypocrisy is so rampant with America that the citizenry there fail to see it they have been so brainwashed into thinking they are the saviours of the world and the greatest place on earth.

As for the police. In the big cities they think they are the law! Don't get on the wrong side if you can avoid it. People have been tried found guilty and executed then later we find shoddy or suspect police work and colluding, big bucks lawyers. And lastly, whatever you do don't get poor there because it will be sheer Hell but that is part of your rights too!

Originally posted by JoshL:

Originally posted by string:

He may not be popular with everyone in Russia but that's not the same as "NOTHING".

Nothing! Just scum on the sewage of roguish degradation amongst the majority of Russia's population. The more foetid a piece of shit is - the upper it floats in the drainage.

I just saw that post.

You seem not to understand the concept of democracy JoshL. People vote, people get elected. The more people vote for one person the more likely he is to be voted in, and if someone wins an election then he is the democratic choice.

Democracy does not mean that you, repeat you, get to choose who governs your country; it is the decision of the majority.

If you cared to read the posts I have made in this thread you would realise that I am not a great fan of Putin. Yet I recognise that he won the election; not all fair and square possibly, but he won it. So it is NOT true he is "nothing"; he represents the choice of your country for good or bad.

You are not unlike some of the more virulent American Republicans who contribute to this forum. They dislike Obama and, effectively, insult the majority of their fellow countrymen by inventing all sorts of over-the-top slander against their elected President.

Not, mind you, that I think my own country is immune to this process, with the vitriol poured on Thatcher, on Blair and now on Cameron.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Utter hypocrisy is so rampant with America that the citizenry there fail to see it they have been so brainwashed into thinking they are the saviours of the world and the greatest place on earth.

It's amazing how clearly you see us. Thanks to your post they'll never fool me again, no siree!! No more savior bunkem for ole Jaybro.

Originally posted by string:

You seem not to understand the concept of democracy JoshL. People vote, people get elected. The more people vote for one person the more likely he is to be voted in, and if someone wins an election then he is the democratic choice.

Democracy does not mean that you, repeat you, get to choose who governs your country; it is the decision of the majority.

That's certainly close enough, for gubbment work! (I, for one, am grateful for the peaceful transitions of administrations in the Russian Federation! It's a very positive sign — to my not-very-sympathetic-to-democracy POV; because I am actually sympathetic to democracy… Time was, the "old" leaders had to die — one way or another.) There are always "questionable" election results in a democracy; but there are seldom such in faux democracies. And people will note this…
I suspect (since we effectively have no choice, nor any reason to presume we should have such) that the various peoples of the RF will sort this out, to their own satisfaction, eventually.
I simply wish them well.

It is a rather juvenile attitude from JoshL because his man didn't win. The Russian Government spent nearly half a billion dollars on polling station electronics that gave Russians the chance to see things for themselves as more and more Russias are using the Net and it's services. In the genral picture and weighing all the positives and negatives in the country the United Russia Party man got themost votes and blatantly obvious to a proverbial child. The crude and pointless rhetor from JoshL canot be allowed to brish that away. Certainly oters polled more votes this time and that is all fine and well but Putin IS still the most popualr man and he is clever enough to see the stregth of opposition parties and adapt to that. Russia is still changing and in general moving in the right direction.

Heaven forbid that the mainstream opposition is as crude and dastardly acting in a similar derogatory and juvenile rant as that does nothing but show immaturity and sillyness.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

You are deluded about America JoshL but there again Dr Goebells could delude the simple minded and patriotic nuts. There have been continual harrassments of people in the USA and the Courts often used to silence progressive minded spirits who wonder where the country is going apart from down the tubes. You can be sure that if you are radical the FBI and all the other agencies will be watching you like the Gestapo. It has been one ,llong steady control after another. One day people will come to wonder how they ended up with a ne-police State. Considering people are taken from that stolen bit of Cuba to stand trial in miltary courts rather than normal ones that torture is part and parcel just like the fascists and the Communists what price democracy? Have no money? - Then no chance of getting elected to the Hill because that is apart of an extended mioney machine that pulls the strings of Senators and Congressmen. The rest of the world can see this even if the beknighted cannot. Rendtion - another wonderful addition to the freedoms and rights claims of the ex-Colonies. Recently a Russian was taken from Thailand to the USA for trial on arms charges. Rather interesting as he had been in Court in Bankok twice and found innoccent of charges as the US wanted him extradited. However in usual style leabing on pals they still got him against the legal system! Utter hypocrisy is so rampant with America that the citizenry there fail to see it they have been so brainwashed into thinking they are the saviours of the world and the greatest place on earth.

As for the police. In the big cities they think they are the law! Don't get on the wrong side if you can avoid it. People have been tried found guilty and executed then later we find shoddy or suspect police work and colluding, big bucks lawyers. And lastly, whatever you do don't get poor there because it will be sheer Hell but that is part of your rights too!

Your "radical" and our "radical" seem different. Here it's easy to "become radical".

I'm not sure and not deluded about the USA; the States is a state with its own faults and peculiarities. But I'm quite aware of the paradoxity going on in Russia - where there is no one sufficiently legitimate power branch - but the populace en masse doesn't worry keeping their DELUSIVELY separated frictions...