15 Sep 04
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europ...n.ap/index.html
The former KGB spy's directive for revamping the way Russia is governed included an end to the direct popular election of governors and a major rearrangment in the rules for selecting members of parliament, already deeply loyal to the Kremlin.
Critics charged the Russian leader was using the bloody outcome of the Beslan school siege to grab more power.
Putin, saying the future of the country was at stake, called for creation of a powerful anti-terror agency capable of not only dealing with terror attacks but also working to avert them, destroy criminals in their hideouts and, if necessary, abroad.
This is egregious! It is an affront to freedom and will only backfire. Why is this not THE story of the year? It's not even the story of the day, according to the major news outlets.
Russians, however, feel that the elected governors and legislators are even more corrupt than Communist administrators in Soviet times. They also have traditionally clamored for a firm hand to restore order and now want action against terrorism, often telling journalists terrorist attacks would never have happened under the late dictator Stalin.
Are they insane?
15 Sep 04
Originally posted by Dissident DanA word of advice to you: don't spend too long looking at Putin's eyes... 😵
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europ...n.ap/index.html
The former KGB spy's directive for revamping the way Russia is governed included an end to the direct popular election of governors and a major rearrangment in the rules for selecting members of parliament, already deeply loyal to the Kremlin.
Critics charged the Russian leader was ...[text shortened]... attacks would never have happened under the late dictator Stalin.
Are they insane?
It is pretty bad, but he's been doing it for years, and his popularity in Russia is undimmed, at least as far as winning elections is concerned. Also, now that it's nominally democratic, most countries have little desire to interfere in Russia's internal affairs - it takes outright oppression, Chechnya-style, for the international community to have much chance of reacting. So I don't think there'll be any ramifications for Putin in the short-term.
15 Sep 04
Originally posted by Dissident DanOne of the reasons that this is not the story of the day is probably that though its a new thing in Russia its actually old news in the rest of the world.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europ...n.ap/index.html
The former KGB spy's directive for revamping the way Russia is governed included an end to the direct popular election of governors and a major rearrangment in the rules for selecting members of parliament, already deeply loyal to the Kremlin.
Critics charged the Russian leader was ...[text shortened]... attacks would never have happened under the late dictator Stalin.
Are they insane?
"Putin, saying the future of the country was at stake, called for creation of a powerful anti-terror agency capable of not only dealing with terror attacks but also working to avert them, destroy criminals in their hideouts and, if necessary, abroad."
Well it does ring a bell, right. Several western countrys have adopted the philosophy of "defensive war/strike" against groups or countrys that is said to have terrorist intentions. The burden of proof lies not with the contrys starting the war to prevent terror, but with the contrys accused of terror.
"Critics charged the Russian leader was using the bloody outcome of the Beslan school siege to grab more power"
Ding-Ding the bell rings again. Due to the change in terror risk after 9/11 the western world have changed it views to basic juridical princips giving more power to the goverment if suspicion of terrorist intents could be called for.
I have to admit that when the UN was divided over the question of invation of Iraq, I was of the oppinion that - when the USA said that it had proofs of the production and possesion of WMD and Iraqi links to International Terror - it had to be truth because it would be to risky for the USA to lie.
I was wrong, the link to terror and WMD has been abandoned as reason, and now its about liberating a country that doesnt seem all that happy for the favor.
If some of those - who said that this would lead to other countrys (like Russia) adopting the same principles to preventive wars abroad - would like to tell me that you told me so, then I can only respond: Yes you did - you were right and I was wrong.
However I can promise you that there will go some time before I again believe what the USA says to be true.
15 Sep 04
Originally posted by ScheelIt's not that he says he's trying to fight terror, it's that his proposals have almost no connection with terrorism. Suppose Dubya proposed that to help combat terrorism, state governors would no longer be elected, but would instead be appointed by him. Can you imagine what the reaction to that would be in the US? Also, why the hell does Putin need the death penalty? Is it too expensive to keep a handful of suspected terrorists locked up, as Britain used to in Northern Ireland?
One of the reasons that this is not the story of the day is probably that though its a new thing in Russia its actually old news in the rest of the world.
"Putin, saying the future of the country was at stake, called for creation of a powerful anti-terror agency capable of not only dealing with terror attacks but also working to avert them, destroy crimin ...[text shortened]... mise you that there will go some time before I again believe what the USA says to be true.
However much you and I dislike the Bush administration, it really bears no comparison to what's happening in Russia.
15 Sep 04
Originally posted by AcolyteI beg to disagree.
It's not that he says he's trying to fight terror, it's that his proposals have almost no connection with terrorism. Suppose Dubya proposed that to help combat terrorism, state governors would no longer be elected, but would instead be appointed by him. Can you imagine what the reaction to that would be in the US? Also, why the hell does Putin need the ...[text shortened]... I dislike the Bush administration, it really bears no comparison to what's happening in Russia.
It's exactly the same what's happening in the US, it's just manifesting itself slightly differently.
More centralised power.
Everything goes in the 'war on terrorism' and
Limitations on individual freedoms.
15 Sep 04
Originally posted by shavixmirBy 'bears no comparison' I didn't mean there aren't parallels. But let me put it this way: if Dubya is Darth Vader, Putin is the Emperor.
I beg to disagree.
It's exactly the same what's happening in the US, it's just manifesting itself slightly differently.
More centralised power.
Everything goes in the 'war on terrorism' and
Limitations on individual freedoms.
15 Sep 04
Originally posted by shavixmirgotta agree with shav on this one. doesnt this whole school terrorist attack seem oddly familiar with the consequences of the 9/11 attacks... Bush instituting the USA Patriot Act... gaining more federal power by giving the people safety in exchange to certain rights of privacy.... but maybe thats just my mind making crazy analogies
I beg to disagree.
It's exactly the same what's happening in the US, it's just manifesting itself slightly differently.
More centralised power.
Everything goes in the 'war on terrorism' and
Limitations on individual freedoms.
15 Sep 04
Originally posted by AcolyteThat's not 100% correct. Putin's popularity in Russia strated to decline recently. Not due to freedom limitations though, but due to # of social (or better to say unti-social) reforms. The problem is absense of any valuable alternative - russian liberals did great job discrediting themselve. Over recent years they showed total inability to unite, moreover most of their leaders sold themselves right and left. "War on terrorism" definitely looks like just a pretext for the tight centralisation and concentration of the power. In such conditions it takes a lot to change regime through elections and I think it will take years. Fortunately, it is almost impossible to maintain total iron curtain in information age. Concerning Western influence: it seems to me that recent decade saw way too much of double-standards and trade-offs in the Western position towards Russia (and in general as well).
A word of advice to you: don't spend too long looking at Putin's eyes... 😵
It is pretty bad, but he's been doing it for years, and his popularity in Russia is undimmed, at least as far as winning elections is concerned. Also, now that it's nominally democratic, most countries have little desire to interfere in Russia's internal affairs - it takes o ...[text shortened]... ance of reacting. So I don't think there'll be any ramifications for Putin in the short-term.
16 Sep 04
Originally posted by ScheelI pose this question to you in regards to your statement. If 1 guy drives a truck full of explosives into a group of young police recruits who are trying to make their new government work, does this imply that the country doesn't seem happy for the favor? Or is it the fact that the news media decides that the 1 person's actions are more newsworthy than the actions of the others? I would suggest that there are far more Iraqis in favor of making their country a better place rather than pursuing their personal fanatic agendas; people a lot like a lot of others in the world, people with families, jobs, children, and a chance to live their lives in peace and freedom. But that doesn't make much of a headline.
... and now its about liberating a country that doesnt seem all that happy for the favor.
17 Sep 04
Originally posted by bekiekeMy main point wrt this was not about a majority of Iraqis having one or another view. My point was that the original reasons for invation seemed to have changed (a lot, several times).
I pose this question to you in regards to your statement. If 1 guy drives a truck full of explosives into a group of young police recruits who are trying to make their new government work, does this imply that the country doesn't seem happy for the favor? Or is it the fact that the news media decides that the 1 person's actions are more newsworthy than the ...[text shortened]... a chance to live their lives in peace and freedom. But that doesn't make much of a headline.
But I can see that I was not being clear about that.
What is clear however is that when the liberation/occupation (have a pick) had just started there were some fanatics fighting the liberators/occupators but the majority of people asked on the street were happy for the change. Now theres still some fanatics fighting and the majority of people asked on the street would rather see the liberators/occupators leave.