Putin vows to DESTROY murderers

MOSCOW - President Vladimir V. Putin on Wednesday ordered special services to hunt down and “destroy” the killers of four Russian hostages in Iraq.”

Hypocrisy looms everywhere.

From the above article:
"Russia, a consistent critic of the U.S.-led campaign in Iraq, has no military forces there. But Defense Minister Sergei B. Ivanov has stated that Russia has the right to strike "terrorist" targets preemptively."

"Russian lawmakers yesterday blamed Washington for the execution of the four kidnapped Russian embassy workers, claiming the "occupying powers" in Iraq should have prevented the deaths." article

'Russia: Diplomats' Fate Brings Chechen Issue To Fore'"
"PRAGUE, June 25, 2006.....
......The Mujahedin Shura Council said in a statement issued the same day that the diplomats were killed "in revenge for the torture, killing, and expulsion of our brothers and sisters by the infidel Russian government," an allusion to Russia's war in Chechnya. The council had earlier issued demands that Russia pull out of Chechnya, thereby linking the fate of the predominantly Muslim republic to the Iraq insurgency."

Putin gave President Bush intelligence that Iraq was planning an attack on the U.S.

"He said the information received by Russian intelligence suggested Iraq was planning attacks in the United States, "and beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets". "

Give our President information like that and then say the U.S. has no right to prevent the attacks?

Terrorism is terrorism. Why should it matter if a definitive link with Al Queda has been established? The goal is the same: Destroy western nations. Destroy the United States. Al Queda is not the only terrorist group with these goals.

Russia has it's own problems with radical Muslims. This played a big role in Russia's decision not to join the military coalition. It also plays a significant role in the way Russia wants to deal with Iran.

The Muslims in Russia have some of the same beefs with their government that the Far Left in our Nation has towards ours. 'Russia’s Muslims Want Christian Symbols Removed From Coat of Arms'

Putin is trying to put Russia back together while at the same time making it a Christian Nation.
'Russia: Russian Muslims oppose symbols'target="new"
"Dzhemal said the book and the increased prevalence of religious symbols in state life are evidence of an unofficial state policy of discrimination against Muslims, conducted with the help of the Russian church."

Russia does this:
'Russian Federation/Chechnya: Human Rights Concerns for the 61st Session of the U.N. Commission on Human but we are supposed to shut Guantanamo Bay because of the horrendous way the prisoners are treated?

So Mr. Putin.... Why is it that it is okay for Russia to deal with terrorism preemptively but not the United States?
Why is it that there is no outcry over your statement to DESTROY the murders of the 4 Russian diplomats but the world would scream in unison if President Bush had said the same thing?
The U.S. is supposed to give terrorists their day in court not 'hunt and destroy'.
Why does Russia not have to be held to the same standards?

What is Russia? Is it a Democracy or a Dictatorship? Mr. Putin, are you a Dictator or a President?
This seems to be the difference when it comes to being able to act preemptively.

I don't want to be the only 'Super Power'.
I believe Russia and France should be given 'Super Power' status.
That way Putin can continue to 'hunt and destroy' and Chirac can deploy Nuclear weapons when threatened and/or attacked.

We will lose this fight against terrorism.
We cannot sink to the same level as the enemy we are fighting but if we go too far the other way they will continue to see us as weak and defeatable AND they will defeat us.

We now have to give murderers and foreign terrorists the same rights as American citizens? Our own Supreme Court ruled that those who are out to destroy us, even if they are NOT U.S. citizens, have to be given a fair and speedy trial in our Federal Courts... and the left was SO concerned when Bush appointed the new judges. At least they don't have to be released immediately based on the ruling.
We can't send the prisoners to their home countries because they may be tortured and held in secret prisons?
Some of the 'home' countries don't want their people back. What do we do with them?
Letting them go so we can kill them when they return to the battlefield sounds good.

The left is winning. The terrorists have to be treated with kid gloves while our own President, who is trying to defend us, should be removed from office and executed for war crimes.
There is something inherently wrong with that.

I don't normally agree with Gen. Wesley Clark BUT he says we should give up the prisoners to the world. They are a threat to the WHOLE WORLD. Let the whole world deal with them. Get them out from under U.S. control. (He was just on 'The Big Story'. No transcript yet.)
At least Clark gets it.
Now if the Left and our own S.C. would 'get it'.

Posted by Dawn at June 29, 2006 6:00 PM
Comments
Comment #163396

I hope the Russian do kill a few radicals. It is a good thing, no matter who does it.

The old Soviet Union was a hateful and horrible place, but they did deal effectively with the likes of radicals.

I know that we have all agreed that as a rule torture doesn’t work, but the Soviets seemed to have carved out an exemption.

Posted by: Jack at June 29, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #163399

Бережёного Бог бережёт.

Berezhonogo bog berezhot.

Translation: God keeps those safe who keep themselves safe.

Good hunting boys!

Posted by: JR at June 29, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #163402

I think you should ask the US critics of his dealings with Chechnea rather than Putin. That seems a bit more hypocritical to me.

Huh, Jack? What exemption?

Posted by: gergle at June 29, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #163415

So the question we are asking here is why is not okay when we act like the fake democracy Russia pretends it’s not?

What’s probably most outrageous to me is the idea that intelligence given to us by Putin contributed to our decision to go to war. When did Republicans stop believing that nations act only in their own interests.

Posted by: Max at June 29, 2006 8:06 PM
Comment #163417

Jack

We should understand the left by now. Dictators are the bomb! They control society from cradle to grave and rule against their detractors with an iron fist! This, in the eyes of todays American leftist liberal is their long sought after Nirvana. Peace through dictatorial strength at the cost of freedom for those less intellectual then the “chosen ones”. The only thing that can keep them at bay (like a crucifix to a vampire) is to replay Reagans speech at the Brandenburg Gate. “MR. GORBACHEV, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!!! It sends ‘em running everytime!

p.s. Don’t care for Vlad - but like his strategy

Posted by: JR at June 29, 2006 8:08 PM
Comment #163419

“We should understand the left by now. Dictators are the bomb!”
Posted by: JR at June 29, 2006 08:08 PM

I thought that was one of the reasons the left wants Bush out. Don’t they consider him a dictator with no regard for the rule of law?

Posted by: dawn at June 29, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #163421

Gergle

The Soviets seemed to get a lot of information from those they captured and intimidated others. Considering how truly horrible communism was, they were doing something effective to survive so long, and it seems like that was one of their few talents. Everybody can do something. The KGB had its unique skills.

You know that Stalin killed more civilians than Hitler and communism is responsible for at least 100 million deaths in the 20th Century - more than the wars of that bloody 100 years. Yet many people still give the communists a pass. They still wear Che T-shirts etc. Give them credit for their abilities to control information and create fear.

BTW - look at Putin and know that he knows more ways to kill you than you know how to die. Let him go after our mutual enemies.

Posted by: Jack at June 29, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #163426

Dawn-
Rules get in the way, don’t they? That’s one of the central themes of Bush Administration rhetoric on the matter of terrorism.

A lack of respect for the rule of law, though, yields paralysis, as people are forced to choose between two undeniable goods in order to act in the war on terror. One good is that we remain civilized, principled, free. There other is protecting and defending our country.

Confronted with this, there are only bad choices. Support a illegal program to listen in without warrants, or safeguard our freedoms at the price of revealing classified secrets. Not a great choice.

Laws prevent such conflicts, let us calmly and confidently approach our mission, secure in the knowledge that our efforts have the full backing of the law, the constitution, and our own clear consciences.

We should not have to choose between our nation’s defense and our freedoms. Such a choice only wears down America’s resolve. Let’s stop trying to act like we can beat the terrorists at their game of shameless degradation, and start playing to our true strengths.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2006 8:35 PM
Comment #163429

Jack-
Actually, the success of Russian methods had more to do with the fact that these methods broke people to the torturer’s will than that it enabled them to gain information.

Our SERE training was based on methods of interrogation that the Soviets used.

The Bush administration reverse engineered SERE training in order to gain methods used in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

The Soviets maintained their rule through both brutal and subtle measures of control.

One of the subtle measures were the measuring of things by politics, even when politics was only marginally involved. Stanislavski’s Method, Eisenstein’s Montage Theory, and other movements were casualties in Russia of Marxist theories of art. Biologists in Russia were forced to suffer under Lysenko’s erroneous theories, putting them far behind those in the free world, who chose Mendel’s heredity, and Darwin’s evolution.

Perpetuating the party came at the expense of either the Nation’s interests or the individual’s. If you were spied upon, interrogated, or otherwise had your right’s violated, it was for your own good, and the good of the state.

The Republicans are nowhere near this, thankfully, but they’re heading in that direction, presupposing that victory comes from unquestioned authority, a compliant press, and unlimited powers to those seeking out the homeland’s enemies, and the enemies of right-thinking political order.

That, though, did not prevent Afghanistan from becoming a monstrous fiasco for Russia, or Chechnya for that matter. Getting what you want and improving your situation are two different things. Wresting control of things from people is rarely a viable solution to one’s problems, It often just makes it difficult to get things right, or to correct them when things go wrong.

In the end, the Communists learned they didn’t have as much control as their egos had fooled them into believing. That is what landed them and so many other political movements on the ash-heap of history.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2006 8:52 PM
Comment #163431

This is part of the reason a “preemptive war” with Iraq on the grounds of terrorism is so problematic (as well as illegal and immoral). It allows dictators like Putin to say, “hey, the US is doing it!” It immediately gave validation to their Chechnya policy, which we had been very critical of until that point.

Perhaps there was a blog on a Russian site saying the same things Dawn is saying, but about the US when we invaded Iraq?

And isn’t ole Vlad chummy with W?

I’m especially appalled by you Cons who admire the tactics of the KGB. And the Left likes dictators? What are you people trying to protect by going to war, exactly? Please tell, because you appear to have little humanity left.

Posted by: DavidL at June 29, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #163432

Dawn

You have obviously followed the left carefully. Bush is a FACIST in there eyes, though they have not gone as far as to call him an iron fisted dictator as yet, otherwise they would be in love with him. They prefer a SOCIALIST or COMMUNIST Dictator to our President. For proof just look at the way they fall all over themselves when they talk about Castro & Chavez or how happy they were when Spain dropped support for Iraq after electing socialist José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Vlad is a bit left of the above, but that’s all the better for the libs.

Posted by: JR at June 29, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #163433

DavidL

Humanity is defined in Webster as: 1: the quality or state of being humane
2: the quality or state of being human

When the Islamofascist Jihadis’ show signs of either of the above, let us all know. Until such time, they should be hunted down and destroyed as one puts down a rabid dog.

Posted by: JR at June 29, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #163435

“Confronted with this, there are only bad choices. Support a illegal program to listen in without warrants, or safeguard our freedoms at the price of revealing classified secrets. Not a great choice.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2006 08:35 PM

It is only ‘illegal’ until the Congress that said -when Bush comes to them and requests a change- changes it.
It’s that simple.
If it’s illegal just change the law.
Even Democrats said they would have changed the laws if only Bush had asked.

How many new laws were passed last year? I’m not sure I can even count that high.
There are so many laws and so many interpretations of laws that we are at the point we don’t even know we broke one until we are sitting in jail.

Posted by: dawn at June 29, 2006 9:33 PM
Comment #163450

Looked all over Russian online papers, found only one that mentioned the order to kill the animals. Sorry no link - they want me to sign up for something. But this, this is interesting, in a sick sort of way, it’s in all of the papers in Russia Putin at large Huh?

p.s. Read a few online Russian papers to get a feel for their interpretation of us here, eye opening for me.

Posted by: JR at June 30, 2006 12:00 AM
Comment #163452

That’s what wins elections Dawn…tougher laws and more prisons.

Too bad people are sheep. Don’t believe me? 98% incumbancy rate.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 30, 2006 12:01 AM
Comment #163461

I’m sorry Stephen, but your idea that we can maintain a higher standard and still defeat an enemy that lies to our face (as requested by the Qu’ran), murders innocents, plots the demise of women and children, and all while we “play by the rules”?

Give me a break. That’s nice, but while you are writing poetry and singing songs about peace and love, there are other people at work, protecting you from evil-doers. That’s the way it is, and that’s the way it has to be.

The military has their job, the government has it’s job, and the liberal speech writer has his (or her) job. But don’t swap jobs. It doesn’t work.

There are people out there that can’t kill even to save their own lives. Those peace-loving people are wonderful, loving, gentle humans. But without those willing to do or die, others out there will kill the peace-nik where they stand.

It’s a great system, and it works. Keep your thoughts of world peace and holding hands… Dream wonderful dreams. But leave the job of protecting your freedoms to the professionals.

Posted by: Bruce at June 30, 2006 12:46 AM
Comment #163463

JR,

“You have obviously followed the left carefully. Bush is a FACIST in there eyes, though they have not gone as far as to call him an iron fisted dictator as yet, otherwise they would be in love with him. They prefer a SOCIALIST or COMMUNIST Dictator to our President.”

Man, that is just out there.

“When the Islamofascist Jihadis’ show signs of either of the above, let us all know. Until such time, they should be hunted down and destroyed as one puts down a rabid dog.”

Wow, the right really has no clue at all when it comes to different cultures.

If it ain’t Western culture it ain’t civilization.

Maybe we should be dropping Websters Dictionaries instead of bombs.

That should fix everything.

Posted by: Rocky at June 30, 2006 12:52 AM
Comment #163468

Rocky

Being a murderer is NOT a different culture. I did not condemn all Muslims, I was very specific as to those who are “rabid dogs”. The gentleman challenged those of us on the right as to the humanity of wanting Putins gang to seek and destroy murderous scum. When they act in a more humane way, they can be dealt with as such.

Can you sit there with a straight face and deny that the Dems and their new leftist base have called Bush a fascist? I’ve read it on this blog hundreds of times! Will you swear on the grave of someone beloved by you that these same leftist Dems don’t fawn all over the communist healthcare system of Cuba & throw balls and dinners to celebrate Castro in NYC? That they love Chavez for nationalizing his energy resources? They didn’t claim a “moral” victory over Bush when Spain went socialist and withdrew from Iraq?

Point to one thing in the post as undeniably false and I will apologize post haste to everyone.

I leave you with a line from Rodney Dangerfield:

“Most of the arguments to which I am party fall somewhat short of being impressive, owing to the fact that neither I nor my opponent knows what we are talking about.”

Posted by: JR at June 30, 2006 1:32 AM
Comment #163474

Bruce:
You nailed it, bro. I can let the hippies run their heads about the evil USA and burn all the flags they want. I will stand back while they cry for every tree cut down and turn there hypocritical head as babies are murdered under there noses. I understand the system. That’s what they do, go for it punks.
Just don’t get in the way when Daddy has to take out the TRASH. That’s what Daddy does.

Posted by: coonyjay at June 30, 2006 1:53 AM
Comment #163475

JR,

“Can you sit there with a straight face and deny that the Dems and their new leftist base have called Bush a fascist? I’ve read it on this blog hundreds of times! Will you swear on the grave of someone beloved by you that these same leftist Dems don’t fawn all over the communist healthcare system of Cuba & throw balls and dinners to celebrate Castro in NYC? That they love Chavez for nationalizing his energy resources? They didn’t claim a “moral” victory over Bush when Spain went socialist and withdrew from Iraq?”

How could you possibly be wrong making such vast generalizations?

It’s the ever popular “they” that are doing it.

I’m sure, if you looked hard enough, right this very second, you could find three naked guys dancing around an oak tree chanting, but what exactly is the point.

How many hands would you have to use to count up the actual number out of those you accuse of calling Bush a facist, or fawning over Castro?

Posted by: Rocky at June 30, 2006 1:53 AM
Comment #163476

Oh, and BTW,

I’ve been posting here for nearly two years, and the person that has used the word fascist the most is Eric, and he uses it to denigrate Democrats.

Posted by: Rocky at June 30, 2006 1:59 AM
Comment #163478

Nah! This is plain crap. Long before we ever piss off the likes of Russia we would storm Washington, pull all of our elected out, and burn them at the stake. We’d probably do the same for China, India, and the EU. Get a clue!

Oh and Japan, too. (Sorry)

Posted by: DOC at June 30, 2006 2:07 AM
Comment #163492

Jack,

Che was a nasty murderer, its bad to put him on tshirts. Regan supported genocide in South America, its wrong to treat him as an American hero. Everybody’s got a gris-gris.

I only really have one issue with your death toll for communism, which is accurate, Stalin was not a communist.

Stalin did not believe in communism, and as such i find it difficult to put the death tolls on a political ideology, rather than on his own raging insanity. As well, figures from China include starvation due to natural disasters, and as such, not all deaths attributed to Mao are accurate.

That being said, totalitarian government is wasteful and pointless, I agree. What scares me is the Russian nostalgia for the Soviet days when they were powerful. Of course, this really has more to do with the fact that their economy is worse off now than it was under Communist rule, thanks to rampant corruption and organized crime.

Sometimes I wonder what can be done about Russia, but thats a question, I suppose, for those who focus a great deal more on the norther portion of Asia than I do.

Posted by: iandanger at June 30, 2006 3:22 AM
Comment #163495
I only really have one issue with your death toll for communism, which is accurate, Stalin was not a communist. Stalin did not believe in communism…

HUH?? You are kidding, right? While neither you nor I can know what is in another’s heart (in his case, apparently Evil), Stalin was as Communist as Hitler was Nazi.

He espoused it, promoted it, claimed he was in the Malachite Room (and had a movie make falsely showing him there), boasted of it, he saved it against the Nazis, he enforced collectivism more than anyone else ever (and like a big govt person, he loved to steal from the people), … his list goes on ~infinitely. He was a ~lifelong communist and an understudy of Lenin, he was arguable more the embodiment of Communism than anyone else ever.

Posted by: Brian at June 30, 2006 3:51 AM
Comment #163496
Give our President information like that and then say the U.S. has no right to prevent the attacks?

Dawn, nobody knows what the heck Putin was talking about:

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who spent days searching through CIA intelligence for proof of Iraq’s threat to present to the United Nations last year, said he had never come across such information…

Another State Department official said people were “scratching their heads” over Putin’s remarks.

A US intelligence official in Washington, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that the CIA and other agencies did not immediately recall what Putin was referring to and expressed doubts that the information was significant. The official said his agency was reviewing files to search for evidence of the Russian information.

I’m (not really) surprised that whatever news source you picked that up from failed to mention how bogus Putin’s story was.

In any case, if Putin wants to send troops to Iraq, then go for it.

Posted by: American Pundit at June 30, 2006 3:54 AM
Comment #163497
HUH?? You are kidding, right? While neither you nor I can know what is in another’s heart (in his case, apparently Evil), Stalin was as Communist as Hitler was Nazi.

Actually, Stalin wasn’t a Communist. Political scientists actually had to come up with a new term for Stalin’s style of dictatorship: Stalinism. Stalin was as Communist as Saddam Hussein.

In fact, I was just reading neo-con Francis Fukuyama’s latest book, and apparently the fathers of neo-conservatism were communists who hated the way Stalin twisted and corrupted Marx. By the same mistake you’re making, neo-cons got a reputation as anti-Communist, when they were (and are) actually anti-Stalinist.

Kinda goes a long way towards explaining the borrow and spend ways of our Republican leaders, doesn’t it? They’re Communist purists. Pretty funny, huh?

Posted by: American Pundit at June 30, 2006 4:02 AM
Comment #163498

Jack,
Not a fan of communist BS, but I don’t think Che’ killed millions. He was a voice for people as Trotsky was. They both were idealists. They both were betrayed and killed for their naiveties.

As to condoning torture, I don’t. The “enemy of my enemy is my friend” thing is an ancient arabic saying. Are you turning Jihadist on us Jack?

Posted by: gergle at June 30, 2006 4:21 AM
Comment #163501

Dawn,

“Russian lawmakers yesterday blamed Washington for the execution of the four kidnapped Russian embassy workers, claiming the “occupying powers” in Iraq should have prevented the deaths.”

Occupying powers are in charge of the security under both Geneva Convention and UN Charter.
US invaded Iraq and since act as being in charge of the security. Badly IMHO. But if now you want to say that the Iraq security is not US responsability but Iraquis then why staying in Iraq? Bring the troops home or actually secure Iraq.
You can’t have both way, sorry.

Terrorism is terrorism.

If it was the case, everybody will have agreed on its definition long time ago. A terrorist for one side is a freedom figther for the other side.

Russia does this: ‘Russian Federation/Chechnya: Human Rights Concerns for the 61st Session of the U.N. Commission on Human but we are supposed to shut Guantanamo Bay because of the horrendous way the prisoners are treated?

Because you’re supposed to be better than Russia?
Again, “they do worst” is not an excuse for doing wrong. Plus many other nations worldwide ask for Gitmo being closed and not all are in break with Human Rights as much as Russia, China!

And, AFAIK, the Gitmo trials were (just, alas) found illegals. Keep your Gitmo camp opened and it’s a, “goulag”, whatever it size or close and move back under International Laws regarding detainees. Your choice. Always was.

So Mr. Putin…. Why is it that it is okay for Russia to deal with terrorism preemptively but not the United States?

Why is it that there is no outcry over your statement to DESTROY the murders of the 4 Russian diplomats but the world would scream in unison if President Bush had said the same thing?

Because Bush didn’t said that. He said that US should attack Iraq because Saddam had WMDs that are direct threat to US and Saddam was helping Al-Quaeda. Both could not be proved right.
At least Putin have proof that the murders of its 4 diplomats were in Iraq, where Bush can’t provide proof that Iraquis were involved in 9/11…

And the world expect better behavior from US than from Russia…
It’s quite a disgrace you now have to compare against Putin behavior to justify your, don’t you think???

The U.S. is supposed to give terrorists their day in court not ‘hunt and destroy’.

Detainees. Most Gitmo detainees have NOT been charged. Until being proved guilty of terrorism, they’re detainees, not terrorists. Charge them and put them in trial, why should you worry, if proofs are abondant quickly they’ll be declared terrorists and you could then speak about them the way you’re doing for years…

Why does Russia not have to be held to the same standards?

It should. But expections are higher for the self-proclamed super power best democracy on Earth than a former communofacist power. Don’t be surprise.

What is Russia? Is it a Democracy or a Dictatorship? Mr. Putin, are you a Dictator or a President? This seems to be the difference when it comes to being able to act preemptively.

Nope. Being a super power is enough.
That’s called power abuse. Or unilateralism abuse.

I don’t want to be the only ‘Super Power’. I believe Russia and France should be given ‘Super Power’ status. That way Putin can continue to ‘hunt and destroy’ and Chirac can deploy Nuclear weapons when threatened and/or attacked.

Why not. That’s multilateralism and all super powers will share the responsability (and eventually the shame) to act together.
UNSC had proposed in several occasion to put back War On Terror, Iraq War included, under UN umbrella and on several UN members responsabilities, not US alone. Everytime it was refused.
Maybe it’s not too late yet but don’t be surprise about the “I told you so!” side-effect.

PS: That was one of Chirac’s most stupidly testosteronous speech ever. The targetted audience was more domestic than international IMHO.

We cannot sink to the same level as the enemy we are fighting but if we go too far the other way they will continue to see us as weak and defeatable AND they will defeat us.

How are moving back under International Laws is going far the other way? Before War On Terror, your country was there already. The actual “softness”, forced or choosed, of US policy is just moving back a little bit to your usual level regarding rule of laws and human rights. Don’t worry, you’re far from going “the other way”.

The previous strong attitude didn’t work that much either, terrorists still think you’re defeatable, don’t they?

I don’t normally agree with Gen. Wesley Clark BUT he says we should give up the prisoners to the world. They are a threat to the WHOLE WORLD. Let the whole world deal with them. Get them out from under U.S. control.

Agreed. But will Bush and Rummy would agreed to give up some War On Terror control to an international body? I doubt it.

Again, since day one who decide about everything about War On Terror? The World or the US President? Who decide to open the Gitmo camp, the World or US President? Who decide to go unilateral , the World (quite a nonsense, isn’t it?) or the US President?

The ball is in your camp. Always was. Play it.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 30, 2006 4:45 AM
Comment #163506

JR:

Humanity is defined in Webster as: 1: the quality or state of being humane 2: the quality or state of being human

When the Islamofascist Jihadis’ show signs of either of the above, let us all know. Until such time, they should be hunted down and destroyed as one puts down a rabid dog.

According to Webster, Human is defined as a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens). So any Islamofascist Jihadis that happened to be seen walking or running on their two feet are/were humans.

But it’s easier to consider your enemy as un-human. Sadly you lost your own humanity by doing it…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 30, 2006 4:59 AM
Comment #163517

“Who decide to go unilateral , the World (quite a nonsense, isn’t it?) or the US President?”
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 30, 2006 04:45 AM

Was it Bush -alone- who decided to go in unilaterally or did any of that decision have to do with other nations - such as France and Russia - looking out for their own financial needs when it came to Hussein’s Iraq and staying out of the fight?
Seems to me France’s only ‘offer’ to help came with wanting a promise they would gain financially.
Guess Chirac never heard of helping without expecting something in return.
If Chirac believed France was about to be attacked would he wait for the rest of the world to join him in the defense of France?
‘Sorry can’t help ya. Selling weapons to that nation helps our GDP and besides many of our people are getting rich bilking the UN sanction program.’
So. Is Chirac running for another term to keep himself out of prison?

Yes. The ball is in our court.
Not just because we always bring it in. Sometimes it gets thrown to us.


Posted by: dawn at June 30, 2006 6:16 AM
Comment #163522

Dawn,

Was it Bush -alone- who decided to go in unilaterally

Yes. Deciding alone is a very good definition of going unilateral, you know.
Bush was not forced. UNSC members were asking to wait the final UN inspectors reports. Bush didn’t want to wait. He decided. Alone.

Nor France nor Russia nor any other nations have the power to force an US President to go at war alone. Stop kidding yourself.

Seems to me France’s only ‘offer’ to help came with wanting a promise they would gain financially.

Thanks for the lack of respect you show for our 4 french soldiers killed in Afganhistan last month.
Next time, maybe we should NOT evacuate US foreigners in Ivory Cost because we would gain financially nothing, right?

If Chirac believed France was about to be attacked would he wait for the rest of the world to join him in the defense of France?

Nope. But he wont today ask the rest of the world to join in cleaning the mess afterward too. You can’t have both way, unilateralism and multilateralism.

Sorry can’t help ya. Selling weapons to that nation helps our GDP and besides many of our people are getting rich bilking the UN sanction program.’

“Many” people? Please back this claim.
You should be surprise that the French GDP has NOT drop since the Iraq War. How strange!?

So. Is Chirac running for another term to keep himself out of prison?

Nope, too old. I’ll bet he will escape prison too.
I’m not a Chirac supporter myself, BTW, but I try to differenciate France and its current government as much as I try to NOT confuse USA and its current government.
Are you?

Yes. The ball is in our court. Not just because we always bring it in. Sometimes it gets thrown to us.

Sure, but in the Iraq War you step in and reclaim the ball. Don’t blame the others for the bad move you did since.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 30, 2006 6:55 AM
Comment #163615

philippe

No, sorry - I have a tremendous heart for the lost peoples who are/will be affected for the rest of their lives by these inhuman murderous thugs. I have no compassion, no forgiveness for an ideology that would at the very least enslave me or my loved ones - at worst carve my head off on video to gain the approval of their god. To wish for the destruction of a disease is not sign of inhumanity, it’s a sign of compassion for the world at large in danger of death due to this disease of islamofascism. Nice try. By the way, do you weep at night for the death of Zarqawi? Pol Pot? Stalin? Hitler? They were human too according to you. Not in my book.

Posted by: JR at June 30, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #163640

Phillipe:

With all due respect, the conversation about France was in regard to IRAQ, not Afghanistan. Those are two very very separate issues, yet you used them interchangably.

France has shown support for the war in Afghanistan, but has opposed the war in Iraq.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 30, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #163669

JR-
Quit using the term Islamofascist. It’s like using a shotgun for a sniper mission. If it can’t tell the difference between Saddam and the Ayatollahs, Bin Laden and the Saudi Royals, or Al-Zawahiri and Mubharak, it’s useless as a description of politics in the middle east.

We are not, in fact, dealing with one set of opponents here. We are dealing with a multinational, multiethnic, multilingual community of nations. Each one demands at least some special attention.

If you don’t acknowledge the differences, you can’t shift the balance of power, effectively gain allies, and head off certain potential enemies. You also don’t know by what terms your enemies might be willing to surrender by.

Not every Iraqi opponent in this war is an Zarqawi or an al-Sadr. Some can be negotiated with. Some can be bribed. Others can be made converts. But if our approach is to lump everything together and call it Islamofascism, our only success will be limited propaganda victories at home.

There is no fault to be had in addressing the non-Democratic governments of the Middle East individually. It’s not like we’re dealing mass production here. Every strategy has to be a custom job. Different incentives, threats, and covert activities will be required for dealing with each government.

The point is recognizing that we don’t have complete control of the situation, and never will have it. Our opponents will have their influence on it, and the direction of their influence will run along the lines of their politics, religion, and ethnic identity.

It’s a simple proposition: know your enemy. If you know your enemy, you can lead an enemy to exert their control to your advantage. But this only works if you really know your enemy. Otherwise your response will be useless or counterproductive. The broad brush label of Islamofascism hides far too much of the individuality of these cultures for it to be useful in understanding them.

Bruce-
I refuse to believe we have to match Bin Laden’s Barbaric thugs in their cruelty and their contempt for law in order to defeat them. We’re not terrorists ourselves, and our goals as a nation do not require such methods.

Ultimately, all they do is bleed us of our credibility and moral authority to fight terrorism.

If you’ve got the impression that I’m one of those folks who want to spend their lives composing verse about puppy dogs in fields jumping through flowers, then I’m pretty sure you don’t have me pegged. Peace and love are things we have to fight for. I’m just telling you sometimes the struggle is one of judgment, rather than arms.

Terrorists provoke. They work their magic by getting you to react, to clamp down. They want us twitchy. They want us to begin to believe that our only alternative is to play dirty. They want us to start throwing our values overboard, because then they can “reveal” us for we “really are.” In other words, they can say that we’re murderers, imperialists, colonialists and torturers ourselves. The more truth we give to those statements, the more we end up right where al-Qaeda wants us.

We play by the rules because rules keep us in order. A terrorist group can afford to have a bunch of loose cannons on deck. We can’t. Our government has responsibilities and accountabilities it can’t forgo, and which we can’t afford to allow them to shirk.

The notion of confronting terrorists free of all binding restraints is no less unrealistic than the vision of Puppies and Butterflies that others have. While we need to provide for special powers and clearances for those who fight terrorism, their authority and powers must be founded in the rule of law. That’s not some dream, that’s necessity. The alternative is placing absolute power in the hands of people who may not have the virtue to use it justly, unsupervised by others.

We need to give our government the ability to defend us, not to usurp the authority that backs their power over us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #163707

gergle,

Che was a failed revolutionary. He started as an idealist, and was not particularly good at what he did. Under his direction villages were killed off.

He was a bad guy. He himself did not kill millions, but the ideology Jack is talking about is associated with the word communism, and was responsible for those deaths.

Posted by: iandanger at June 30, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #163753

You realize, Dawn, that much of that was probably political posturing on Putin’s part in an attempt to appear strong.

But that’s irrelevant. Putin being in the wrong does not make us right. Your ranting has little basis in reality and you can’t justify foolishness with the mistakes of others.

Posted by: Zeek at June 30, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #163786

“Your ranting has little basis in reality and you can’t justify foolishness with the mistakes of others.”

Posted by: Zeek at June 30, 2006 07:26 PM

That was not my goal exactly.
If there was as much outrage about what other nations do, well… maybe just maybe more nations with horrible human rights records would feel the need to change.
As it is now, we are the only ‘superpower’ which means WE are the center of attention.

I have no problem sharing superpower status if it means more attention will be drawn to such issues all around the world.
Do you Zeek?

Posted by: dawn at June 30, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #163807

I have a rather technical question to ask: would a quasi-military action by the Russians require prior approval from the Iraqis or the occupation power?If not,what will this say about the ability of just about anyone being able to walk in and out of the place without as much as a ” Halt!who goes there?”In other words,same thing that has been going on since this whole thing started.(Remember that 16 yr old kid -from Florida I think-who snuck into Iraqi and back again without any problem at all?)
This will be really interesting to watch.How are they going to do it?Car bomb?Snipers?Air strike from a previously unknown airbase in Syria?
Too bad the Russians dont roll like we do.If the US media had anything to do with it,this would have been the best reality show to hit the airwaves since Shock and Ouch!

Posted by: john doe at July 1, 2006 12:02 AM
Comment #163882

Posted by: john doe at July 1, 2006 12:02 AM


…and we never should have interferred when Russia invaded Afghanistan…

Posted by: bug at July 1, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #164415

JBOD,

With all due respect, the conversation about France was in regard to IRAQ, not Afghanistan. Those are two very very separate issues, yet you used them interchangably.

Huh? Doesn’t even the White House put these two conflicts in the same War On Terror bag?
Why should I do differently then?

Plus my reply was regarding France not helping except when she can gain financially something. Dawn claim was not put only in Iraq War context, in fact it was an explicite (flawed) generalization. I give two examples of France actual helps when clearly she gain nothing but in fact lost a lot.

France has shown support for the war in Afghanistan, but has opposed the war in Iraq.

True. Does it prove that France only offer help only if she get the promise to gain something financially? That was the unbacked Dawn’s claim.
Do you think France gain financially anything from helping in Afghanistan?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 3, 2006 4:22 AM
Comment #164416

JR,

By the way, do you weep at night for the death of Zarqawi? Pol Pot? Stalin? Hitler?

Nope. Not once.

They were human too according to you. Not in my book.

Your book is wrong then. They were. The worsts sample of human possible, true, but the simple fact they were human should remind us that we, all of us, could become as mad and monstruous as they did because all of them were at birth just little babies, most probably “cute” ones.

They didn’t born wrong. They born humans.
But, please, provide facts to prove the opposite.
Or continue to keep your eyes closed at something that, agreed, is scarying but just truth.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 3, 2006 4:31 AM
Comment #164417

Regarding Hitler [un]human condition, have you see Downfall?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 3, 2006 4:36 AM
Comment #164500

dawn, what exactly is your goal then? You want to superficially label other countries as superpowers so that you can criticize them with greater ease? I’m afraid I don’t see what you’re point in all this is.

And I stand by my statement that other people being wrong doesn’t make us right. Despite what you say, it certainly seems that you are trying to take heat off of our mistakes by pointing out that other nations aren’t perfect as well.

Posted by: Zeek at July 3, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #164612

“You want to superficially label other countries as superpowers so that you can criticize them with greater ease?”

No. So other people can and put the other nations in the same spotlight.
What is wrong with other nations sharing the same scrutiny as we receive?
What is wrong with other nations sharing the same burden?
Do you not want other countries to be held to the same standards the world wants to hold us to?
If Iran were given a ‘superficial label’ of superpower of the Middle East, what do you suppose they would do with it? Would they use it for good or bad?
Same with Putin. If he actually had superpower status back, at this point in time, what do you imagine he would do?

Phillipe,
I was referring to Iraq. I don’t seem to recall France saying they wanted anything in particular for helping remove the Taliban.
Do you think there would be a difference if Chirac decided to drop a nuke on someone as opposed to Bush? if so, how would it be different?

It is now up to the Iraqis who they want to do business with-and why.
Though if they decide not to export their oil to France and Russia the U.S. would probably get the blame.

Posted by: dawn at July 3, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #164629

dawn, I still do not understand what you are trying to get at. It’s all good and well to want other countries to improve too, but instead you seem to have been using their mistakes and saying “hey, you can’t criticize us now.”

Is that why you want to start calling other countries super-powers even though they are not? I fail to see what purpose that kind of word-smithing would have that isn’t propaganda related.

Posted by: Zeek at July 3, 2006 11:24 PM
Comment #164727

Dawn,

I was referring to Iraq.

I reread your post and I stand corrected. Bad english grammar skills hit me again.
Anyway, I don’t recall France pushing for a resolution offering US to move Iraq War under UN umbrella *only* if France could gain something from it. Do you have some link that show that?

I don’t seem to recall France saying they wanted anything in particular for helping remove the Taliban.

Nope.

Do you think there would be a difference if Chirac decided to drop a nuke on someone as opposed to Bush? if so, how would it be different?

I guess the main difference is that, in such case, the international pressure, leaded by US most probably, will successfully force (thru sanctions, blocus & co) France to destroy all its nukes, aka to lost its nuclear power for breaching his NPT agreement.
Because France is not the #1 world power.

It is now up to the Iraqis who they want to do business with-and why. Though if they decide not to export their oil to France and Russia the U.S. would probably get the blame.

Indeed: isn’t the US, the new iraq father, the free market champion? Wasn’t bringing free market one of the Bush’s objectives for Iraq War?
What? Not anymore?
Oh, damn, what happened?!?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 4, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #164831

Iandanger,
I agree that Che participated in attrocities. I think he was misguided.

To blame communism for millions of deaths, ignores the millions who have died in the name of capitalistic propoganda.

Despots and power hungry people have killed millions for myriad reasons. The US has it’s own guilt in dealing with attrocities against blacks, asians, mexicans and naive americans, not to mention the revolutions they have fomented around the world.

Posted by: gergle at July 4, 2006 10:49 PM
Post a comment