Russia rules out UN sanctions against Iran "for now"

We would be foolish to put any trust in the two-faced Russian leadership. From Debka this is probably going to be the next track for US:

Under US terrorism laws, Washington could ramp up its own sanctions including financial constraints on Tehran and the interception of missile and nuclear materials en route to Iran, Bolton said. The US is encouraging other countries to follow suit.

He was voicing long-standing US frustration with Security Council inaction on Iran. Friday Russia rejected sanctions after Tehran agreed to continue talks but refused to halt enrichment.

“You don’t need Security Council authority to impose sanctions,” said ambassador Bolton. He refused to provide details on the countries that might be willing to join in sanctions because of the sensitivity of the talks.

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3178

If you sleep with dogs, expect to get fleas.

I wonder how long ago Beslan was. Could it have been two years or 100 years?

There is only one solution this problem, strike at the pockets of Russia and the arab world, end our reliance on oil. The first step is to INCREASE taxes on oil. I know this sounds horrible to the americans in the audience but how do you otherwise expect alterntive energy sources to develop. Oil has practically no production costs. Saddam sold at $4 per barrel with a great proffit. Any alternative that starts to make a dent in oil consumption will face comptetion from an industry that is able to dump prices to essentially zero.
Taxes on oil will give the market economy and ingenuity to present an alternative.

I don't see why Russian cooperation with Iran is any worse than than US cooperation with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

When the 'dermo' hits the fan I believe Russian military and political ideology will not be particuraly bothered by Robert Fisk's or Christiane Amanpour's spin on events.

Russians also happen to be quite fond of Russia. While the west has spent the last generation looking for reasons to hate itself, Russia has has been rediscovering its folkloric past.

And quite honestly, what's the point in sanctions? Never worked on Iraq.

Russia, which is building Iran's first nuclear power plant,.. -from the Article

Unless I’ve missed something (which I may have), Russia is building a facility to manufacture a Plutonium precursor, not one to produce commercial power. Given the source, I’ll question it. Can anyone enlighten me?

T. Roosevelt has a very applicable quote: "I have a perfect horror of words that are not backed up by deeds."

An interesting recent article from 24 August, 2006 by Ion Mihai Pacepa in NRO
deals with Russia's historic involvement with Islam's armed hostilities.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjUzMGU4NTMyOTdkOTdmNTA1MWJlYjYyZDliODZkOGM=

Pacepa writes that "the Kremlin may be the main winner in the Lebanon war. Israel has been attacked with Soviet Kalashnikovs and Katyushas, Russian Fajr-1 and Fajr-3 rockets, Russian AT-5 Spandrel antitank missiles and Kornet antitank rockets. Russia’s outmoded weapons are now all the rage with terrorists everywhere in the world".

"In 1972, the Kremlin decided to turn the whole Islamic world against Israel and the U.S. As KGB chairman Yury Andropov told me (Pacepa), a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on America than could a few millions. We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main supporter, the United States. No one within the American/Zionist sphere of influence should any longer feel safe."

Pacepa explains that "According to Andropov, the Islamic world was a waiting petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep. The Muslims had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch."

I saw an interview with Gary Kasparov. He was saying that the only thing putin cares about right now is promoting instability in the world so that oil prices (the main source of cash for the Russian government) go up.

Assuming that's true, don't expect any help from Russia regarding the Middle East.

Dudes right, sanctions haven't worked and never will.
I say, for them lowering the price of oil, we'll give them a nuclear reactor and set it up for them. Also, give them a couple bombs (one to test), and let's see what they do with the other.
If they use it, so be it, people die. There's too many people on the planet as it is. Time to thin the herd.

Live and Let Die!

Got the idea yet? It is a proxy war. China and Russia are hoping for the US and allies to fall, then they will take care of islam at their leisure. They are feeding the crocodile hoping it will eat them last.

Dudes right, sanctions haven't worked and never will.>>>>

"Official sources in Bush's cabinet said to newspaper Los Angeles Times that if these efforts fail, the US will try to build an independent coalition to impose sanctions on Tehran."

Right. Let's huff and puff! We will huff and we will puff!

Not surprising since Russian Federation signed a billion dollar arms deal with Iran to supply them with the latest Russian weapons and military technology. They are also supplying Iran with their processed gasoline, since Iran is a net importer of gas, having little or no refinery capability of her own. As soon as Russia gets her money they won't care what we blow up in Iran. After all, whatever we destroy will have to be replaced by new Russian equipment. It's a win-win for Mother Russia. The game continues, sin fin........

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

That said, sanctions against Iran can't possibly work, as there is no unified WILL to make them work. We've seen this before, people. After much squabbling and arm twisting, the UN Security Council passes a resolution with no teeth, with no satisfactory response from the _______.(pick a country..Iran, the PA, Iraq, North Korea, any other country). Time passes while ______ continues with it's offending actions. More UN wrangling, bitching and pressure, one more toothless resolution, more ignoring from the offending country/non-state group, finally a resolution with "teeth" (filed down by our so-called allies) is passed, and immediately, back door deals to circumvent the sanctions are made.

So goes the geo-political game of chess, where our allies undermine us to keep us busy, to keep us spending our resources, maybe even knock us down a notch in world opinion....whatever.

But this isn't a game of chess, this is nuclear proliferation. The cost of losing isn't just laying one's king on it's side, it is the potential loss of hundreds of thousands of people.

The US and it's staunchest allies, together or Americans unilaterally, better have a plan B independent of the UN and our old alliances, and have the will to carry it out.

Why shouldn't one take one's foes seriously when they threaten harm or anhilation?

The U.N. Security Council has Russia and China sitting across the table from Iran. Russia is the one that caused this nuclear problem. [Russian President Vladimir] Putin has had his scientists down in Iran for years working for their missile systems. Putin is a jackal. But since Bible prophecy states Russia will join with Iran in the future to come against Israel we certainly see it all lining up.

I wouldn't trust Russia, nor Putin, any further than I can throw them.

There's no doubt in my mind that they're no real ally of the Free World. They're, in my view, part of the new Axis. I believe, owing to Russia's clear, indubitable alliance with the evil regimes of China, Iran, etc., that the Cold War has effectively, quietly restarted.

Unfortunately, most people don't see this.

Time to get serious again. And know who are our real allies.

Right on Sentinel, as I have always maintained since '91, the Cold War is not over. Why people thought that is strange. The Soviet Union disbanded, but that just leaves its main constituent part, Russian, still operating as a vassal of the old totalitarian order.

The Cold War is about two sides ideologically opposed to each other. Which is still the case today. As proof, the nuclear submarines that patrol the world's oceans, both theirs and ours, have never been out of service. As we speak, and for the last 17 years during which the naive thought that the Cold War was over, those submarines have continued to shadow each other 24/7. Why would they do that if the Cold War was over?

What was over, in the early '90s, was the arms race. That simply meant that the US and Russia were no longer furiously trying to top each other. They still try to top each other, just not as furiously. And even that concession, was only possible because Russia lost the economic base to provide the funds for that. Not because their ideology changed. Even if communism is all but dead in Russia, the totalitarian state is alive and well. And as long as Russia continues to be an anti-western totalitarian state, the Cold War will continue.

That being the case, Russia is still fighting the Cold War via its proxies, the islamic world. Rather than relying on communist states to do that job, like they did in the '50s - '80s, they now use islamic states.

I honestly believe that Putin would like to see a nuclear attack on west by the islamic world. Both Russia and China are vultures circling overhead as they see the West under attack not only from its external islamic enemies but by the fifth column internally. We have as much to fear those two vultures as we have islam itself.

"I wouldn't trust Russia, nor Putin, any further than I can throw them"

Posted by Canadian Sentinel

Maybe ... but then, that was also our view of Russia prior to World War II. But when push comes to shove, as it did then - and could do again - Russia might just eventually come around once again.

Consider this. The whole world has its problems with Islam. Sorry everyone, but for those of you who think you've read those words before, you probably have, so you can "move on folks! - nothing here to see" (not much new, anyway), but I keep hammering away on this because it seems to me that what is necesary here is just some, insight leadership, conviction and hard work on the world stage by our politicians. Just like the cobbling together of the alliance that defeated Hitler and Japanese Imperialism last century, this just might take some time - and a bit of persistence and statemanship. So for those of you willing to consider it, here are some thoughts I've posted elsewhere on holdouts like the Russians. I begin with some poking around I did recently on the recent history of the Muslims in China. Lo and behold, what did I find there but the following statements, courtesy of the Islamic website "everymuslim.com" and "Al-Islaah Publications"!

"[The Chinese Muslims] actively struggled against communists before and after the revolution. In fact, in 1953, the Muslims revolted twice in an effort to establish an independent Islamic state [in regions where Muslims were an overwhelming majority]. These revolts were brutally suppressed by Chinese military force followed by the liberal use of anti-Muslim propaganda"

and

"Since religious freedom was declared in 1978, the Chinese Muslims have not wasted time in expressing their convictions. There are now some 28,000 mosques in the entire People's Republic of China, with 12,000 in the province of Xinjiang. In addition, there is a large number of imams available to lead the Muslim community (in Xinjiang alone there are over 2,800).
There has been an increased upsurge in Islamic expression in China, and many nationwide Islamic associations have been organized to coordinate inter-ethnic activities among Muslims"

and, finally

"As always, the Muslims have refused to be silenced. Several large demonstrations have been staged by Muslims to protest intrusions on Muslim life. Last year, for instance, Muslims staged a massive protest rally in Beijing to demand the removal of anti-Islamic literature from China's bookstores"

Now its possible that the Communist leadership will be willing to "cut off its nose to spite its face", by continuning to indulge this population, or worse yet, use it as another weapon in its ideological war with the West. But on the other hand, given that regime's paranoia about the growth of groups that could threaten its power, and the repressive measures it was willing to take even against the Falun Gong sect (!), I wonder if there isn't a weakness here that the West should exploit.

What I know for sure is that China is not the only Asian nation that either currently faces its own Islamic threat, or that could face one in the future, and, one should hope, could be persuaded to face that reality head on and be willing to be part of a wider action to head it off now, before it starts, rather than risk being caught later in a situation such as Europe's at present, when it will be so much more difficult to control. Consider that even the Phillipines has had its own insurgency by the 5% of its population that wants to set up their own Shari'a state. As for our friends the Russians, surely their troubles with the Chechens and others is another case in point, and we should not fail to remind them of the appalling Beslan massacre committed against their children, and the downing of two of their airliners by Islamic terrorist bombers in 2004.
They need to be cautioned that alliances - or even sympathies - with Islamist fundamentalist states like Iran could come back to haunt them later with more, and bigger, problems later, just like their earlier snuggling up with Hitler in the 1930s and 40s. Given also that Russia, historically, was a Christian nation, like the West and, as such, are surely within the eventual sights of "the Umma", they should choose their friends carefully.

Prior to August 22, and in another thread, I waged a heated battle with the poster using the name August22 over the issue of whether to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran, in which I argued for a calm, "wait and see" approach before doing anything, even using some arguments that I would not normally have relied on, motivated primarily by a sense of desparation of my own to cool the enthusiasm of August22 and others for the deployment of American nukes, simply because one has to recognize that if these weapons are ever used on any significant scale the damage to the world could be so immense, that life itself could cease to exist. So on that page I argued for calm, pointing out that the date could have some other significance, such as the end of the Persian calendar month of Mordad and the end of the year on that calendar. Now it appears that I was probably right about that, but August22 made a number of valid points that I found worthy of consideration, among the best of which, was his observation that it was only by inflicting a massive and unconditional defeat on Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan that we were able to turn them into the model citizens that these countries are today.

That said, the next thing for us to do is to force our Western governments to finally and definitively recognize the threat for what it is and stop speaking of the "war on terror" to call it what it really must be if its going to succeed: a "War on Islam!" And for this to succeed they've got to be willing to take two major steps, the first one beginning immediately if not sooner.

1. Change the permissive laws that have allowed the terrorist threat to emerge from the permanently and innately alienated Islamic immigrant communities in Western countries, and institute instead a massive campaign of repression against these communities, which has to include immediate dismissal of all Muslims from the police, military and other security forces, and even from some professions that have a role in upholding the public good and/or the security of the state, or at least a downgrading of their positions in these sectors to ones where any "fifth column" among them can do no harm. It must be pointed out STRONGLY that such measures are taken not out of some general hatred for Moslems - which must be absolutely and loudly excluded, along with warnings also to the general public not to attempt to "take matters into their own hands" but because if the claim of so many Moslems to be "moderate" and "peaceful" is true (and we're all familiar with the unfortunate concept of dissumulation/"taqqiya" accepted in some Islamic circles), this type of measure is the ONLY thing that will allow them to hold their ground against the innate violence that seems to boil out of Islamic communities just about everywhere. Western governments must also impose controls over Islamic theology and preaching, and begin imposing the same "reform of Islam" that I identify as an essential element of step 2 below. If these measures are successful in the West, it may not be necesary to take step 2 because this in itself may be a convincing enough demonstration to the Islamic world that we mean business. However, just in case, here it is.

2. Intensively lobby nations such as Russia and China, as well as Japan and all of Latin America, to recognize where there own best interests lie, break any defence pacts and alliances they may have with Islamic nations, and prepare to launch a massive, global crusade like the one that defeated Germany and Japan in the last century, targetting all the Islamic nations that sponsor terror attacks or that have links to threats within our borders. The ones that come to mind are Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, possibly Pakistan, and perhaps before long, Iraq. (It should also be pointed out to them that if this alliance is overly dominated by the U.S. it elevates the likelihood - already a significant worry - that nuclear weapons might be used on a significant scale). "Moderate nations" such as Jordan and Egypt could be left out as long as they behave themselves, but we have to let them know that if they involve themselves, or if they don't get their own militants under control within their own borders, we will step in there too, and do it for them, and even Europe may need help from foreign troops to round up its Islamists and establish control.

Even if the threat of an Iranian attack against Israel appears to have passed for the moment, Iran is almost certain to have nuclear weapons in a few years, and meanwhile, terrorist threats to airliners, subways - even parliaments if the charges in the recent Canadian case are true - continue, and these attacks give us all the reason we need to target these countries, especially the Saudis for an open and clear declaration of war fought according to the classic western traditions of warfare going back to Hoplite Greece - the shortest campaign possible defeating the most massive damage possible on the enemy.

The objective of this war must be nothing less than the total defeat of these nations, and an occupation that entirely breaks the will of the people who have adopted this monstrous ideology (here's where we'll be able to tell at last whether proposals for a "reform of Islam" can really succeed as we'll then be able to force this on them as one of the conditons for reconstruction and enforce it on the ground) and, that accomplished, their rebuilding and rehabilitation as respectable global citizens.

CLARIFICATION:

Anyone who read my last post may have noticed the following statement:

"It should also be pointed out to them that if this alliance is overly dominated by the U.S. it elevates the likelihood - already a significant worry - that nuclear weapons might be used on a significant scale."

By "them" I meant to refer to our potential allies. Forgot to shift the position of that sentence to make it clear.

Excerpts and a link to an eye-opening article on changing demographics in Russia. One note though; based on Soviet responses to kidnappings, Russians do not seem to be constrained by the multiculturalism of the West:

The fact that this legislation is already running into trouble suggests how much Russia may be changing. At the heart of the debate over the new legislation lies the Kremlin's fear over Russia's demographic future. Russia is a multiethnic country, whose large Muslim population is growing as fast as the ethnic Russian population is shrinking. The country's national and religious minorities are becoming increasingly aware of their growing weight and importance in society. The Russian national idea may never be quite the same again.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/03/500c205b-3260-4ab9-a3b0-418718e7d5da.html

I agree with Templar that, in ten years, this bickering will all be seen as posturing.

I don't want to seem a bit paranoia on the Iran issue , but anyone with greater knowledge
of public transit system than I have could check into the Iran/Syria tunnel systems for Subways.

By chance I searched China's train exports and public transit projects, this lead me to a map of Tehran tunnels and Iran's interest in a tunnel system in Dumacus.
Two items stood out , one was the Public Subway map which differed from the actual blue print details , the second concern showed that one of the Subway lines had been built to allow for a Diesel-Electric locomotive and double-decker passenger trains .

Most of the 3rd rail Electrical systems appeared as normal subway trains, but , why would Iran want to have a quasi-railway system that supplies its own power .
Plus , when a flatbed rail car can be used to carry missiles through those larger tunnels I wouldn't be shocked if Iran and Syrian smuggled arms on civilian trains or even had run-off tracks to store rockets for quick access to hook-up to a Subway train and ship to Hamas or Hezbollah.

As I said , I hope I'm wrong but there is also a nice little loop-back section in the southern section of the Subway and that would be a perfect place to hide a "Particle-accelerator" for atomic studies.
Iran and Syria could easily connect their tunnels by using the Military to run the boring machines and lay tracks.

Apologies, Templar; You said 'might'.

Limes:

No problem. I think we're on the same page. My point is that we have to keep working on Russia.

And not just them - but the Chinese, the Indians, the Europeans, Latin America. Everyone. The entire non-Muslim world.

Okay, time to stomp Russia.

If the US cannot get Russia to blow off its big money making deals in Iran and work with the west to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes, then we need to smack Putin upside the head and remind him about the cold war.

I don't know what the rest of you guys think, but we should NOT be held hostage by Russia and China. We need to act for the safety of the US and our allies.

I agree Carolyn2,

But what happens if the crocodile gets eaten by the prey?

Aside from its energy interests, Russia loves to oppose American interests whenever possible. Russia still hasn't forgiven America for winning the Cold War that it started with its imperialism. A lot of Russians think they live in a nation of gangsters and prostitutes, and that it's all OUR fault.

Things aren't all that hopeless over there, and it isn't our fault, but try telling that to Putin. His enmity and greed are clouding his common sense. Opposing the richest, most powerful MOST GENEROUS nation on the planet as a matter of policy is just plain dumb.

He's not the only dummy in the international arena.

Please tell me what the difference is with Russia selling to Iran and America selling arms etc to Saudi Arabia,Pakistan and just recently, Indonesia?Please tell me why the U.S continues to push for Turkey to join the E.U-at this moment Turkey is killing Kurds in Iraq with a quiet nod from Uncle Sam.Why is America about to sanction Kosovo and terrorist KLA [just called by another name as an Albanian Islamic State in the heart of Europe??Methinks Brother, the hypocrisy in your own eye blinds you...
Putin couldn't give a damn about Iran -he just wants cash like America. And sanctions DON'T work
anyway.But when the crunch comes the Christian Slavs will fight beside the West as they've always done.Just hope they don't remember what happened in Serbia and Kosovo and who bombed 'em or the country who funded the Taleban
and cheered as many young Russian soldiers were blown to bits or tortured to death in videos still circulating on the Internet.

Aside from its energy interests, Russia loves to oppose American interests whenever possible. Russia still hasn't forgiven America for winning the Cold War that it started with its imperialism. A lot of Russians think they live in a nation of gangsters and prostitutes, and that it's all OUR fault.

Things aren't all that hopeless over there, and it isn't our fault, but try telling that to Putin. His enmity and greed are clouding his common sense. Opposing the richest, most powerful MOST GENEROUS nation on the planet as a matter of policy is just plain dumb.

He's not the only dummy in the international arena.

Sebastien:

Are you saying that Iran isn't any worse than Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, or are you faulting the author of this article for American foreign policy?

The alliances of convenience America shares with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, while subject to criticism, have yielded positive results for the American people.

Russia's informal alliance with Iran has not--nor will it.

America once counted Stalin as an ally for strategic convenience. After WWII, that strategic convenience ended, and he was dropped. Once the alliances with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are no longer considered valuable, they will be dropped.

"But when the crunch comes the Christian Slavs will fight beside the West as they've always done"

Posted by Morgane

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Morgane. And the crunch is coming.

As for this part, "hope they don't remember what happened in Serbia and Kosovo and who bombed 'em or the country who funded the Taleban", I agree with on that too, but I also agree with those who say that Russia remains very much what it was in its Soviet past - and in the old Soviet days (and for that matter Tsarist times), Russia could always be counted on to do what it saw as being in its own best interests.

The defeat of Islamism is definitely in Russia's best interests. I warned anyone I could back in the late 1990's that we were backing the wrong horse by siding with Muslims in the former Ottoman domains of the Balkans, but to no avail.

We have some fences to mend. Time to get to work on them.

Jeff, The Goobs, and All; The Russians need money, are good poker players, share a demographic problem, and in the end have shown a common mindset with the West as evidenced by sixty years of an adversarial relationship.

By selling Iran a Plutonium manufacturing facility, they get hard cash. But more than that gasoline stays at $3/gallon. From what I can see on TV, the heavy water equipment is above ground.

I married a Russian and have been watching her for many moons; sleep well.

Read this article about how UNIFIL aided hezbo.
http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/622bqwjn.asp

"Once the alliances with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are no longer considered valuable, they will be dropped"

Sebastien:

These "alliances of convenience" are becoming a terrible liability.

We have the opportunity here to make common cause with a nation that has historically important cultural chacteristics in common with the West, to do so on a matter of principle, and possibly to help rehabilitate a once important ally and help it find its way out of its dark past.

Time to reconsider who our allies should be and on what terms. We have truly lost our way if we have painted ourselves into the corner of accepting these Islamist states (surely the most dangerous partners we could have) as our "allies" against a nation like Russia. Its time to adopt a new paradigm.

Jeff Bargholz:

To repeat what I said BY MISTAKE to Sebastien (with apologies to you, Sebastien - hard to keep track of what's happening on this thread)

You say, Jeff:

"Once the alliances with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are no longer considered valuable, they will be dropped"

I reply:

These "alliances of convenience" are becoming a terrible liability.

We have the opportunity here to make common cause with a nation that has historically important cultural chacteristics in common with the West, to do so on a matter of principle, and possibly to help rehabilitate a once important ally and help it find its way out of its dark past (and into the light of day where it deserves to be).

Time to reconsider who our allies should be and on what terms. We have truly lost our way if we have painted ourselves into the corner of accepting these Islamist states (surely the most dangerous partners we could have) as our "allies" against a nation like Russia. Its time to adopt a new paradigm.

Morgane:

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the author of this article disapproves of Russia's arms sales to Iran, doesn't mean he approves of the American arms sales you mentioned. Finger pointing doesn't absolve Russia of responsibility in this matter.

The difference you're looking for is that the weapons America sold to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Indonesia don't pose the same level of threat to us or our allies that the technology Russia is selling to Iran does. America is not supplying nuclear technology.

What form does America's alleged "push for Turkey to join the E.U-at this moment" take? Congress hasn't passed any resolution to that effect that I know of. America is certainly not condoning pogroms against Ethnic Kurds in Turkey.

Sanctioning the terrorists in Kosovo would be a grave error in judgement, but I'm unaware of any congressional resolution which does so.

I remember who bombed the Christian Serbs in the service of Al Qaeda and Kosovar terrorists: it was Bill Clinton and Wesley Clark.

All countries have implemented policies in the past that were regrettable, and even contemptible, but that's no reason to bear a grudge against succeeding administrations or the public at large. I'm sure you don't dislike modern Germany, Japan and Italy because of their actions in WWII, or England because of the policies of George Galloway or Ken Livingstone. Canada's foreign policy sometimes mirrors the destructive policies of Russia and the U.N., but few people damn the entire country because of it.

Exactly which Americans cheered when Taliban animals tortured Russians--Russians who were our sworn enemies in word and deed?

If you have a problem with America, that's fine. Just don't try to equate the world's leading light with a despotic troublemaker like Russia. America spends blood and money trying to stabilize the international jungle--Russia spends precious little blood and far too much money doing the exact opposite.

Limes:

America gives away more money in the form of no-strings-attached international welfare in one day, than Russia will ever receive from Iran for destabilizing the world. Russia is the recalcitrant party in a potential alliance with America. A few changes of policy on its part and the cash gate would open wide. Its problem is that it wants to give lip service to cooperation with the civilized world, while continuing to aid mankind's enemies.

I stand by what I wrote. Russia should become a real ally to America. If it did, it would grow far richer and more successful than it is now.

Templar
Agree with you Russia 'acts in its own interest' but then don't all countries do this?? There was a terrific outcry here in New Zealand when live sheep were exported to Iran to be killed-butchered by the 'halal' method-you know "in the name of Allah, the merciful & compassionate" etc before getting their throats cut. I don't know if 'live sheep' are still being exported : suspect they are quietly and without fuss from media.Do know New Zealand does a lot of trade with Iran despite Helen Clarke being Mary Poppins and epitome of Political Correctness.
One thing I'm sure of ALL COUNTRIES NEED TO STAND TOGETHER AGAINST ISLAM.Otherwise we are doomed.Whatever people say about the Russians-a lot of it lingering propaganda from Cold War-they have an amazing capacity of endurance [some might say for suffering, they lost 27 million alone in WW2,higher casualties than the Jews or any other country]they have & will fight to the bitter end for Mother Russia without hope of obtaining 72 virgins etc.We need every Slav,Christian or Atheist on our side and much maligned Putin IS ACTUALLY TRAINING YOUNG PEOPLE HOW TO FIGHT TERRORISTS ALL OVER RUSSIA.Who in the Western World can boast as much-this is what we should be doing ASAP.

Jeff:

You said to Morgane:

"don't try to equate the world's leading light with a despotic troublemaker like Russia. America spends blood and money trying to stabilize the international jungle--Russia spends precious little blood and far too much money doing the exact opposite"

Not to knock America, whose leadership has, on the whole, been a force for good in the world, nor to absolve Russia too easily of her past sins, but there is a tendency in American foreign policy to ignore the long view of history, and overlook the implications of policy decisions, sometimes when these are very easy to foresee, and sometimes even when its no longer a matter of foresight, but of clear and present realities. In the present day this shortsightedness, and even outright denial, stems from a much too easy willingness to flatter the backward Saudis simply to maintain the cheapest and most plentiful supplies of oil in the short run. For America to retain its place of leadership in the world, something important for the world itself at this stage, it can not afford to be blinded by such short-term considerations. We will all be better off if we stand shoulder to shoulder with nations that we know from a shared history, we can build a relationship with on the basis of an emerging recognition of common values, and set aside old grudges in the interests of moving ahead and dealing with today's most pressing issues.

In any event, Russia itself has a great deal of oil which it could be persuaded to trade. But whoever we trade for oil that trade must be pursued within a stable international system, something that is not threatened by the Russians, but by these backward Islamic peoples that ultimately are as likely to use this resource to blackmail us, with disastrous results in future.

Let's be realistic with Russia, but start seeing it as the ally it should be in this.

Templar:

America's alliances with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not alliances against Russia, as you characterized them.

After 911, the sham alliance with the terror kingdom of Saud became an effort to stabilize oil supplies. If you think George bush likes those unctuous murderers, you're mistaken. They will be jettisoned with extreme prejudice when the time comes, but to do so now would prove disastrous for the American economy. Chavez in Venezuela is drooling over the prospect. Alternative energy sources like ethanol cant be instituted nationwide overnight, and oil costs too much as it is.

The alliance with Pakistan is actually an alliance with Musharraf--who has no interest in promoting jihad. This alliance has already netted an untold number of dead and captured terrorists. The foiling of the recent plot to blow up 10 trans-Atlantic passenger planes was aided in large part by Musharraf. Right now he's useful--far more useful than Putin is. The minute he outlives his usefulness, the issue of Pakistan's crappy nukes will be addressed.

How are the liabilities of these two alliances that you alluded to greater than the short term benefit?

America has been pursuing the opportunity to engage Russia since the Cold War ended. Yeltsin made an effort to bring us closer, and received gobs of cash for doing so, but succeeding leaders have not--especially Putin. Russia is America's undeclared enemy whether you recognize that or not.

What new paradigm would you suggest? What would make Russia become a real ally to America?

Just because I use my real name in this forum doesn't mean I like Islam. I hate it with every fiber of my being, and want to see it expunged from the Earth. Unfortunately, the social climate in America won't permit that right now. In my opinion, it will take several more 911 scale attacks or greater to shake America out of its suicidal apathy and complacency.

It's possible to maintain temporary alliances with Pakistan and the Terror Kingdom while working on a real alliance with Russia--or it would be if Russia were willing to play ball. They're not mutually exclusive. The ball is in Russia's court, and has been for 15 years. Russia is the one that needs to adopt a new paradigm.

this ball has been rolling for decades.paperwork will not stop it.only one thing will, and we know what that is.
pray for peace, prepare for war.

Morgane:

I'm basically in agreement with you. My point is not to knock Russia, but to credit it as a country worthy of welcoming as a friend. (Perhaps you have not yet read my original post on this thread).

We can get stuck in the past, as I think has happened in the case of the view that some in this forum are presently taking of Russia. I do not take this negative view of Russia, though I know that there are wounds that need to be healed between Russia and her neighbours (one of which - Ukraine - is my own ancestral homeland), something that I acknowledge in my conversation with Jeff yet I know that, as in all relationships, there is equal responsibility, or at least some shared responsibility on both sides (or all sides). To its great credit, I see that Russia is trying to shed its communist past (unlike these appalling Islamist troglodytes who seem determined to sink ever farther backward into the dark ages and to drag the rest of humanity along with them), but needs somewhere to turn for allies in order to secure her place. I said that "Russia can be trusted to recognize where its best interests lie" (or words to that effect). Would that we here, in the West, were so wise!

To everyone out there I say loudly and clearly: Who would you rather have as an ally? A "Christian" nation with modern secular values like ours, or the backward sheiks of a backward desert wasteland. For me the choice is obvious.

We've got to start asking ourselves: "What will it take to get Russia on board with us?" We owe this to ourselves as well as to them!

On another thread this morning another in regards to the Iran situation a poster asked " Why we talk to Putin." To that I say whatever, the Russians have to survive and they cannot trust us. We sided againest them already in Chechyna. We also sided with Muslims in Cyprus, Bosnia, Kosovo,East Timor among other places. You know why?We did it for the money. The US allows Muslims to do what ever they want because if we said no they might cut of the oil and some of Georgie's seditious friends might lose a bit a money.

Posted by: abdulalshirk at August 26, 2006 08:44 AM

This was posted on the 'anti-dhimmitude from 9/11 families' thread on DW.

Here's something to comptemplate: The EU, Russia and China are busily surrounding themselves with states such as Iran and North Korea capable of pointing missles at the them. Not a sign of intelligence, wouldn't you say? Unless they float a missle barge across large expanses of ocean we have little to be concerned with.

An IRBM would take approximately 17 minutes from the Iranian border to hit Moscow, or put another way they wouldn't know what hit them. Likewise with China or any EU capital, ten to thirty minutes warning.

Mongol values are still bringing Russians and Chinese perennial plagues of one form or another. Count on it, they'll reap what they've sown.

Jeff:

I did not mean to characterize america's present alliances as "alliances against Russia", merely that we have chose unworthy nations as our allies, like the Saudis, "over against", so to speak, ones that, like Russia, it makes more sense to have on our side in a world where our primary threat is clearly from Islam.

As for how to engage Russia, I would say that a very good start would be to point out to them very directly where their own interest lies in relation to the Islamic menace, and possibly to also see about providing a market for some of their oil. also western countries dabbled in the 1990's with the idea of providing funds to help secure the closure of Russia's decrepit nuclear plants and payment for turnover of its nuclear weapons to the West, but to my knowledge very little was ever done about this, or offered to Russia in the end. Could this have been watching them to fall into a situation where they're tempted to turn to someone like the Iranians for trade and cash?

Not that this absolves them of all blame, and certainly there's room for discussion, and hopefully resolution, of grievances, but we are in a new situation now, when it seems to me that we have to start looking out against a different enemy, and that this could be the occassion for elevating a nation like Russia. Besides, recriminations for the past are simply unhelpful in the situation we're in.

As I said in my original post, the threat of Islamist expansion is something that we can count on the Russians to recognize as something that puts them on common ground with the West. We have to be willing to explore this common ground with them.

"Could this have been watching them to fall into a situation where they're tempted to turn to someone like the Iranians for trade and cash?"

That should have read: "Could this have been worse than ..."

One final point, much the West's reserve toward Russia in the post-soviet ere, and Russia's disenchantment in turn with the West, was driven largely by Russia's resistance to embracing a sudden transition to a market-driven economy, something that may work against Russia's own best interest some ways, but is a) an in internal matter, and b) something that we can be big enough to take a benign view of given that this would have lead to an overnight collapse of the welfar state that so many Russians had come to depend on. But change is coming in any event, and with a stick like Islamist violence driving things now, Russia may be much more eager to open to Western investment and economics, and to update and reform itself, if it'll mean having a stable and enduring place alongside the West, and a place of honour. We have nothing to lose by trying to pursue a new relationship.

someone posted about taxing our oil to make us use other sources of power, what they do not realize is that countries like power hungry China, and India, will buy what oil we dont buy from the middle east.
what we need to do at the same time of finding more ways to get non fossil fuel, is to drill also for more oil along our own coasts, etc. also the muslims cannot afford to feed themselves, we can withhold our food such as grain, no live sheep to those bastards, and price everything else higher, a barrell of oil to a barrel of grain, what ever costs more for the oil rich muslims, we can deal with them. Muslims have to eat, we do not have to feed them.
Our "Western Countries" produce the world's food, we hold the power, and we need to use this power now.

Zena,
Over here in India, oil is heavily taxed. The cost is 1.25 $/litre, and the result is that more and more people are turning to alternative fuels. Battery powered cars and bikes are getting popular. In some cities, buses and taxis run on CNG (compressed natural gas). We are trying to 'go alternative'. And every little bit helps. :)

"Mongol values are still bringing Russians and Chinese perennial plagues of one form or another"

Posted by Newtopia

Rather than disparaging Russian "mongolism", it would be helpful to gain some insight from history. There are ancient cultural cleavages going back to late antiquity that influence the attitudes of nations like Russia, and that have been sharply aggravated by numerous historical perfidies committed against the peoples of the ancient non-Islamic eastern worlds, such as the appalling ransacking of Constantinople in the 4th Crusade (1201 AD), and other crimes committed against the Eastern Christians and the Orthodox Christian world by the very people who were supposed to be there to help them. If these peoples today, often feel alienated from their western brothers and tempted to look elsewhere for partners, such as the Russians, Greeks, Romanians, Serbs and so many others of this heritage often do, please know well that there is plenty of good reason for this in the many acts of western duplicity, betrayals, and violence that they have suffered throughout history.

"I know of no instances in world practice and previous experience in which sanctions have achieved their aim and proved effective." - Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov

Well, he's got that right. He should be president of the U.S.A.! While the so-called leaders of the world play their political, diplomatic and economic games, the day fast approaches when a mohammed worshipping third world nutjob with a death wish for humanity gets his filthy hands on nuclear weapons. It is as though people in the world have forgotten the destructive capability of the atom bomb, and somehow believe they are immune from the danger, and that even if one was exploded they could just wake up the next day and carry on like it never happened. The time is now, not a year from now, to conquer the mohammedan world - starting with Iran - erase islam, and divide the spoils.

While Russians are for the most part caucasion and Christian, they are no friends of the west, and never will be. While they have a problem with islamics, as we do, they will stamp that out when it suits them. They don't need our help for that.

Russia resents the west, especially America, and would like to see America take it on the nose. If it could do away with us, and get away with it, Russia would have done so a long time ago. Putin is the archetype Russian; Suspicious, crafty, cunniving, and forever resentful of the west - kind of like Ambassador Alexi de Sadesky in Dr. Strangelove.

Islam is nothing to them. They are not a liberal democracy. They have no fifth column eating away at their social structure. They have no ACLU, no CAIR. Russia is not under demographic attack. They have some indigenious muslims, but they can, in true totalitarian fashion, do away with the islamic cochroaches with a wave of their hand and nobody in Russia will complain.

They will never make an alliance with us just because we share a problem with islam. The west, due to our open society, is vulnerable to islam. Russia is not vulnerable like that. Indeed, Russia would love to see the west crumble under islamic pressure, at which point, Russia would be the world's only superpower. Then it would be Russia vs. China for the gold medal.

But I don't blame the Russians. The West went in cohorts with Osama to drive the Russians out. The west protected the muslims and attacked the Christian Serbs. So our record of choosing muslims vs. Russians, is not good. Does that make any difference? Probably not. The Russians resent us anyway. The slavic mentality is fundamentally unwestern.

"While Russians are for the most part caucasion and Christian, they are no friends of the west, and never will be. While they have a problem with islamics, as we do, they will stamp that out when it suits them. They don't need our help for that"

and

"Islam is nothing to them. They are not a liberal democracy. They have no fifth column eating away at their social structure. They have no ACLU, no CAIR. Russia is not under demographic attack. They have some indigenious muslims, but they can, in true totalitarian fashion, do away with the islamic cochroaches with a wave of their hand and nobody in Russia will complain"

Posted by August22

Everything that you say of Russia was also true of the Byzantine Empire and the other Christian states of the Middle East, and yet Islam certainly swept them away. The Russians know this, and there are some early signs that they fear it. Byzantine despotism asked for help from the West once before (and got much more of a hindrance than a help - little wonder such peoples distrust the West). They might be willing to talk about it again.

We need partners in the West for this fight as badly or worse than we did in WWII because this enemy is conditioned by centuries of religious indoctrination to throw himself suicidally on our swords if all else fails, something the Nazi Germans never were, and the fight will be that much nastier.

One other point August22:

You say: "The slavic mentality is fundamentally unwestern"

This is simply not true. In the 17th century the Russian upper classes were completely entrhalled with French art, language, literature and manners, and beginning at least as early as Peter the Great, Russia tried to modernize along western lines. Even the communist system was based on a philosophy and ideology that had been developed in the West (Karl Marx was a German Jew). Nations like Poland, the Czech Republic and even Ukraine are certainly (!) not "anti-Western". the particular case of Russia is more troubling only because of the Asian steppe in its back yard, that exposed to so many Asian enemies like the Turks and the Mongols, but even so its history is marked by a longing for the what the West had and a tendency to move toward the West without surrendering its own identity.

I said above: "In the 17th century ... "

That should have been 18th.

Just a quick response to templar, could you give me the short list of Russian or Chinese inventions or orginal discoveries that impact our modern economy? Don't forget to disqualify Russian scientists educated in Berlin and London. Forget to do with it was ward off evil spirits.

By the way, its unlikely they'd even have nuclear technology unless it hadn't been stolen from west. These civilizations would still domicile in mud huts if it wasn't for western technologies.

Even Marxism was a foreign ideology, they couldn't even think up an economic model on their own. How bankrupt is that?

Divisions among the infidels only strengthens the Islamists, and they know how to play us off against each other.

I'm quite disappointed at Russia's support for Iran, and see it as a retaliation for US meddling all along Russia's western periphery (Baltics, Balkans, Caucasus, Ukraine)

Look, if all of us infidels are going to cooperate together, we're going to have to make some efforts not to step on each others' toes. Otherwise, we're always going to be hot-footing around.

l quite agree with newtopia on Russia. the only reason they have nuke tech. is that they stole it from the west. maybe a few more big hits by muslims in Russia will get the Russian civilians mad enough to cirlce the wagons against the muslims.

Newtopia:

I'm not promoting the idea of an alliance with Russia on the basis of that country's technical prowess. You're right - its not very developed in that respect. (As for Marxism, I believe I said as much myself). I'm simply saying that if feels itself to be, if not part of the West, at least part of the same cultural and spiritual domain from which the West emerged. I also point out that they withstood the aggression of the Nazis in World War II very effectively, and that certainly contributed in a major way to the Allied victory

In any event, we've gotten bogged down over Russia. I started out talking about a whole bunch of other places as well. Let's not forget about them.

Our present situation is analogous to the passengers on a small airplane that is threatened by one loan maniac. Picture it this way:

There are 18 or 20 passengers on that plane, and one of them is a psychopath with a weapon such as a pistol or a large knife who wants to threaten and bully the rest, and possibly a terrorist who wants to sabotage the flight. Is it right or sensible if only one or two of them react to defend themselves? Is it not better if they all pitch in and help take him down? Is it wise of the one or two to refuse their help, or not to ask or expect it of them?

Everybody in the world who's not a non-Muslim, is threatened by this bully, even though perhaps the maniac hasn't yet bothered all of the passengers in person yet (China, for example). Should the one who hasn't yet had unfriendly words or gestures offered him by the bully, sit in his seat and do nothing thinking that he'll remain safe? If I was on board that plane, I'd expect help from all my fellow passengers, and I'd call for it loud and clear!

Everything that you say of Russia was also true of the Byzantine Empire and the other Christian states of the Middle East, and yet Islam certainly swept them away.

A thousand years ago the technological and social differences between islam and the Byzantine empire were not very great. Certainly not great enough to ensure Byzantine victory.

Today islam is nothing but a backward hell hole in the sand whereas Russia ia modern, technologically advanced state. Islam has not the industrial base to fight any war with the west, or with Russia. A thousand years ago wars were fought just with men and swords en masse. Today, without a domestic ability to produce sophisticated weapons, and lots of them, one can not wage warfare.

Surely you are not suggesting that Russia needs western help to protect itself from some islamic state? Which islamic state would that be?

" the technological and social differences between islam and the Byzantine empire were not very great. Certainly not great enough to ensure Byzantine victory...

Surely you are not suggesting that Russia needs western help to protect itself from some islamic state?"

Posted by August22

If its a question of the crumbling Soviet-era technology, the ex-Soviet Muslims probably have just as much access to most of that as the non-Muslim European/Slavic Russians do, just as the West's Muslims have benefitted from the technology available there.

In any event, even much more advanced Europe feels the threat from these hordes, so I don't see why the Russians wouldn't. Some who post on these pages speculate that even certain western European states are at risk total disappearance.

OT

al-reuters

Well here it goes again. CNN reports that, oh my gosh, an Israeli warplane hit a Reuters van in a war zone. Of course, there were only superficial injuries, but nonetheless it was a "cold blooded crime."

Naturally the Reuters employees inside the van were arabs. Does a single non-biased employee work for al-Reuters?

"While the Chechen jihad continues to spill over into more Russian territory -- with Iranian support..."

This is more than incorrect, it is DEAD WRONG!

Iran has NEVER supported the Chechens at all. The Chechens are supported by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan, all supposedly US allies. Iran has been roundly criticized by all these countries for opposing the Chechens but Shi'ite Iran knows that the Chechen ideology is as anti-Shia as it is anti-Russian.

This is not a recent development either. From the Iran Press Service Dec 8:

"The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterated Monday that the Russian forces onslaught on the Chechen people is an "internal matter" and that the mission he is carrying on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) "did not seek mediation" in that war."

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles/oic_chchnya_61299.html

or "Islamic Iran Betrays Chechnya" at:
http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=307

or a rare case of correct analysis from the BBC which points out: "Russia and Iran are allies in many spheres, and both have a close relationship with Armenia. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan and Georgia look to Nato for guarantees of their security and have a close relationship with Russia's historic rival, Turkey.

These political ties have influenced the countries' responses to the conflict in Chechnya. Despite the fact that the Chechens are Muslims, Iran has refrained from criticising Russia's military campaign in the North Caucasus.

In the last Chechen war, Azerbaijan provided considerable support for Chechnya - a fact recognised by Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov when he gave his own pistol to the Azeri leader, President Heydar Aliev, as a 75th birthday present.

The Chechen rebels were also able to find much support within Turkey, primarily from the large number of Chechen emigres in the country."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/europe/607084.stm

Iran is also mortal enemies with fellow Shi'ite Azerbaijan because they fear Azeri separatism in their own northwest. So they support Christian Armenia against Azerbaijan and Russia against Chechnya.

This is the triumph of realpolitic over ideology and it is definitely a good thing.

What West needs to do is to criminalise cooperation with Iran. What they need is a situation when every Russian person studying in US or Europe has to prove that the money that pay for their education do not come from Iran - ie from Russian budget.

Unlike the leaders of Iran, powerful Russians cannot live without keeping their money and their children in the West. If US manages to treat nuclear money as drug money, the support for Iran will quickly evaporate

"Iran is also mortal enemies with fellow Shi'ite Azerbaijan because they fear Azeri separatism in their own northwest. So they support Christian Armenia against Azerbaijan and Russia against Chechnya.

This is the triumph of realpolitic over ideology and it is definitely a good thing"

Posted by: Provoslavni

Good! - for now .... But because it is only a case of political bedfellows, it is inherently fragile. No one should rely on these type of shifting political alliances against real ties of spiritual kinship in the long run.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - well, not for very long, usually.

Templar, I think Russia can protect itself from any muslim country. Muslims don't have air power, land power, or sea power. That is part of the reason why they are so pissed off. Their impotence is an insult to their pride.

Even though new military technology makes previous technology obsolete, just the military power that Russia alone had 70 years ago, would be enough to defeat all the arab countries today. Today, Russia has enough military power to destroy virtually all technologically advanced nations on the planet. The only true military threat to Russia is the US.

I'm not saying that Russia is not carrying out a short-sighted policy, but Had Bush, Cheney, and Rice treated Russia with a little more respect maybe they'd have its cooperation when they need it.

Limes, you said "I married a Russian and have been watching her for many moons; sleep well."
I hope you mean that you have been watching Mother Russia and not watching your wife. ;)(BTW, I hear they make really great wives.)

Provoslavni --

Chechnya has not been entirely without Iranian support. In particular, Iran has been implicated in funneling money to Shamil Basayev-- the mastermind of the Beslan massacre.

I don't disagree that it's in Iran's interest to favor Russia over Chechnya in the present state of affairs, but I would suspect that Iran is taking a page from other Mideast nations' relationships with the US, and merely playing both sides of the board: feigning friendship to use Russia for its own gain, all the while working to weaken it from behind the scenes.

So I don't think I'm "dead wrong" just yet, but I appreciate the words of caution, and the articles you linked.

Respectfully,
Marisol Seibold

August22:

I notice that in one of your recent posts you asked me which Muslim state threatens Russia
I don't think I referred to any state. It is sufficient that they have an entire restive population soon to rival their own in numbers, if it doesn't already. As for its supply of weapons, it could obtain these eventually, if it doesn't at present, from places like Iran, or China (if we do not succeed in convincing the Chinese that its a mistake to arm such people) or, in some cases, even, via places like Saudi Arabia, from the United STates. If this sounds improbable consider that this happened in the 1980s. It came to light that guerrilla insurgencies in Central America were obtaining a lot of their weapons from sources such as soldiers defecting from the army (equipped by the U.S.) to the rebel side.

However true or not any of this speculation, one thing I'm convinced of is that if we don't have these nations on our side, the fight will be much more difficult, to say the least for us, and I think vice-versa for them as well. And I think we shouldn't be the least bit surprized if it turns out that many of them might feel the same way.

I do acknowledge the point you made in your last entry about Russia's superior air and naval power but if that is sufficient, why did the Chechen insurgency drag on so long? Do you think this will be sufficient to prevent these republics from breaking away as independent states that really will be able to acquire much greater resources on their own or from other nations and eventually change the picture, particularly when Russia faces a demographic crisis because of its falling birth rate?

And one more thing, isnt the West granting polytical asylum to Chechen terrorists, and lecturing Russia on 'human rights' in Chechenia? Why would Russia help the West under these circumstances?

Provoslavni: Good post.

Are there any suspicions in Russia (and I dont mean the tabloids) that the CIA might have been at some point arming or training the Chechen 'mujahedin', just like they did in Afghanistan?

Well, for a start off this is not Iran's first nuclear power plant - it is its third. Albeit the other two are both experimental and University based.

Secondly, of course Russia is opposed, at the moment, to imposing sanctions or 'onerous' conditions on Iran. Russia, just as it always has been, is still in want of a warm-water port. From a Russian perspective cosying up to Iran might just provide this - at the very least it keeps USA and EU foreign policy on the hop. The original intention of Russia's incursion into Afghanistan was to move on into Pakistan and secure Pakistani Indian Ocean ports to Russia.

Thirdly, Iran is China's biggest supplier of oil by huge factor. A Russian dominated (for that's what the Russian government wants - see my second point, above) Iran effectively puts Russia in control of the one essential commodity which China cannot produce internally in large enough quantities to continue to fuel its economy and its present, staggering, economic growth. Historically, and to this very day, China is Russia's number one enemy. Forget the rhetoric and the pseudo-treaties, the Sino-Russian border is one of the world's major potential flashpoints; indeed, hardly a day passes without the border troops fireing at each other - it's so routine that hardly anyone even bothers to report it any more.

Try to see all this from a Russian point of view. They still believe that they are invulnerable - that they can turn the tide of islam whenever they want. (Perhaps they can, but I wouldn't now care to put it to the test, would you?) The current Russian government is still (just?) persuing the age old Russian quests - and quite rightly so, too. What are those quests? Simply answered - a warm-water port, a neutered China, a non-threatening Europe (achieved by confusion if necessary or downright lying if that works better) and the soft underbelly of Russia (all the 'stans) peacefully under control - military or political (dynastic) or economic, makes no difference so long as control is exercised.

The US of A just doesn't figure in Russian calculations. The USA is not a threat - how could it be? The USA is much more seen as an ally but what confuses the Russians is that the USA does not see Russian ambitions as simply Russian ambitions but still sees such ambitions as being some huge sinister plot to assert Rusian supremacy.

Well, Russian supremacy ain't never going to happen and most Russians know that and it isn't even what the Russians want or care about. What they want is what they have always wanted - secure borders and a 365/24/7 port for the fleet and China neutralised as a threat to their south-western borders and the 'stans brought under control - their control, the control of the USA, the control of anybody else: believe me, Moscow doesn't care; control is the operative word and somebody's control, anybody's, is what they want. They'd prefer Russian control but, if need be, they'll settle for second best for now and correct the imbalance later.

Of course Russia supports Iran - but for Russian reasons not for religious or politically correct reasons. Russia is simply doing what Russia has always done. Why do you all sound so surprised about that?

Dominic.

Criticizing America, and claiming it shares a more or less equal responsibility for Russia's present day perfidy is specious, but a lot of commentators here are doing it. I've heard complaints about America siding with other countries or groups against Russia in Cyprus, the Balkans, "Chechnya," and East Timor, of all places. Most of the comments include accusations about American complicity with muslims against Russia.

Let's be perfectly clear: the Soviet Union/Russia brought it all on itself by trying to conquer the world, and exporting misery wherever it went. It has long sought to extend its sphere of influence--not to foster better relations with its neighbors, but in an attempt to dominate them. Virtually every case of America aiding one side against the other was nothing but a reaction to The SU/Russia's initial aggression towards America. The Russians have a long history of sowing instability around the world. They had a hand in virtually every communist atrocity of the 20th century, and have funded islamic terrorism throughout the world.

The muslims learned much of their bombing and terrorism tactics from the KGB. They didn't learn any from America.

What good intentions does Russia have in places like Cyprus, the Balkans, and East Timor? America did not harm Russia in any way by opposing Russia's influence in these areas, as contrasted to the harm Russia caused America by meddling in China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, South America, Cuba, etc., etc., etc.

How many Russians died in Cyprus, the Balkans, Chechnya and East Timor due to America's actions? What form did these actions take? Except for Clinton's bombing of the Serbs, the only actions taken were diplomatic. Some of that diplomacy took the form of sanctions--usually just the threat of sanctions. You know, the tactic that supposedly doesn't work. (Except against Holland, South Africa, Indonesia, Serbia, etc.)

This is 2006. Time to stop crying about Cyprus and the Balkans--if you're an American citizen, you shouldn't be crying about Russia being stymied at all. The Bush administration does not support the muslims in those areas. America did not aid the muslims of "Chechnya" in the Beslan massacre, or any time previously. Americans were horrified by the barbarity of the so-called Chechnyans, and offered to assist russia. Even after the Chechnyan massacre, Russia refuses to cooperate in the "war on terror."

East Timor is a Catholic state that was savaged by the muslims of Indonesia, yet one commentator claims America aided the muslims against Timor and Russia(?!)

The fact is, Russia has no interest in being a responsible country, much less an ally of America or a stabilizing force in the world. Yes, it would serve the interests of both countries if Russia were to do so, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. The sullen Slavic envy displayed by Russia is indeed very different than the American national character.

Remember, Russia would rather side with the Iranian benefactors of the "Chechnyan" terrorists than the United States. That says it all.

George Rem:

Had bush, Cheney and Rice treated the jihadis with a little more respect, maybe they'd have their cooperation when they needed it.

The Beslan massacre was a CIA plot intended to restart the Cold War.

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.

Hi Marisol,

It turned out that there was no truth to the rumour that Iran funded Basayev. In fact, just the opposite. Basayev was funded by Saudis, Pakis, and Turks but some of the funds might have been routed through Iranian banks but so what? That was not the Iranian government.

Russian reports actually have claimed that Iranian agents masquerading as Farsi speaking Afghan Sunnis helped the Russian FSB kill Basayev. Whether there is any truth to this, we can be sure that neither Russia nor Iran will ever admit it.

Not only is Iran acting in her own interests but Russia's policy here is very logical. Russia has virtually no Shi'ites but millions of Sunnis. Therefore, Hezbullah type militancy cannot threaten Russia but thousands of Russians have been killed by Sunni terrorists. Thus, the enemy of my enemy is my friend especially if that friend has few assets to threaten me in the future.

Jeff Bargholz/

Russia is not being perfidious - Russia is simply being Russia. It has its own agenda, policies and world view; these may not chime with yours or those of the USA, but you are placing far too much importance on your own views if you think that the Russian people and the Russian government either knows, or cares, what your, or the USA government views, are.

Russia does what Russia wants. Occassionaly what Russia wants and does chimes with what the rest of us want. Mostly it doesn't. It isn't deliberate. They just don't care and don't know why they should care. We are, quite simply, not even on their radar screen. They don't see us and we don't matter to them. They have their own policies and their own agendas and their own view of the world and Russia's place in it. It is a huge mistake to start interpreting Russian thoughts or actions as being, in some sense, either for or against America or anyone else. They're not. Russia and the Russian government just don't see you, or any of us, as being important enough to influence their policies - in fact, they just don't see us at all. We just don't matter to them, we never have done and we never will do. It's nothing personal, it's just the way they are.

Dominic.

george_rem,

Sadly, the US and EU policy has been pro-Chechen and anti-Russian from the beginning of the Chechen jihad. This is due to NATO's close relations with oil rich Azerbaijan. Again, the west is selling out Christian Armenians just like 100 years ago. If Iran supports Armenia, that's good regardless of their motives. Even the devil may accidently do right on occasion.

Dominic:

Did the Soviet Union build the Iron Curtain because it wanted a "non-threatening Europe?" Did it build up Mao and set him against America in its cause because it has "always wanted" a neutralized China? Did it make the "Stans" more peaceful after nearly a half century of control? Did it seek a warm water port to aid the Russian people, or to better dominate its neighbors?

I'm not surprised by Russia's contemptible actions today--nor by your comments. Some things never change.

Provoslavni-- I'm surprised and embarrassed to find out the Iran/Basayev connection was unsubstantiated. Many thanks for the correction; I've adjusted my comments above accordingly.

Rest assured that I don't take this kind of error on my part lightly, and I apologize for the inaccuracy.

Marisol Seibold

Jeff Bargholz/

The SU built the Iron curtain because it saw Europe as 'other' and threatening. This modern Russia is not, however much you might want it to be, the old SU.

The SU's policies in China were confused and complicated, to say the least, including the falling out with China. If you think that you can analyse them in a few brief sentences then please go ahead - I'll be interested to read what you write.

Yes (and you are wrong), the SU did make the 'stans much, much more peaceful while it was in control. The troubles down there started post-Gorbachev and Yeltsin as Russia relaxed its control and we all forced it to be more PC in its attitude - thereby negating the old tried and tested Tsarist credo about the southern borders.

Russia seeks, and has always sought, a warm-water port to both aid the Russian people and to dominate its neighbours. Perfectly honourable position - it's what countries do. Nothing wrong with that. It's what all our countries do, or try to.

Russia's actions aren't contemptible - they're simply Russian. I think that what peeves you most is that Russia's actions are not what America, or perhaps just you, tell Russia they ought to be.

Don't take it so personally. Russia doesn't even know that you exist. It has barely managed to work out that the USA or the UK, or indeed anyone else, actually exists - far less does Russia know that there might be a different world view from its own.

And, by-the-way, the Soviet Union is dead. What is there today is Russia. Get with the times and remember that the SU was simply a different version, but perhaps more dangerous, of the same old Russia.

What my comments have to do with Russian actions or inactions simply eludes me. Perhaps you could explain further. Granted, some things never change. My point exactly - Russia never changes, never has in six-hundred years and never will in the next six-hundred. So, don't get your knickers in twist over Russia. They have their own agenda and we all know it and we all can work round it. Getting all het up about it is pretty profitless - this is Russia we're talking about, slow and thick as two short planks but very, very selfish and extremly insular.

Dominic.

Thank god for russia. Remember bush's quote you are with us or against us.

Well this is who bush supports

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5290022.stm

His allies arch-jihadists the KLA strike again. Note to Russia screw america over until they get on board.

Dominic:

Perfidy and "self interest" are not mutually exclusive. Aiding the Ayatollah of terror and his murderous mullahs is perfidy incarnate. Perfidy is as perfidy does. Helping Iran to spread terrorism will not help Russia--quite the contrary. You are placing far too much importance on your own views if you claim otherwise. A fact is a fact, irrespective of your personal opinion.

I place far more importance on my own views than the agenda, policies, and world view of the amoral Russian government or the envious Russian people--as well I should. They're MY views, and they affect my everyday life. My country is superior to Russia in every respect, and I don't envy those who are better off than I am.

The notion that Russia doesn't care about American policies and what America wants is too idiotic for words. Russia doesn't make a single international decision without considering the probable American response--and you know it.

"Russia does what Russia wants." That's not just a juvenile attitude, it's destructive, unrealistic, and simply untrue. Russia is a failed state precisely because it did what it wanted, instead of what was best for it, or what was right, far too many times.

It's a huge mistake to interpret Russian thoughts or actions as not being adversarial to America--they manifestly are, as you well know. Russia and the Russian government consider America the most important foreign country in the world--and rightly so.

It's all a moot point, because as I've already pointed out, RUSSIA IS NOT ACTING IN ITS OWN BEST INTERESTS BY AIDING IRAN--MUCH LESS BY REFLEXIVELY OPPOSING THE RICHEST, MOST GENEROUS, MOST POWERFUL, MOST TLOERANT, FRIENDLIEST NATION ON THE PLANET. Russia would be much more prosperous and respected if it worked closely with America, but it would rather play the part of the schoolyard pyro.

How's that working out for them? Are there any Americans clamoring to emigrate to Russia? Russia is a joke.

Marisol,
No need for embarrassment or apologies. Such assumption have appeared in print by otherwise reliable sources. Besides, it is always possible that certain elements in the Iranian regime are playing a double game with the Russians. God knows that the Saudis play double-games with their supposed American allies. Such is the nature of realpolitik.

Although I defend Russia's logic in allying with Iran, it doesn't mean I support it. Unfortunately, the US, the EU, NATO, and the various unsavory NGOs funded by George Soros, give Russia little choice. Americans and Europeans should work hard to pressure their governments to end this bizarre opposition to Russia's economic expansion and to cut funding to those Muslim nations which are funding the Chechens.

Western alliances with the Saudis, Turks, Azeris etc against Russia are destructive to us all. As Srdja Trifkovic points out, we need a Northern alliance against Islam more than ever and Russia is key to that potential alliance. Alienating Russia over economics or liberal notions of human rights are not in our interests at the present time. If Russia goes Islamic, all is lost.

Jeff Bargholz/

Hmm! That's one h*ll of a case of raging paranoia you've got there, old boy - because Russia doesn't act the way you think it ought to then it's got to be acting against you; Russia doesn't even know that America has any policies and doesn't even care. America just isn't that important to it. I know it's hard for you to believe but really try to get a grasp on the fact that others can have a different world-view from you - and a world view that doesn't put the USA at the centre of their actions and thoughts everyday: which is not to say the the USA shouldn't be at the centre of people's thoughts everyday, it is simply saying that it isn't. For most people on this planet what the USA thinks or does is simply not that important to their everyday lives or to their countries' struggles with their historical necessities.

What you perceive as being deliberately against you may, in fact, be events and statements that didn't even consider you or what you might think or believe. Russia, by-the-way, makes plenty of decisions without even stopping to think what the USA might think - you're simply not that important to the Russian government, and neither are we. None of us ever have been.

So stop trying to resurrect an old and long dead and buried enemy and get with the plot here. The problem is islam, not Russia and it's islam and its jihad that we are here to debate.

Well, I'm going to bed, so you can have the last word if you want to. Thanks for the conversation. 'Night.

Dominic.

Dominic:

Why don't you just claim "we will bury you" and get it over with? Your commie propaganda is growing more strident, more ridiculous, and more contemptible with each successive comment.

The central point of your tirades is that aiding terrorists and incompetent Russian imperialism are perfectly acceptable because nobody has the right to criticize Russia. Dream on, little sophist.

"The SU built the Iron curtain because it saw Europe as 'other' and threatening. This modern Russia is not, however much you might want it to be, the old SU."

Right. If you believe that happy horse-shit, I have a bridge to Moscow I'm willing to sell you. Like all apologists for communism and Imperial Russia, you lie so outrageously that not even other commies take you seriously. First you claim Russia has a long rich history of common interests and culture with the West, now you claim the Soviet war machine was afraid of "other and threatening" Europe--after it had opportunistically conquered all of Eastern Europe after America beat Nazi Germany. (Hitler's generals rightly concentrated their finest soldiers and armament on the Western Front to fight America and England--who were the real threat. The Russian Winter killed more Germans than the Russians did, and the Russians died in droves. Their air force was used as target practice, and the inexperienced, substandard German troops they faced included children from the Hitler Youth.)

The SU's relations with China were crude and unequivocal. It sought to use Mao to take out the Nationalist Army and then step in to pick up the pieces. The fools in the Kremlin hadn't counted on Mao's evil genius, or his ability to maintain iron control over the Chinese people. A brief analysis of China's falling out with The SU is that Eisenhower brilliantly engineered it. The paranoid suspicions and back-stabbing tendencies of both evil Empires made it a foregone conclusion.

I didn't ask you if the Stans were more peaceful while the SU owned them, I asked you if the SU made them more peaceful. The answer? They are not.

Dominating your neighbors is not an honorable position, and most nations do not attempt to do so--especially not the United States, which is your obvious insinuation. It's dishonorable to believe otherwise. America outperforms its neighbors, it does not attempt to dominate them. If that were the case, America would begin by controlling its border with Mexico, and declaring Canada as the 51st state.

Russia's attempt to arm the Ayatollah of Terror with nuclear weapons on the sly is as contemptible as it gets. So is your mealy mouthed defense of its indefensible actions. I think that what peeves you most is that the only time Russia gets noticed is when it tries to cause mischief in the world. It's lack of influence and authority seem to really hit you at home.

Don't take it personally. The rest of the world are barely aware that Russia exists. If it weren't for its juvenile attempts to get attention through naughty behaviour, they'd be ignored utterly. Most Americans don't know and don't care about a single thing Russia does. You and your weak ideology are even more inconsequential.

And, by-the-way, I know the Soviet Union is dead. What is there today is Russia. Get with the times and remember that it was the Soviet Union that built the Iron Curtain, perverted China, annexed the Stans, and began the quest for warm water ports. Your claim that the Soviet Union is dead AND simply a different version of the same old Russia is contradictory. Talk about doublethink. Kind of like asking me what all your comments about what Russia does or doesn't do have to do with what Russia does or doesn't do, or how a country that produced a Soviet Union that died hasn't changed in six hundred years and won't change in another six hundred.

Yes, Russia is timeless and immutable. Your propaganda defies reality. Russia is a fragile, decaying, backwater that is in its twilight. It's been conquered so many times it doesn't even have a national identity.

So don't fly into a snit over America's superiority. Russia has its own transparent agenda, and America will work THROUGH it, as it did in the Cold War. Russia will plod on to extinction, as it was always doomed to.

P.S.

I see you've posted more nonsense. Its obvious that you're nothing but a cookie cutter leftist buffoon. I must be paranoid and think America is the center of the universe because I don't approve of Russia's vile acts. The billions of other people in the world who also disapprove are likewise paranoid ego maniacs.

When Russia deliberately opposes America against its own self interests--which it does on a regular basis--it does so out of deliberate spite. Next you'll tell me that spite isn't deliberate.

Don't bring up the Soviet union's historical actions with ridiculous lies about what "Russia has always wanted," and then accuse me of resurrecting a dead enemy. Hypocrisy and projection are poor substitutes for virtue and introspection. This post and its comment thread are about Russia aiding Iran in its nefarious nuclear ambitions. Go back and read the story if you're still unclear on that little detail.

You haven't offered anything to this forum except lies, stale propaganda and high farce. It was a complete waste of my time to refute your contradictory, irrational, and often surreal nonsense. Sweet dreams, Little Prince.

Pisseoffcanadian:

The article you quoted didn't even mention President Bush. Care to explain that? While you're at it, you can explain how the President alledgedly supports the Chechnyan terrorists--the same ones the Canadian government has long favored over your beloved Russians.

Don't worry, I understand your bitterness. I'd be pissed off if I lived in Canada too.

Jeff Bargholz so what you are trying to tell me is you have never heard of Kosovo. Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of Kosovo for "humanitarian purposes" The US media claimed muslims were being murdered by christian serbs. Bush is the president of the US. Bear with me I hope I don't lose you. The president is very influential when it comes to american foreign policy. The US is pressuring the Serbian government to let kosovo a part of their country become independant. Rewarding a Jihadist terrorist group the KLA with territory that does not belong to it.
So before you go off and criticize russia for being pro jihadist look at your own government. From pakistan, saudi arabia, turkey, kosovo, chechnya the US governement officially supports these regimes against their enemies. Everyday we hear about human rights abuses in russia but we almost never hear about chechnyan violence. This site is full of too many clowns like you who think the US is alone fighting terrorism. While almost the opposite is true. The US is not alone supporting terrorism but it sure does seem to like the regimes that do.

here is another link for you meat head

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2006/06/011919print.html

yup no link between bush and kosovo terrorists.

Oh look - kidnapped Fox News journalists announce they have converted to Islam

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060827/ts_nm/mideast_gaza_kidnappings_dc

Tell me, which other violent movement on earth does this to people, making them read statements about renouncing their own faith? And Muslims complain about humiliation? What do you call this?

That's it. I'm building a rocket ship in my garage and getting off this insane dirtball.

Goin' to Mars. Europa, maybe.

Somewhere far enough away that no matter how many mohammedans stand on each other's shoulders, they'll never be able to reach.

Anyone else?

I've got some land for sale in Central America. Beautiful beaches, Catholic churches as far as the eye can see. Wireless internet.

Shhh...

Mohammedans read these pages.
Churches make good mosques. And the critters don't even have to get their gun-hands dirty actually doing any work.

I like the rocket idea better.

Though, they'd probably try to shoot themselves out of cannon to get to me.

Cannon they, of course, wouldn't construct themselves.

Standing Silenced.

Jeff Bargholz:
"What good intentions does Russia have in places like Cyprus, the Balkans, and East Timor? America did not harm Russia in any way by opposing Russia's influence in these areas..."

Actually it's very simple: Since the Russians were supporting the christians against the muslims while the US was expanding the muslim world by creating new muslim states and helping muslims conquer non-muslim territory, Russias intentions were good, while the US intentions were evil. And it doesn't matter whether America did harm Russia or not, it matters that it helped the muslims and harmed the non-muslims.

"Get with the times and remember that it was the Soviet Union that built the Iron Curtain, perverted China, annexed the Stans, and began the quest for warm water ports."

Oh boy. Telling Dominic to get with the times while referring to events that happened in the late 40's. At least he has properly identified the enemy, while you are still living in the Cold War 50's.
Btw the Iron Curtain was a term first used by Churchill and it was never actually build, unless you confuse it with the Berlin Wall? (And I certainly wouldn't mind a new Iron Wall between Europe and Islam). And the Stans were not annexed by the SU, they were part of the Russian empire, before the SU was created.

"after it had opportunistically conquered all of Eastern Europe after America beat Nazi Germany. (Hitler's generals rightly concentrated their finest soldiers and armament on the Western Front to fight America and England--who were the real threat."
You are a liar. It was the Red Army that captured Berlin and defeated the nazis. The Soviets conquered Eastern Europe in late 1944/early 1945, so how can they have conquered it AFTER America "defeated" the Nazis. Besides more than 80% of the German losses were on the Eastern front, and the number and quality of the german soldiers that fought in Stalingrad and Kursk was much higher than the ones that fought on D-day, anyone with minimal knowledge about WWII knows that.

"This is 2006. Time to stop crying about Cyprus and the Balkans"
So you are babbling about what the Soviet Union did in the 40's, but it doesn't bother you that recently occupied Christian lands are used as bases for jihad against Europe today?

"East Timor is a Catholic state that was savaged by the muslims of Indonesia, yet one commentator claims America aided the muslims against Timor and Russia(?!)"
Since the US navies had full control of the seas surrounding East Timor, the Indonesians asked the US for permission before invading East Timor, and they got it. And so because they were Catholic, they deserved it???

BTW does anyone know who did support and who did oppose the muslim Indonesian invasion of western New Guinea in 1961?

Don't worry, I understand your bitterness. I'd be pissed off if I lived in Canada too.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz,
well l would rather look at Canada as half full, and not half empthy. the air is cleaner now with our new
"Conservative PM, Harper" and hopefully he can keep his job with a majority government by the next elections. btw there are plenty of pissed of Americans, just look at moveon.org, these chaps are the most pissed off and cant move on since 2000's elections.

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN?

I'd like to hear any and all THEORIES from you folks ...

What do you think would happen if we backed Israel and blew the hell out of the Iranian nuclear sites?

What, in your opinion, would happen (regarding China, Russia, EU, UN) and in what order?

Goobs:

Answer: one hell of an oil embargo, and increased terrorism.

Of course, allowing NK and Pakistan to keep their nukes would make disarming Iran pointless.

George_rem:

I tend to think as you do in your above response to Goobs. Which is why I say to everyone still out there on this thread that its time for the West to end this constant, frustratingly inconclusive war of attrition that's being going on between itself and the Umma for most of the past 1400 years by bringing Russia and the rest of the world onside to take the fight to the Islamic world in a massive, sustained and definitive campaign that brings an end to the matter within the current historic era and before it gets to the point of an escalating war of nuclear strike and counterstrike that leaves waste the whole world. It will only end, and the fanaticism of the Umma be once and for all defeated if it suffers a massive, demoralizing, existential defeat of this kind, so that it can be forceably rendered into something benign to the rest of the world, and willing to take its place alongside it, or failing that, abolished altogether, and removed from the pages of all subsequent history.

The alternative is that it will continue to agitate, by means at times passive, at times agressive, to gain control over the whole world until it either succeeds in bullying and blackmailing the world into submission, or rendering it an uninhabitable nuclear wasteland.

Pissedoffcanadian:

You're rehashing things that have already been discussed on this thread. I've already addressed and refuted every trite point you made. Read first, think second, type last.

Turn up the heat in your igloo, I think you have a brain-freeze. Next you'll be extolling the virtues of the Soviet Union/Russia, like your demented pal Dominic.

P.S.

I see you've posted more nonsense. Its obvious that yoyr'e nothing but a cookie cutter leftist buffoon. I must be paranoid and think America is the center of the universe becauuse I don't approve of Russia's vile acts. The billions of other people in the world who also disapprove are likewise paranoid ego maniacs.

When russia deliberately opposes America against its own self interests--which it does on a regular basis--it does so out of deliberate spite. Next you'll tell me that spite isn't deliberate.

Don't bring up the Soviet union's historical actions with ridiculous lies about what "Russia has always wanted," and then accuse me of ressurrecting a dead enemy. Hypocricy and projection are poor substitutes for virtue and introspection. This post and its comment thread are about Russia aiding Iran in its nefarious nuclear ambitions. Go back and read the story if your'e still unclear on that little detail.

You haven't offered anything to this forum except lies, stale propaganda and high farce. It was a complete waste of my time to refute your contradictory, irrational, and often surreal nonsense. Sweet dreams, Little Prince.

For the record, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Communist; I do not now, nor have I ever done, approve, in any way shape or form, of Communism. Wishing that I were one, or that I did, won’t make it true.

“The central point of your tirades is that aiding terrorists and incompetent Russian imperialism are perfectly acceptable because nobody has the right to criticize Russia”.

No, that is not only not the central point of my disagreement with you, it is also not what I wrote - as you would have realised had you actually read that which I wrote instead of what you thought I wrote. My point of disagreement with you is that you believe, unless I misinterpreted you in the beginning, that Russia undertakes actions to deliberately spite and hinder the USA. I happen not to believe that. I happen to believe that Russian actions are the result of selfishness, rooted in its history, coupled with a lack of knowledge about the world beyond Russia, a couldn’t-care-less attitude about that world’s thoughts and needs together with a stupidity and a cupidity that I find staggering in what is supposed to be a mature country.

At no point did I ever mention that Russia’s actions were good or that I supported such actions. From my point of view Russia’s actions, or lack of them in some circumstances, are not good and I do not support them. I do not imply that Russia's actions are acceptable nor do I imply that one should not criticise Russia. I merely question your attribution of the motives involved. Once more, please read what I actually wrote not what you think I wrote or meant, and, please, do not project your beliefs onto me.

“Like all apologists for communism and Imperial Russia, you lie so outrageously that not even other commies take you seriously”.

I hold no brief for Communism or for Imperial Russia nor am I an apologist for either of them and since I never mentioned, no, not once, any fact, I am therefore not guilty of lying about anything. I merely ventured an opinion, different from yours, on why Russia acts, or doesn’t as the case may be, in the way that it does. In a mature debate surely I am allowed to hold a different opinion about motives and causes? This is just a McCarthyite tactic to smear me with something you know full well I don’t believe in. Well, I’m having none of that – read the first sentences of this post.

“First you claim Russia has a long rich history of common interests and culture with the West...”

No I didn’t. Not once. You just think I did.

“...you claim the Soviet war machine was afraid of "other and threatening" Europe--after it had opportunistically conquered all of Eastern Europe after America beat Nazi Germany”.

I never claimed that the SU were ‘afraid’ because we were ‘other and threatening’ though that was probably the case because the USA and the UK kept, quite rightly, large armies on the European mainland for many years. I don’t know about you but the very carefully constructed NATO organisation and its preparedness to defend itself must certainly have put the willies up the SU high command. As to whether or not the SU conquered Easter Europe or whether we were just too exhausted by six years of total war on several fronts to offer any resistance at the time I don’t know.

I hadn’t heard your take on the Sino-Soviet split before, but you could well be right.

“I didn't ask you if the Stans were more peaceful while the SU owned them, I asked you if the SU made them more peaceful. The answer? They are not”.

Correct. And neither is Iran or Iraq any quieter today for the many years of British rule in the region – that’s the nature of islam and the threat that we are facing. I was agreeing with you. I was merely pointing out the origin of the latest round of unrest down there. Read what I wrote not what you think I wrote.

“Dominating your neighbors is not an honorable position, and most nations do not attempt to do so--especially not the United States, which is your obvious insinuation. It's dishonorable to believe otherwise. America outperforms its neighbors, it does not attempt to dominate them. If that were the case, America would begin by controlling its border with Mexico, and declaring Canada as the 51st state”.

OK. So you and I have a philosophical disagreement over the way we see our countries behaviour. It that such a big deal? I still think that you are being a little naive if you think that we are not all jockeying for position. But, if you want to believe otherwise that’s fine by me and your belief in the honourable motives does you great credit. I think that I am more cynical than you, however.

"Russia's attempt to arm the Ayatollah of Terror with nuclear weapons on the sly is as contemptible as it gets. So is your mealy mouthed defense of its indefensible actions. I think that what peeves you most is that the only time Russia gets noticed is when it tries to cause mischief in the world. It's lack of influence and authority seem to really hit you at home".

At no time did I defend Russia’s actions - nor would I. I was merely talking about, and questioning whether, your attribution of deliberate malice against the USA as the prime motive for such actions was the real reason for them. As I said above, I don’t think so. I couldn’t care less whether Russia gets noticed or not, nor could I give two tuppeny damns as to whether it has any influence or authority or not. I hold no brief for Russia, so please do not attempt to assign one to me. Read what I wrote not what you thought I wrote.

“Your propaganda defies reality. Russia is a fragile, decaying, backwater that is in its twilight. It's been conquered so many times it doesn't even have a national identity”.

“So don't fly into a snit over America's superiority. Russia has its own transparent agenda, and America will work THROUGH it, as it did in the Cold War. Russia will plod on to extinction, as it was always doomed to”.

I offered no propaganda for I hold no brief for Russia as I have repeatedly said (above). The ‘fragile, decaying backwater’ that you speak of currently supplies most of Europe’s natural gas and is bidding fair to become one of the world’s major energy suppliers using a technologically advanced system of exploration and exploitation of this precious natural reserve. Starting from the wreckage of the old SU economy it is building a modern infrastructure and trying desperately to give its people some quality of life. It is still launching rockets into space and every year launches a significant number of satellites for many firms and governments – even some American firms - and it is still actively involved in the International Space Station. Yes, there are many problems, but what do you expect from a country struggling to emerge from under seventy years of Communism. Russia is viewed by most economists (including American), from the right as well as the left, as being an economy to watch and invest in if you care to take the risk. My reading of events does not lead me to conclude that Russia will become extinct.

Yes, Russia has its own transparent agenda. I don’t disagree with you. As I said above, I just don’t think that it is based on spite. I did not, and never will, ‘fly into a snit’ as you put over America’s perception of its own superiority. All nations are entitled to believe that they are superior to all others – at least the USA has good reasons for believing that.

“Hypocrisy and projection are poor substitutes for virtue and introspection”.

Exactly. So why did you practise projection on me, then? Why do you accuse me of hypocrisy when all I am doing is talking philosophically about motives, not facts, and thereby wondering whether your attribution of motives is correct?

“This post and its comment thread are about Russia aiding Iran in its nefarious nuclear ambitions. Go back and read the story if you're still unclear on that little detail”.

Yes, Russia is aiding Iran in its nefarious nuclear ambitions. That is to be deplored and, if possible, reversed. I was never unclear on that little detail. I am, as I said above, only unclear on why you should think that this is deliberately aimed at the USA when, in my opinion (and it is only an opinion, nothing more) it seems much more likely to me that this is just more Russian expansionism, Russian stupidity, Russian cupidity and Russian misjudgement of, and ignorance about, the rest of the world.

I hope that this clears up what I was trying to say, to get at. If not, then I am sorry. Really, you know, our entire exchange is just a kerfuffle over nothing. Neither of us will ever know for certain what drives Russia’s actions unless we can get our hands on Russian government papers - unlikely, I am sure you’ll agree. In the meantime I stick by my selfishness-and-stupidity motive so please feel free to stick with your deliberate-spite-and-malice-against-the-USA motive.

A propos of nothing I would just like to say to you that I am not anti-USA, and never could be. My grandmother is WASP American from Boston and I have enjoyed many, many happy trips to the States during which the old lady made certain that I grew up with a proper appreciation of the USA.

Once more, I will wish you a polite goodnight, as I did last night, and thank-you for an interesting series of posts even though I regret that you saw necessary to employ an over-excited and bombastic style and couple that with personal insults. Never-the-less, I have enjoyed our exchanges. I will not be posting on this thread again so do feel free to have the last word if you wish.

Thank-you. Goodnight and God bless.

Dominic.

Zena:

Things are looking up since Harper was elected. There are even more demented "pisseoffcanadians" than there are "pissedoffamericans," but it's not for lack of trying.

Luckily for us, we breed faster than they do.

Dominic:

Bottom line: Russia aids Iran's nuclear weapons program, and you bash America. You're some piece of work. All the sophistry in the world cant hide the fact that you're wrong, and the shit you're shoveling is too crude to qualify as sophistry.

Russia has always been a force for evil, but it's been reduced to a feeble, forgotten, failed state that can only work evil through futile, second-hand mischief.

Russia is a joke.

I do not bash America. I never have and I never will. Read my last post and you will understand why I have only the highest regard for the USA. Calumnies and deliberate distortions such as that are not the stuff of reasoned debate and your crude and primitive attempts to make me your whipping boy for some agenda I know not wot of, is, in my opinion, pathetic, especially since I quite deliberately proffered you the olive branch of peace in my last post.

You may believe that Russia is a joke, you're entitled to, but you are not entitled to tell the world at large that I am a hater of the USA when exactly the reverse is true. Once again, you have failed to read what I wrote and read, instead, that which you think I wrote. I am not wrong and neither are you - we simply differ in our viewpoints about Russian motives. If you had any mature adult grace in you, you would know that we are allowed to differ on the more esoteric points, but obviously you haven't in same way that obviously have no idea at all about how to conduct a civilised debate.

I am tired of this profitless argument with you and tired of your immature and childish tantrum-like responses and your deliberate and wilful misinterpretation of what anybody else writes. You seem to get great pleasure out of being rude and asserting your own point of view as the only and immutable truth. Did God resign and appoint you the ultimate arbiter? I have tried to be polite to you but it is obviously to no avail so I am ending this here.

In your unbelievable arrogance I am sure that you will tell many more lies about me - but I am beyond caring for your last post revealed, quite simply, that you do not read closely and carefully anything that anyone says. I have noted, with dismay, the way that you have been unbelievably rude to other posters on this thread, also. Tell me, how old are you? Fourteen? Fifteen? Sixteen? Because somewhere around there is how you come across.

Good-bye.

Dominic.

Me a leftist nice try jeff ballgag. I supported Bush in the beginning I am just disapointed that he is no different than the clowns before him.I think I am a lot braver than you. I have stuck up for america more than anyone I know here in canada. You may think you are brave waving your flag in a country where 90% of the people think like you. Try coming up here and try to be outspoken. I don't hate americans. Well I hate you. Its american foreign policy that I hate. AS for you saying russia is a joke look at your own country before you point fingers. No country this past century including saudi arabia has done more to promote jihadists than the US. Until the US learns to stop fighting the cold war Russia has no choice but to do what is right for her.

Dominic:

I feel bad about being so contemptuous of your comments yesterday. Sorry about that. I used to have a British friend named Dominic when we worked in Indonesia, and he was a good guy. (I assume you're British.) I'll try to address your last comment point by point.

1. Usually only Marxists and Slavs dismiss Russia's crimes the way you do. Slavs don't describe Russians as being thick as planks, so that only leaves Marxism. If you have a different reason for doing so, I'd like to hear it

2. The central thrust of your comments most certainly IS that nobody has the right to criticize Russia for behaving despicably, irrationally, and self destructively. I suggest you go back and read your OWN comments. If you don't believe that Russia implements self-destructive policies just to spite America, you're greatly mistaken. Personally, I think you're being dishonest. You justified Russia's stupid, self destructive and nefarious actions over and over, for all to see.

3. Only leftist smear-meisters use the McCarthyite slander. There is nothing mature about using rank ad hominems in place of facts (something you do in every comment,) and you presented your propaganda as facts--not opinion. Your lies that Russia does whatever it pleases without concern for the rest of the world were just that--lies. Quoting the lines from the House Unamerican Activities Investigation doesn't make you a capitalist. Usually only a Marxist would even bother looking it up on some "rules for radicals" leftist website. Commie, Trotskyite, socialist, blah, blah, blah. Give me a concise statement of your political/ideological beliefs. If they don't conform to Marxism, I'll never bring it up again.

4. This is pettifoggery. It was a different commenter who claimed Russia had a long, shared, cultural history with the West. Because so many of you leftists sound the same, I sometimes lose track of who I'm talking to.

5. NATO was a reaction to Soviet aggression--not the other way around. According to you, Russia had conquered Eastern Europe by 1944, remember? You cant have it both ways. Drop the nit-picking over words like "afraid."

6. Comparing Great Britain's direct, hands-on rule in other areas to Russia's hegemony over the Stans is specious. I asked you if Russia improved the Stans, and the glaring answer is NO. I understand what you wrote just fine, and you cant retroactively edit it.

7. America is not attempting to dominate or conquer its neighbors, nor any other country. Provide evidence to the contrary. Which nations are sending America tax dollars? Which are sending tribute of any kind? Do you consider the trillions of dollars America piddles away on the worthless ingrate of the world "domination?" Again: if America wanted to dominate its neighbors, it would control the open door border with Mexico, and declare Canada the 51st state. America simply outperforms every other country--to the Nth degree. That causes envy in some quarters, I know, but I couldn't care less. England has plenty of its own accomplishments to be proud of--there's no reason to resent ours--especially after we saved your asses in WWII.

8. You consistently tried to absolve Russia of any criticism. You claimed its actions aren't perfidious or contemptible--do you honestly believe that?

9. Russia is indeed a fragile, decaying backwater. Its living standard is in the toilet, its government is feeble, corrupt and incompetent, its infrastructure, manufacturing base, and goods are decaying, and it isn't able to compete with any reasonably developed country. Any country, say, like Chile, which is hardly a paragon of progress.

The vast majority of energy providing countries are basket cases. That's hardly a sign of success.

Its space technology is a sub-standard joke, and only American companies that want satellites launched on the cheap bother with it. The International Space station is a money sucking boondoggle, and I never supported it. The fact that America had to bear the brunt of the project's burden--as usual--is just one more reason I don't want my tax dollars wasted on it. I'm sure you know that Americans work much longer hours than Europeans, and that we're more productive on an hour to hour basis. I don't mention this as a boast, I'm just providing context. I don't appreciate having my labor pay for something I disapprove of. If America wants a space station, it should build one itself.

Economists are virtually ALWAYS wrong. Investing in the markets of crappy countries is a sure way to lose your shirt. The developed nations are bad enough.

Russia is already extinct. That "country" has changed hands so many times, I cant even keep track. It may keep the name "Russia" like Egypt, Greece, and China have kept theirs, but the country will change again. It died a long time ago.
I never claimed Russia's agenda was based on spite. I just noted that many of its policies and actions are irrefutably based on anti-American spite. When a country acts against its own best wishes to stick it to America, it's being spiteful. What kind of moronic government decides to be an enemy of the richest, most generous, most powerful country on the planet, and side with doomed losers like Iran? That's completely irrational. G. Britain's population has plenty of misplaced anti-American sentiment, but its government knows the value of allying itself with America. The British population could nix that support if they wanted too, but obviously they don't. You lot don't support America just because you had a hand in creating it--you support it because you share a common culture, common interests, and it's the right thing to do. What rational government would set itself at odds with America or Britain? Russia, for a start.

10. That bit about American superiority was just a dig, although it applies in spades to the evil Russian Empire. Like I wrote, Britain has plenty to be proud of, and paved the way to America's greatness.

11. Forget what I wrote about hypocrisy and projection. You brought up policies that were initiated by the Soviet Union, and then criticised me for mentioning the Soviet Union in my rebuttal(?) I was pissed off. Claiming that I projected on YOU is clearly untrue.

12. You criticised me for discussing the Soviet union on a thread concerning Russia and Iran by reminding me that this blog is dedicated to exposing islam and jihad. My point was valid.

I agree about the kerfuffle, but we already have access to a mountain of Soviet documents--most notably the Venona papers.

I regret the insults too, although they were hardly one way--and you initiated them. Giving me the "last word" is a passive aggressive insult.

You should reply to this comment. Cheers.

Dominic:

I wrote that last comment before I read YOUR last comment. Don't know if I still feel so kindly disposed.

Pissedoffcanadian:

If you don't want me to call you a leftist, don't rant like an unhinged moonbat.

I've been to Canada, and the first time I was there, I kicked the dog-shit out of some ethnic Indian (probably a Pakistani,) that thought it was cool to insult Americans in a restaurant. It was a thai restaurant, and the woman I was with looked like a Thai (she was Indonesian,) so the employees cheered me on, and tossed him out when it was over. I've never had any problem with expressing my views in Canada--leftists are pussies regardless of nationality.

I also lived in Indonesia for Three years--which is predominantly muslim--and I never once held my tongue. I'm still here, and still talking.

Only a moron would deny that America is superior to Russia in every way, shape and form.

How many terrorist groups are still allowed to operate legally in Canada? A HELL OF A LOT MORE THAN IN AMERICA--SO SPARE ME YOUR HYPOCRISY. Canada is a terrorist staging ground for assaults on America. What have you done about this? Ask them politely to translate "jihad," and "death to America" into French, or Buy some Canadian Bacon on their way out? Name one muslim country that America "supports" and Canada doesn't.

That's what I thought, iceman.

Explain how isolating itself from the developed nations of the world has been right for Russia. Russia has been doing that since the Soviet Union collapsed, and its miserable standard of human life is the result.

You Canobodies need to lighten up.

Jeff Bigmouth:

Only in America could the people in a flight training school fail to figure out (or simply be just too self-absorbed in their own meaningless, narcissistic lives to give a shit) that there's something wrong when Arab, foreign born students disregard classes on take off and landing of the aircraft, and consequently fail to help investigators detect a plot to slam airliners into skyscrapers. For that matter your government has hired a Yemeni security agency of all things to supervise port security. Please don't lecture us on being a staging ground for terrorism. Between your politicians and the braindead zombies in your general population America has the best terrorist collaborators money can buy.

-templar,

Just because you don't like what Jeff Bargholz says, it would be a mistake for you to respond with America bashing.

There are Americans here who may agree or disagree with either you or him, but if you want to start shitting on my country rather than arguing with him directly, I will skin you alive and burn your village to the ground.

You can bank on it.

"Only a moron would deny that America is superior to Russia in every way, shape and form."

I would not agree with this 100% Jeff but yeah I would rather live in the US than Russia. Hell I am still thinking of moving. But you miss the point. Russia is a very powerful country but its a wounded country fighting for survival. It is the states and only thes states that can lead the world in a fight against Islam and that is why the States gets it more than other countries when it drops the ball. It is doing more then dropping the ball its frigging helping the jihadists. So if Russia needs to build an alliance with Iran then I don't blame them they are just trying to survive.
And stop fighting the cold war you keep bringing up NATO was formed to stop russian agression. Wrong it was formed to fight the soviet union which is gone. Not only has it outlived its purpose it expanded. In only one direction, against Russia. Only a fool can see that the US is trying to Isolate this country. Dont underestimate these people. The russians fought and pretty much single handedly defeated hitler. And that was when they had the most useless ideology ever imagined holding them back, communism. The US realizes you cant' take russia on in a head on battle so they are taking it apart by funding small guerrilla conflicts and by isolating them.
Russia has some of the worlds largest cash reserves, no debt(just paid off), and it has the largest reserves of gas and second or third in oil. They can use energy as a weapon against the hostile west or guess what they can be partners and help save us from the mid east. So why agitate them.

Eisenhund:

If my comment appeared offensive, I regret that but I point out that there's a lot of wounded pride and provocation behind this. Jeff Bargholz made insulting comments that went beyond criticizing Canadian policies, which it is legitimate to do (and I would agree with many of those criticisms), to the level of gratuitious insults against us, with his comments like "Canobodies". This is wrong regardless of who does it, or which side of an argument they're on, and I think some of your indignation could be directed against him for causing a disturbance with the neighbours. It was not my intention to "bash America", but simply to point out that at present there are shortcomings in the security measures of both countries, some of which include various idiosyncratic behaviours and attitudes that could be criticized. If I appeared to put the spotlight only the USA for this, this is regretable, and it was a function of my own rage at the implication of being some sort of primitive "igloodwellers" and too many other such insults. My reference, for example, to "braindead zombiism" (or whatever I said) was an allusion to a certain disengagement with the larger world and excessive retreat into private life that it seems to me is not uncommon in the U.S. We have some of this as well here, but less of it I think. The great evil here is an uptight political correctness tinged with an unjustified sense of moral superiority. Both of these attitudes lead to cracks in national security. There's need for improvement on both sides of the border and I think both countries have to work harder on this. Its unfortunate that in responding to Jeff Bargholz's statements about security issues here, I felt the need to vent a lot of anger of my own about his insulting statements. These things need to be criticized but crude caricatures are wrong and unhelpful. It was Jeff, however, who first engaged in this making insulting comments that went beyond criticizing this country's policies to the level of gratuitious and degrading insults. If you haven't yet read his comments please do so and you may understand better why I reacted as I did. What you say about arguing with the individual and leaving the larger group out of it also applies in that case. To put it bluntly, Eisenhund, even though Jeff's comments were not aimed at me personally, when I read them I felt quite "shit on" myself, both for myself and my country.

There's been a lot of bad behaviour from various parties in this thread, including it would seem, some of my own. For my part, I apologize, and will try to keep my cool better in future. Let's please all put this behind us and remember that the enemy is the Islamist menace, not one another. To my American friends I assure you of my personal good will and my admiration for your country's many great achievements. I think I've made it clear in my other posts on this thread and elsewhere that I think well of America and have great hope and confidence in her ability to lead the world in the direction that it needs to go. At the very least, I would agree with pissedoffcanadian in that if I had to live elsewhere, the U.S. is a better place to be go than any other place I can think of, and that definitely includes Russia, which would be one of my last choices. Just the same, I think that we do need to rely on Russia's good sense at recognizing its own best interests, and work on that to get them on side with us. I believe the world needs your leadership in this, and that if you take that leading role the good guys will win.

God bless the U.S.A.

One final thought, Eisenhund:

Anger is good in times like these.

You said: "I will skin you alive and burn your village to the ground.

You can bank on it."

If that kind of rage is directed against the Islamist nations by the entire world, led by the U.S., they will they will perish like the merest grass in the scorching heat of the sun.

Keep the faith!

Templar:

Could you try to be less hypocritical? Don't criticize me for insulting Canadians if you're going to insult Americans. I was polite to you in our debate. Now you come accross as a stereotypical Canadian: insecure about his national identity, envious of America, and seething with rank anti-Americanism just under the surface. You flew into a snit when you read that "Canobodies" remark, and it wasn't even directed at you. (I'm aware of the fragile Canadian ego. That's why I thought-up the "Canobodies" insult to stick it to Pissedoffcanadian.)

You don't see Pissedoffcanadian crying about the insults, and I was brutal to him. He actually became friendlier after I insulted him. I went after him because he characterized Bush and America as supporters of Chechnyan terror. I respect him, because he didn't try to start war between America and Canada. Some of his insults were funny, and I'm sure he appreciated some of mine.

Your "Jeff Bigmouth" comment was short on facts.

The flight schools you mentioned DID report the suspicious students to the FBI. There were FBI agents who wanted to follow up on it, but the FBI leadership wouldn't allow it. Louis Freeh was the deeply evil, outrageously incompetent Director responsible. He's the Clinton appointed stooge (a lawyer, natch,) who personally oversaw the murder of innocent Americans at Ruby Ridge and Waco. During his tenure as director, he tried to frame an innocent man for the 1996 Olympics bombing, bungled the Wen Ho lee treason investigation, bungled the Oklahoma City bombing investigation, and bungled the Robert Hanssen investigation. Hanssen was spying for those Russians you think we should trust. Freeh was forced to "resign" after 911. He should have been executed for his part in Ruby Ridge and Waco, but the Clinton's protect their own. After 911 he should have been lynched.

The Yemeni security company you mentioned did not get the port contract.

America has way too many politicians who are leftist, terror appeasing scumbags, but Canada has us beat hands down in that department. Hanson is the first human being to become Prime Minister since I don't know when. I'll take George Bush over Jean Cretin any day.

Quite frankly, Canada already is the politically correct nightmare that America is becoming. You describe Americans as self-absorbed, brain dead zombies who lead meaningless, narccissistic lives. How would you describe the Canadians responsible for the P.C. oppression you're forced to live under? Are they intellectual giants? They represent the majority in your country, but they're in the minority here.

I could go on about how Middle Eastern men are able to BUY explosives in Canada, or how terrorist groups aren't classified as such by your government, but what's the point? When it comes to assigning blame for both of our countries' lousy record at opposing jihad, there's plenty to go around.

I think the election of Hanson was a step in the right direction, but Canada does not do more to combat jihad than America does. It just doesn't. I'm not any happier about that than you are.

I don't hate Canada, but it's obvious that a lot of Canadians have a problem with America, including you. Try not to take things so personally, especially when they weren't directed at you.

Both of us hate muslims, and the cowardly war of conquest they're waging. Both of us want to see a better world. National pride shouldn't get in the way of our mutual values.

I'll try not to insult Canada anymore.

Pissedoffcanadian:

I agree that America needs to do more to fight the jihadis (muslims.) All of us do. There isn't a country out there that doesn't aid the islamopaths in some way, including Canada. For God's sake, even Israel aids them!

I also agree that Russia is trying to survive, but alliances with Iran won't help it do that. It should ally itself with the civilized world, but it just cant drop its anti-American stance. Russia is America's enemy, but it doesn't have to be.

Does America distrust Russia, and work to limit is capabilities? You bet. Until that country changes its outlook, it will continue to use its capabilities irresponsibly and destructively.

I know it seems like I'm fighting the Cold War, but I'm not. Dominic kept bringing up Russian policies that were instituted by the Soviet Union. Its hard to talk about Russia's history without bringing up the Soviet Union and the Cold War.

I know NATO was formed to oppose the Soviet Union. If I wrote "Russian aggression" I was referring to Soviet Russians.

You're wrong about the Soviet contribution to WWII. America and England won the War. If America and England hadn't entered the war, Germany would have rolled over the Soviets at their leisure. The Japanese have a long history of whipping Russians, and would have seized all of Siberia.

What small guerrilla conflicts are you referring to? As far as I know, only the Chechnyans are fighting Russia (with terrorism,) and we sure as hell don't fund them.

Russia is weak. Its oil consumption outstrips its production, so it has to rely on imports. I agree that America and Russia should have closer relations, but they're the ones agitating us. When you say we shouldn't agitate them, you sound like the leftists who claim we shouldn't agitate the jihadis. Think about that.

Jeff: I you’re still watching this thread there’s another matter I’d like to have you respond to if you’d be so kind.

First of all though I’d like to apologize for the outburst in my final posting last night. As I explained to Eisenhund, this was prompted by comments you made to another reader in which you made what seemed to me to be several gratuitous and unjustified insults against my nationality. Although these comments were not directed toward me personally I was deeply aggrieved when I read them and felt an enormous compulsion to respond. Nontheless, with the benefit of hindsight I would say that my response was a clear case of overkill that might appear to condemn the whole country rather than take issue with you as an individual, although having read your comments several times, I have to say that your comments seem to come close, at least, to doing the same thing to us.

Regardless, both in the interest of our common cause, and for the sake of friendship that marks the history of the relations between our countries, something that I’m sure we both ought to value, I will overlook this slight henceforth, and I hope you will do the same. I know that matters of patriotism and loyalty to one’s homeland and countrymen are keenly felt and very sensitive for everyone, and that when they are discussed in connection with the type of heated debates over questions of truth and principle that often occur in a forum like this, they can easily be offended against, deliberately or not, and sometimes therefore bring the dark side out in all of us. For that reason, I want to assure you and all the other American readers in this forum that I do love and respect the United States and her people as a nation justly regarded as a nation of great achievement for the betterment of the world, a source of enlightenment, and a great benefactor of humanity, and as a people noted for tremendous generosity and a benevolent spirit, despite whatever disagreements I may have at times with its government, and I hope that you will try to regard us in a similar way, whatever our faults, in a spirit of mutual respect and friendship. In the past I’ve had several American friends, and I always found them to be extremely decent, honourable, patient and magnanimous, the kind of people to whom I would entrust my life, and these are qualities that I would say are evident in many ways in the character of your entire nation. So I’d be grateful if you and all the other American readers in this forum would be kind enough to overlook my intemperate words and set aside any lingering hurt feelings over this incident.

Now for the other matter. In one of your posts you said that Russia had been conquered several times and (in another one I think) suggested that this had caused it to suffer a loss of its identity. As far as I know, however, no such facts appear in the historical record. There was a long period when it was required, as a vassal state, to pay tribute to the Mongol Empire, but this is quite a different thing than outright conquest. Ever since the foundation of the Muscovite principality in the 14th century (sometime thereabouts anyway) it has held its own even though various powers have attempted to conquer it. Nonetheless, you seem to know quite a bit about history so perhaps you are aware of something I’ve overlooked or forgotten. Could you please clarify? Thanks.

Jeff:

Thanks for your reply. First of all, sorry also for the "Jeff Bigmouth" insult. Just to set the record straight it wasn't just the remarks you made to pissedoffcanadian that irritated me, but also the things you had said to Dominic earlier (although to your credit you did apologize for this and I should have overlooked it). Much of this aggressiveness of yours I recognize as a type of bravado that many Americans, including at least one of the friends I mentioned approvingly above, have acquired from within the current American culture. I assume that this is just a cultural characteristic that's generally harmless, and attribute it, in part at least, to a survival mechanism, not unlike the famous British "stiff upper lip" of yesteryear necesary to help carry the awesome weight of leadership in the world which has been thrust on America since World War II (though there are other explanations for it as well I suppose). I don't really take offence at this most of the time, but it got to me last night because you seemed to be on such a lengthy rampage with it, demolishing everything in your path, whether it deserved it or not - like Dominic. One thing to consider is that it does at times make Americans' more sterling qualities, like those I mentioned above, more difficult to recognize. Anyway, no harm done. Sorry for my typically Canadian oversensitivity.

You make some interesting comments about Canada, Russia, etc. I'm not going to get into many of these right now, however because to be honest, I've been spending way too much time on this forum the last several days, and I need a break right now. I may have other questions or comments but I'll post them later. However, there are always new threads each day and we may all want to move on so don't worry about answering any of these if its inconvenient.

A couple of things before I sign off. The new prime minister here is Harper, not Hansen - Stephen Harper.

You tend to read us as hating Americans. This is not true - not for most of us at any rate, though sometimes the behaviour or attitudes of some do border on this (largely out of exasperation though), and sometimes cross the line entirely but I'm certain this is a small minority position. Many of us do at times take issue with policies coming out of Washington, but most of this is in a spirit of friendship, a desire of the smaller partner, to warn against policies that we think you might regret later. I don't know what your position was on the invasion of Iraq was, but most Canadian opposition to this was NOT anti-American in the sense you might assume, but out of concerns about of a variety of things like the possibility, as it was foreseen at that time, that it might blow up in your face and result in an explosion of Islamist power - the very thing we've seen. I mention this as just one example of reasons why so many Canadians, as well as others around the world, opposed that war, including many Americans. I'm not arguing here that this was the right position to take on that war, necesarily, only that you needn't assume that all opposition to American policies is "anti-American" or "hateful" to America. Look at it this way: if a guy is about to get into a barfight in which there's a serious chance of him seriously harming someone else or being harmed himself over what might be a mistake or misunderstanding, is his friend wrong to try to persuade him against it, or to scold him for it after the fact? I think these kind of positions, if we hold them, are intended in a way that remains on the whole sympathetic to America and its aims in the world.

Anyway, moving on, you say: "Quite frankly, Canada already is the politically correct nightmare that America is becoming"

Yes, I referred to that in my message to Eisenhund, its one of the character flaws that's damaging this country and impeding our action against the Islamist threat, and, as you suggest, the leaders of that opinion are anything but an intellectual elite.

"You describe Americans as self-absorbed, brain dead zombies who lead meaningless, narccissistic lives"

Part of the unfortunate venting I acknowledged in the earlier post to Eisenhund, but like I said there, what I really meant to say (though the meaning was obscured by my inflammatory language) was simply that I do think there's a habit in American culture, something we have as well, but to a lesser degree I'd say, to withdraw too far into private pursuits and to distance one's actions and behaviour too much from any consideration of the public life and the common good.

Anyway, I think we understand one another better now. I'm going to call it a night now. Thanks again for the interesting discussion. Take care.

P.S. Jeff, I forgot to mention it in my last post, but I just can't let this one pass. You said:

"I went after him because he characterized Bush and America as supporters of Chechnyan terror. I respect him, because he didn't try to start war between America and Canada"

But I can assure you that the last thing I'd ever try to do is start a war between America and Canada, and, as everything I've said in my last two posts attests, not just because we'd be obliterated if I did!

Templar:

I feel the same way about Canada that you feel about America. Canada's lurch to the left, and America's leanings in that direction are a cause for great concern. The Canada I like to remember is the one depicted in that Powell and Pressburger movie, "The Forty Ninth Parallel." That's the Canada that sheltered Americans in its consulate when the Ayatollah's vermin seized ours.

I figure it's only a matter of time before common sense and patriotism kills the socialist disease in both our countries, but because the Marxists control our educational systems, it wont be easy.

I was employing bombast when I said Russia had been conquered so many times that it didn't have a national identity anymore. A vassal state is a conquered state, whether it lost a war or surrendered outright. The Bolsheviks conquered the Russia. Not all conquests come from without. Lenin and his fellow murderers were no revolutionaries or freedom fighters seeking independence. It was not a civil war either. His movement conquered Russia, although the semantics of this can be argued.

Prior to the establishment of what could be called a modern nation state, the Muscovites/Slavs were overrun by every group to come along. "Slav" is the origin of the word "slave," because the Slavs were taken away in bondage so often.

Nowadays, Russians are torn between their communist past and their new republic. Some of them pine for Czarist Russia. That's why I don't think they have any national identity.

The same thing is happening in our countries because of the P.C. left and its hateful identity politics. Everybody (except White, Christian Males,) is encouraged to show allegiance to his "group"--no matter how ill defined--over his country.

Templar:

Dominic pissed me off with his belittlement of my opinion and my country, and I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who excuses Russia's past crimes and criticizes America. That's a common ploy of Marxists. I've lived and worked with Brits in the past, so I assumed his remarks were the British penchant for mischaracterizing Americans as loud, arrogant, boors who think the world revolves around the stars and stripes.

I'm not much for bravado, I'm just a little aggressive. If you think I'm bad, you should meet my brother. I've never seen someone get into more fistfights than him.

I don't think most Canadians hate Americans, but I do think most of them have convinced themselves that they're more ethical than we are, and that they care about other people more than we do. The mainstream American opposition to many government social programs makes us look callous sometimes. That opposition is based on the knowledge that most of them not only don't work, but are destructive. Policies like Affirmative Action and high taxes end up hurting the people they're intended to help.

I disagree with you about the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The terrorists are more fragmented and desperate than ever before, and they're being killed in droves. An estimated 93 terrorists and "insurgents" a day are being killed in Iraq. The terrorists there have failed to accomplish a single one of their goals, while the Coalition has accomplished virtually all of theirs. There hasn't been another 911 in America since Bush went on the offensive.

I have to go to bed too. I don't usually stay up this late. Cheers.

Hi Jeff:

One further note about Dominic, and a couple of other things. Not to take Dominic's side in this, but just to let you know about some matters you may not be aware of (or perhaps you are, in which case, please escuse me for wasting your time with this). I doubt very much that Dominic is a Marxist. In another thread I read him engaging in a vigourous defence of a strict interpretation of traditional Catholic doctrine regarding the question of salvation for non-Catholics, the notion that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. This is something that, strictly speaking, the Church really does not uphold any longer in any practical sense; although it does pay a kind of lipservice to it, it has hedged it about with all sorts of qualifications and restrictions. Really, the papal document that serves as the basis for this position, the Bull "Unan Sanctan", was written within the context of a 14th century dispute between Pope Boniface VIII and King Philip IV of France over the king's unlawful use of certain revenues seized from the Church, in which the real intention was to remind the king of his duties as a Catholic monarch. Its effect was short-lived because within a few years one of Boniface' successors, Clement V - a pope very much under Philip's power - had already neutred it by insisting that it implied no reduction whatever of the unique perogatives of the Kings of France, although the document remains to this day in the official collections of papal documents, and is one of those documents that continues to be trotted out by Catholic rigorists to this day in support of their various positions.

So I think Dominic's ideology is probably an "integralist" Catholicism that, at times, also sees itself as very much in opposition to developments in the Western world and to modern trends. People in this camp sometimes adopt positions that might be surprising - perhaps even "sandalous" to other Catholic conservatives, but for reasons obviously very different from Marxists. By way of an example, the late Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, secretary of the Vatican's doctrinal enforcement branch under Pope John XXIII (1958 - 1963), the "Holy Office" as it was known then (today known as the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith", the organization headed by Joseph Ratzinger prior to his election as pope last year) and one of the most vigourous opponents of the reforms in the Church during the 1960s that allowed changes such as the revision of the rite of the Mass and its translation from Latin into English and other vernacular languages, wrote an essay in the 1950s in which, prompted, its believed, by the massive destruction and loss of life he witnessed in World War II, argued that war, no matter what the circumstances, is morally illegitimate and must be forbidden to the faithful today. Ottaviani's essay is not widely known but I've seen it referred to by some "left wing" Catholic circles (peace activists and the like). Much better known is the fact that Pope John Paul II disapproved of the pre-emptive war against Iraq very strongly, although he stopped short of issuing a binding theological condemnation of it, and very few of the Catholic bishops in the U.S. backed him up on this anyway. But I have noticed a tendency on the part of some conservative circles in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to criticize American foreign policy, and some will even go so far (obviously I'd disagree with them very strongly about this) as to ally themselves with the Islamic world or at least some of its causes. However, Dominic is obviously not in this camp. As a matter of fact, somewhere I saw him arguing that the Papal Bulls that proclaimed the Crusade have never been rescinded, and that therefore, it is a duty of every Catholic in a position to do so, to continue to prosecute these old wars against the Islamic world even today.

By the way, there's no question of mistaken identity here because not only did he sign these entries with his name, but his online nickname was the same Latin motto that he used in this thread - necessitasnonhabetlegem - whatever that means. In any case, all of this prompts me to conclude that Dominic's sympathies for Russia (if its correct to characterize his position that way) is probably, like mine, motivated by a nostalgic veneration of that country's Christian past, and a hope, based on recent developments there, that that heritage, which certainly constitutes a cultural bridge to the West, is coming to life again.

While I find your suspicions of Russia understandable and reasonable, based on its past and its current behaviour, I do agree with Dominic that this is dictated by its geography and historical circumstances. I don't suppose that an alliance with them would be an easy matter to undertake, any more than it was during World War II, and I'd grant you that a certain guardedness and caution would have to be part of that relationship, at least in its early years, but I think that on the whole this is less undesirable than the current relationship with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. I would hope that U.S. diplomacy would try to accept Russia's rivalry and manage it as it often does with other weaker partners, sometimes just by acknowledging their need for a few strokes and some recognition. You've pointed out, quite correctly, that we here in Canada have a deep inferiority complex (although you exagerrate I'd say, and overestimate its role in our relations with the U.S.). If you think about this I think you'll understand where this comes from. We lost the fight for North American territory, and consequently we're a nation with one tenth the population of the U.S. relegated to what the explorer Jacques Cartier called "the land God gave Cain" - most of it being a whole lot of great-big-empty at that (although it does have a lot of resources that we've done a pretty good job of developing). We also have to grudgingly admit that we could never have developed the standard of living that we have in this country without the presence of the huge American market next door. Despite this historic rivalry though, our two countries have developed a very good relationship that, in many ways, is the envy of the world. I don't see why an enlightened American statecraft couldn't go a long way toward winning Russia over as well, and as I've said before, this might do a great deal to further the cause of reform in Russia and the betterment of its character as a global citizen if it succeeds.

I must say that I think you're a bit hung up on the threat represented by Russia, even though I agree that their current relations with Iran are despicable and dangerous. But I've gone so far as to suggest that we should even try to get the Chinese on board, and even I am prepared to admit that that's a bit of a stretch. The best that might be possible is to get them to sit quietly on the sidelines, without arming the Islamist countries, or otherwise supporting them. I'm surprized that you haven't taken me to task for that. And it seems to me that if there's a power that America needs to fear, other than the Islamist world, its China - not Russia.

Anyway, I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on these matters if you have time. Take care.