I've heard the same line delinking Islam and terrorism from Condi Rice. Of course, Bush coined "the religion of peace" line. Idiots of the year.

Posted by: jewdog at December 20, 2007 8:41 AM

Why is Putin, a man who has his opponents' murdered (unproven, but, hello), the "Man of the Year?"

Of course he had the spy in London poisoned. And there's also a woman reporter in Moscow he had offed. Plus, many more.

My God, is "Time" being sarcastic? Sarcasm about this title I could certainly understand.

Posted by: darcy at December 20, 2007 8:46 AM

Putin is an idiot if he really believes that.
But then again, he'n not differing much from a lot of Western leaders.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 20, 2007 8:48 AM

I suppose this is Time's version of Secret Santa. Drop a name in a hat, stir them up, draw one out, and voila--Man of the Year!

Posted by: Abscedere at December 20, 2007 9:05 AM

Putin is unfortunatelly no idiot. He just want to establish a strong relationship with them, and it already begun, they sell them the nuclear fuel for instance. Hard to say what his plans are, but I strongly believe he wants to restore Russia as a superpower, an American counterweight, and to do it he needs allies. And, as de Gaulle did in seventies, he selected Arabs, because they have oil. :(

Posted by: kugelfest at December 20, 2007 9:07 AM

That rumbling sound you hear is not the earthquakes in Israel during the Annapolis sellout, but the rolling over in their graves of my dear departed friends who gave it all in the Cold War against KGB thugs.

Posted by: Aunt Bea at December 20, 2007 9:10 AM

"Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam".. now let me think, what is a common denominator between Iran, Libya, Morocco, Indonesia, The Kingdom, the PA, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ubekistan, Pukestan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt (I may have forgotten others). Wow, nothing comes to mind..except...oh, that can't be, Mr. Putin says it ain't so.

Posted by: TheOmegaMan at December 20, 2007 9:21 AM

Word of the Day: поводырь

поводырь

In Russian, it can mean "guide." It can also designate the man who leads around a trained bear, on a leash, from town to town, and has him dance, and collects money from the on-lookers. A Russian friend brought back from Moscow a few years ago not an old lubok (a Russian version -- but predating -- the French images d'Epinal) but a modern attempt at something similar. It depicts such a scene: the dancing bear, the povodyr', the gawking on-lookers: 'medved' plyashchet a povodyr' beryot den'gi" (The Bear dances, while his Master takes the money) is the caption.
The Russian word for Bear, you have already been informed, is "medved." The new candidate for President of Russia is a mild-mannered young economist named "Medvedev." You can supply for yourself the name of the поводырь in question. It's a word bound to come in handy, especially if you are watching Mat'-Rossiya from the beautiful -- and safe -- distance.

Posted by: Hugh at December 20, 2007 9:49 AM

"Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday dismissed a link between Islam and terrorism, saying terror had no national or religious identity."

Putin is about half right. Remember that Putin is the former head of the KGB, and as such, should be well informed about terrorism. His illustrious predecessors included Yagoda, Yezhov, and Beria, none of whom were slouches at the terror business. Nor was their boss, Stalin. Likewise, the Nazis, the Maoists, and the Khmer Rouge were also pretty adept at terrorism. They were all atheists, altho Hitler and Stalin had Christian backgrounds, and Pol Pot a Buddhist one. So Putin is right in that terrorism is not tied to any one particular nationality or religion.
But! That was then, this is now. And the fact remains that various Islamic groups are presently the overwhelmingly most important sponsors and supporters of terrorism. And since these groups all appeal to Islamic holy writ for their justification, then one can fairly say that Islam is connected to terrorism.
What ties them all together is their commitment to totalitarism. The Nazis, Bolsheviks, and Maoists all ran totalitarian regimes. And the Islamics aspire to a world-wide totalitarian caliphate.

Posted by: ebonystone at December 20, 2007 10:03 AM

kugelfest-

I suspect you're right. But one day Putin will learn the hard way what kind of allies he's going for-Beslan is just a preview. As was said in the Vietnam era-you can ride the tiger but you can't pick when to get off of it.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 20, 2007 10:06 AM

Putin is making such statements just to get Bush off his back. Condi and the neo-cons running the Bush Administration have made it clear that they consider Orthodox Christian Russia to be just as much an enemy as was Communist Soviet Union.

So Putin is being a smart politician and saying exactly what the West wants to hear. As the previous head of the fomer KGB, he knows better. For diplomacy's sake, what he says to the suicidal West and what he knows to be true are not the same thing.

Posted by: Provoslavni at December 20, 2007 12:25 PM

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday dismissed a link between Islam and terrorism, saying terror had no national or religious identity.

When the only conditions under which people who express this idea, such as Putin is now, would admit Islam and terrorism are "linked" is if every single act of terrorism were committed by a Muslim, the statement asserting the lack of a "link" means nothing.

Off the top of my head, the only thing in life that meets this sort of criterion is that only women get pregnant, so that we can definitively say that there is a "link" between being female and the ability to become pregnant.

Is that really the standard that we need to have in place to draw a link between Islam and terrorism? If only 99% of all terrorists are Muslims, isn't that sufficient?

If one person survives a fall from a 30 story building, can we deny that there is a "link" between falling from 30 stories and dying? If one person can hold his breath underwater for 20 minutes, can we deny that being underwater for 20 minutes without oxygen is "linked" to death by drowing?

What mainly ticks me off, aside from the intellectual vacuity, is the hypocrisy. Under other circumstances in which phenomenon A can be linked with some high level of probability to phenomenon B, people do not hesitate to act "as if" these phenomena were linked. Only in the case of politically correct topics do they say otherwise, although they probably, in their day-to-day life, act in accordance with what they know to be true, but can't admit.

Posted by: venividivici at December 20, 2007 12:48 PM

Many commentators on this site (I am NOT talking about the principal posters such as Robert, Hugh, et al) have written comments in past months that could essentially be summarized as "lets not raise a stink about anti-Western activities by Russia because they are a crucial ally against Jihad."

Although it can make sense to make temporary accommodations to a lesser evil, one should never think that they are allies or that a lesser evil is incapable of being more and more problematic.

Russia has a role to place in all of this (the global Jihad threat), but I don't see how it will be a positive one.

Posted by: JSobieski at December 20, 2007 1:07 PM

Provoslavni: I respectfully disagree with you that the Bush Administration has made it clear that post-Soviet Russia is as much an enemy as the old Soviet Union was. This perception is Russia's and those who support her. Putin and Russia expected that America would acquiesce in letting Russia treat with much of Eastern Europe (not just a country like Ukraine but also one like Poland) as though we were still back in the good old Cold War days and "spheres of influence" were still a reality. That's why Russia under Putin has so vigorously opposed the expansion of NATO, the most successful military alliance in history for the protection and promotion of freedom (very telling here that Russia looks upon NATO as a threat----what does that say about Russia?). When we didn't go along with old Vlad here, then he and his minions started denouncing the United States, sometimes absurdly so. For instance, in May of 2007 Putin compared American foreign policy to that of Nazi Germany. Putin has also been very cozy with Iran and even an Islmaic terrorist group like Hezbollah.

Even assuming Bush was wrong to go into Iraq, one has to be jaded to think it was only about oil or something like that. Bush sincerely wants to establish democracy in Iraq. Many who post here think that's a pipe dream. I don't, but I have conceded such people could be correct because all of the Islamic world may be hopeless rather than just some of it. Nonetheless, Bush's motives were honorable, even if naive, while Putin's motives always revolve around the factor of power. He doesn't give a damn if Israelis are blown up by Hezbollah and Hamas missiles. He doesn't care that Iran is led by religious zealots. Incidentally, I've seen where Putin's wealth is now reported to be about 20 billion dollars. He's magnificently corrupt and loves power and its perquisites. He certainly has shut down on freedom in his homeland. As one Russian I spoke to said when Putin first came into office almost eight years ago, " once KGB, always KGB." Prescient call indeed.

Posted by: Wellington at December 20, 2007 1:14 PM

Beslan.

Posted by: DaveMate at December 20, 2007 1:28 PM

I wonder how you say Allahu Akbar in Russian?
Putin should start practicing now...

Posted by: duh_swami at December 20, 2007 2:40 PM

Stalin's ghost appears to Putin in a dream, and Putin asks for his help running the country.
Stalin says, "Round up and shoot all the democrats, and then paint the inside of the Kremlin blue."
"Why blue?" Putin asks.
"Ha!" says Stalin. "I knew you wouldn't ask me about the first part."

Posted by: ibn Abu at December 20, 2007 2:41 PM

The prediction is a 40% muslim Russian army within two generations.

What will become of Russia then?

Posted by: Borg at December 20, 2007 3:11 PM

Hey Vlad, remember in 1980s when four Soviet diplomats were kidnapped in Beirut by the Islamic Liberation Organization. The KGB kidnapped a relative of the group leader, hacked off body parts and mailed them to the Islamic Liberation Organization until they released the three diplomats who were still alive. If I remember correctly, when the KBG returned the relative, he was room temperature. Negotiation complete!

You might have got the anti-Dhimmi award that year.

Ahhh, the good old days… kinda makes me all misty eyed.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at December 20, 2007 3:50 PM

Comments of some U.S Posters here are remarkable in their naivety also inability to 'see their country as others see America.'
Good gracious, you attack Putin for Realpolitik for saying 'Islam isn't a threat' yet it is okay
for Bush & Condi to say it...Unlike them Putin doesn't believe it. It happens to be called TRADE-
prime minster of my country says ROP isn't a threat either whilst doing millions of dollars
exporting live sheep to Iran.
America whilst supporting some of worst regimes in
History i.e Saudi Arabia,Taliban,Saddam Hussein etc is always jumping up & down preaching to other countries about DEMOCRACY.What a larf!
Russian had more than a taste of DEMOCRACY when drunken Boris was puppet of West-when the Russian
people lost stability, pensions,hope as big corporations moved in to rape & despoil Mother Russia. For a while there it seemed to gloating
Western leaders-that the Bear was dying-they would
soon be able to move in & plunder the huge oil & gas reserves[Hitler had the same dream] & make once mighty Russia a much smaller place just like dismemberment of Yugoslavia.
Then Putin appears & West is soooo pissed off.
The guy is a reincarnation of Peter the Great[who
also fought & finally defeated Turks]-he's charismatic,ultra smart,highly intelligent and HE PLAYS THE WEST AT THEIR OWN GAME. Latest news is
Vlad has clinched Energy Deal with Krygastan & Turkmanstan to run pipeline under Caspian Sea-which U.S & E.U wanted-thus more howls of anguish
from bald headed eagle & E.U zombies.
Putin certainly knows that America is no friend of
his, the Russian people or Orthodox Christianity.
Look at the way U.S & fawning Euro poodles want to
sacrifice more Christian Serbs to please Muslims
-are you so dumb as to think Orthodox Slavs are going to LOVE America for doing this??
Take off your rose tinted spectacles & see the world as it really is-better still as the world
sees YOU!

Posted by: Morgane at December 20, 2007 4:02 PM

Morgane, unfortunately much of what you write is true. The Cold War has not been over long enough to retreat into the dusty bins of our minds.

GWB missed a great opportunity when he didn't ackknowledge Beslan in a proper manner, he was too busy running for chief idiot of the madhouse.

Posted by: the poetess at December 20, 2007 4:37 PM

I knew Putin could be brutal but i never imagined he was such a fool.

Posted by: alexon at December 20, 2007 4:48 PM

Good gracious, you attack Putin for Realpolitik for saying 'Islam isn't a threat' yet it is okay for Bush & Condi to say it

You must be joking, point me to a thread where someone agrees it's OK for Bush & Condi to say it.

...Unlike them Putin doesn't believe it.

And how did you determine that?

Putin certainly knows that America is no friend of his, the Russian people or Orthodox Christianity.

If he thinks Islam is more of a friend than the US, he's fooling himself.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at December 20, 2007 4:49 PM

The parents of all those schoolchildren massacred in Beslan will be very relieved to hear that Islam had nothing to do with it.

Posted by: alexon at December 20, 2007 4:50 PM

Morgane: I find your cynicism unwarranted. America has been quite successful in establishing democracy (real democracy, not the sham democracy that existed in Russia in the 1990s) across the world. Find me a more noble and enlightened treatment of a completely conquered enemy than America's treatment of Japan after WWII. And Japan now is a fully democratic nation. Germany as well. For democracy to work, it must be accompanied by the rule of law and a solid moral foundation. Russia had neither of these elements in the 1990s. Hell, it still doesn't. Russians will pay a high price for a long time to come because of Putin and his cronies who have begun to run Russia like one gigantic criminal enterprise.

As for being naive, you demonstrated your own naivety by buying into the sterotype of Americans as naive in world affairs. You also wrongly averred we have supported authoritarain regimes like those of Saudi Arabia or Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Wrong. Just as we had to work with one brutal tyrant, Stalin, to defeat another dictator, Hitler, so America presently works with the Saudi bastards against other bastards. As for Saddam Hussein, the Reagan Administration made a determination that in the Iran-Iraq War a stalemate would be the best of the bad options facing us. That's why we tilted for a few years in SH's direction. This was classic realpolitik, yet you have bought into the notion that it was neither principled nor sophisticated (oh, those naive and unethical Americans again).

As for America being no friend of Russia, this is nonsense. It's Russian paranoia manifesting itself again. Both Clinton and Bush said Russia in NATO would be a good thing. But Russia chose to see NATO as an enemy. Funny that Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Romania, among others, haven't seen NATO that way.

As for Serbia, the Serbs are tough and have had a tough history, but sometimes they are their own worst enemy. In the 1990s four wars in eight years occurred. There was enough blame to go around to be sure, but Milosevic was particularly brutal and inept. And here's what is most important: America didn't want to go into the Balkans as it did in 1999. We told the Europeans when trouble broke out in 1990-91 that it was in their own backyard and they had to deal with it. Well, they didn't. Not the Europeans, not the Russian nor the UN. By 1999 various European counrtries were begging us to put an end to the massive instability in the Balkans. So we bombed Belgrade et al. and since then there has been mostly uneasy truces but not slaughter on a regular basis. I can assure you that if America had not gone into the fray in 1999, things would have become far worse and European stability would have deteriorated badly. But who's the bad guy here? Why America, of course. Sometimes you can't win for losing.

Posted by: Wellington at December 20, 2007 4:51 PM

Is there something, one special thing, that the United States and the rest of the West could do to calm Russia's suspicions, or at least to calm those of its people who will listen to reason, but have been whipped up by non-stop KGB conspiracy theorists and propagandists?

Yes. That one thing is not to pressure Serbia to give up Kosovo. And then Serbia won't.

And if it won't, that will be a good thing, for the West vis-a-vis Islam. All things considered.

Posted by: Hugh at December 20, 2007 5:12 PM

I don't think one should object to the selectio of Putin as "Man of the Year." Stalin was, Hitler was, and all kinds of people make it, not to Man of the Year status, but at least to a cover. Arafat. Khomeini. Saddam Hussein. Hafez Al-Assad. Khaddafy. King Fahd. King Abdullah. King Hussein. God, what an absurdity that one should have to take such people seriously, to solemnly parse their remarks, to think seriously about what they think, what they do, what they are. But there it is. So "Man of the Year" is not a moral judgment. After all, the people who run and write for Time, are hardly, given what they report, and how they comment or pundificate, are in no position to make moral judgments.

Are they?

Posted by: Hugh at December 20, 2007 5:16 PM

One concluding unscientific foot-tapping postscript.

If Medvedev manages to gain a little confidence, and even starts to have his own supporters to supplement, or possibly even replace, the support of Putin, then someday it is possible that Putin himself will be singing a different tune. Of course this is unlikely. But it's still possible.

That tune?

Oh, I almost forgot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv7E9O77Kkg&feature=related

Posted by: Hugh at December 20, 2007 5:18 PM

Hugh: I agree with you that America should stop pressuring Serbia to give up Kosovo. It couldn't be done all at once for sundry reasons, not the least of which is our present reliance on Middle Eastern oil (which it would be lovely to see end), but we could slowly, over the months and years, just quit talking about it and even start speaking diplomaticese here and there about how Balkan problems are for those in the Balkans to resolve and other anodyne statements along these lines.

Posted by: Wellington at December 20, 2007 5:36 PM

Wellington
Am not sure how you are able to DISMISS history so casually or do you ACTUALLY believe FOX NEWS reports??
Lets go for some modern Truths recently.
America has lied,invaded three sovereign states
who posed no threat to it-Serbia[regard bombing as
invasion],Afghanistan & Iraq WITHOUT U.N OR SECURITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OR SANCTION. YES OR NO.
NATO is a tool of U.S[everyone know who contributes the funding & bribes if member countries do U.S bidding like War Crimes Court at the Hague].Do you think it BRAVE that well armed
NATO countries should gang up on another,use depleted uranium bombs to poison rivers,soil &
cause birth defects for decades to come? YES OR NO.
COLLECTIVE GUILT. Because U.S doesn't like a particular leader or their policies, that gives America the right to bomb to BOMB THE CRAP OUT OF
'OFFENDING'COUNTRY, destroy its infrastructure ,kill & maim thousands of civilians. YES OR NO.
Assure you I have lots more examples but this will
do for starters...

Posted by: Morgane at December 20, 2007 5:44 PM

"Russian [sic]had more than a taste of DEMOCRACY when drunken Boris was puppet of West-when the Russian
people lost stability, pensions,hope as big corporations moved in to rape & despoil Mother Russia."
Posted by: Morgane

More like the West moved in to re-build Mother Russia after the Bolsheviks had raped and despoiled her for 70+ years. Just think of Chernobyl; no Western country would have allowed one of their public utilities to build a power reactor of such a dangerous design; but in the "workers' paradise" it was a-ok, with the results of hundreds of deaths and hundreds of square miles of land uninhabitable.

Posted by: ebonystone at December 20, 2007 6:31 PM

"As for America being no friend of Russia, this is nonsense. It's Russian paranoia manifesting itself again. Both Clinton and Bush said Russia in NATO would be a good thing. But Russia chose to see NATO as an enemy. Funny that Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Romania, among others, haven't seen NATO that way. "

It might be Russian paranoia but it's also understandable why they might be concerned about the growth of NATO. NATO's original purpose was to contain the Soviet Union, and wouldn't you be concerned about the growth of an alliance that originally saw you has the enemy?

Plus NATO has extended all the way to the Russian border, and includes countries that are in their backyard.

If the Chinese started a military alliance, and it grew to include Mexico or Canada, are you telling me that American politicians wouldn't voice some kind of concern? That they wouldn't view that has a threat?

Posted by: GuitarBob at December 20, 2007 6:33 PM

Morgane

A lot of people here disagree with Bush's foreign policy, and a lot of them also had a problem with Clinton's action in Kosovo. If you would stop spewing anti-American rhetoric, and tried having a conversation with someone you might find that out.

Posted by: GuitarBob at December 20, 2007 6:46 PM

If the world was sane, Man of the Year would be Robert Spencer.

Posted by: darcy at December 20, 2007 7:11 PM

"COLLECTIVE GUILT." --posted by Morgane

I don't feel any guilt. Anybody?

Gee, I wonder how all of those tsunami victims would have fared without our "collective guilt." And so many other examples.

No "guilt" - USA. Only PRIDE.

Posted by: darcy at December 20, 2007 7:16 PM

Morgane: Your emotions are getting the best of you. Your so-called Modern Truths are modern fictions. First, you maintain America has lied. OK, about what? Please, please don't mention WMDs in Iraq. Every major intelligence agency on the planet Earth, even Russia's (Russia, it seems, helped Saddam Hussein get them out of Iraq shortly before March of 2003), thought SH still had WMDs. So, what has America lied about? Be specific (and accurate if you're able).

Second, as for Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq, I will take these one at a time. I already covered Serbia above, but I'll try again. America was loathe to interfere in the Balkan scrap from the get-go. Only after EIGHT YEARS and FOUR WARS and slaughter all around (with the Russians doing didly squat to stop any of it), did America come in in 1999 and put an end to the immediate carnage by bombing Belgrade. Was it unfortunate? Yes. But the alternative of doing nothing was worse as I've already explained. The situation now in the Balkans is far from perfect to be sure, but it is nowhere near as bad as it was from 1991 to 1999. You know this or should know it. And the reason why is the regrettable, but necessary, bombing of the Serbs, which sent a signal to everyone that enough was enough. I'm quite sick of Russia being miffed about this bombing when, if it had not occurred, far more people would have died from 1999 onwards, not that Putin would have given a damn about this.

Afghanistan? Please. They were harboring Al Qaeda, which perpetrated 9/11. President Bush gave the Taliban an opportunity to come clean and hand over top Al Qaeda leaders. They said no. They were clearly at least accessories after the fact (probably more) in an act of war against America. Besides, the Taliban had brutally repressed its own population. Women lived in a kind of slavery. America has gone a long way to end that by going into Afgahnistan, and with the best of intentions to remake that country as democratic and prosperous, although the chances of that are problematical at best. In any case, millions of women today can attend school and live as human beings again in Afghanistan. This would not be the case but for America and its allies going in there.

Iraq? America had every right under the UN Charter to enforce the over dozen UN resolutions that Saddam Hussein had not lived up to. Also, SH had not fulfilled the truce terms that ended the 1991 war. It was therefore perfectly legal under international law to use force to ensure he did. Just because corrupt Russians, French and Germans were taking bribes from him to look the other way where UN sanctions were concerned, and the UN itself under Kofi Anna was abysmal and itslef corrupt, doesn't mean that the noble and brave nations of the world (which don't include Russia) can't take legitimate action.

NATO is a tool of America? I concede that NATO without America would be far less than it is. America is the strongest nation in history. But NATO nations are free to disagree with America, as they have on many occasions. NATO is also, as I have already mentioned before, the greatest military alliance in the history of man for the protection and promotion of freedom. The fact that Russia sees it as a threat, even though Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Bulgaria and so many others do not, but in fact want to join it, should tell you something. A very big something, but you remain clueless here. As for NATO poisoning this or that, I don't know what you are talking about. I do know, however, that Russia's environmental record is dismal indeed, both under the Soviets and also since 1991. You probably don't know this because you seem consumed with antipathy for America, but America has the toughest environmental laws on earth, notwithstanding Al Gore's silly pronouncements to the contrary.

As for getting my information from Fox News, nice cheap shot. I get my information from a ton of sources and have been doing so for many decades now. I back up my statements with fact. You just make unsupported and emotional allegations. You reject arguments without refuting them. That is always the sign of the desperate. Have a nice evening.

Posted by: Wellington at December 20, 2007 7:19 PM

"Women lived in a kind of slavery." --posted by Wellington

"kind of?" Try - utter and abject slavery.
And they still live that way, today. 10-year-old girls are forced to marry 40-year-old men. Women forced to walk about wearing their curtains and mesh grill over the face. "kind of slavery?" -- Worse. Their own husbands their slavemasters.

"Collective guilt?" - No way. No effing way.

GO USA!

Posted by: darcy at December 20, 2007 7:36 PM

GuitarBob: Your analogy is flawed because NATO has been in the forefront of protecting and defending freedom. Any alliance system with China at its head would not have anything to do with democracy, freedom and the rights of man. Surely you know this. Moral equivalency thinking is always fallacious, as you have demonstrated, though unintentionally. If Russia sees NATO as a threat, that says a lot about Russia, not NATO, especially in light of the fact that America and several European nations a decade or so ago welcomed the idea of Russia in this organization. Silvio Berlusconi, when leading Italy, is a good example here of ruling figures who openly opined that Russia working with Western nations to be a bulwark against authoritarian rule would be a very good thing indeed. Sadly, Russia's reverted to its traditional paranoid, xenophobic and authoritarian self once again, this time under the leadership of Putin, a man who understands power but is woefully ignorant of America and the realization that freedom is the greatest thing any people can enjoy.

Posted by: Wellington at December 20, 2007 7:39 PM

darcy: Parse my words anyway you wish, but women in Afghanistan, though still restricted by Islamic rules no Westerner should feel compelled to respect, are far better off than they were while the Taliban created a living hell for them on earth.

Posted by: Wellington at December 20, 2007 7:44 PM

"GO USA!"

God I love how patriotic Americans are. It's the one thing that gives me hope for the future. As long has we continue to believe in our country then nothing could ever defeat us.

Posted by: GuitarBob at December 20, 2007 7:44 PM

"Moral equivalency thinking is always fallacious" --posted by Wellington

So 100% true. Anyone who could "think" otherwise is a total lamebrain. Their neurons don't fire.

Posted by: darcy at December 20, 2007 7:46 PM

darcy: Parse my words anyway you wish, but women in Afghanistan, though still restricted by Islamic rules no Westerner should feel compelled to respect, are far better off than they were while the Taliban created a living hell for them on earth.

Posted by: Wellington at December 20, 2007 7:44 PM

W - the Taliban are still there. Women still exist in a "living hell."

Posted by: darcy at December 20, 2007 7:49 PM

"GO USA!"

God I love how patriotic Americans are."

With good reason. Freedoms of Speech/Press, to name 2 good reasons.

Posted by: darcy at December 20, 2007 7:51 PM

Oh, a 3rd good reason - females aren't forced to go out in public wearing Hefty bags. Or the dining room curtains.

Posted by: darcy at December 20, 2007 8:01 PM

Wellington

I wasn't trying to suggest that an alliance headed by China would be morally equivalent to NATO. I was only trying to point out that major world powers don't like other major world powers messing around in their backyard.

If you want a historical example then look at the Monroe Doctrine. Or look at Taiwan, and the two-China policy.

The Russians have historically considered eastern europe and the Slavic countries to be their backyard, and we should keep that in mind when dealing with those countries.

I don't consider it morally wrong to expand NATO to the Russian border, I just consider it bad diplomacy.

Putin might be tyrannical, but he's atleast not a communist, and that means he's not ideologically opposed to the west. Russia was our enemy last century it doesn't have to be our enemy for this century.

Posted by: GuitarBob at December 20, 2007 8:02 PM

darcy: Are you maintaining that most women in Afghanistan in 2007 are in no way better off than they were five or six years ago? Come on. Much remains to be done certainly, but much has been done. As an example, hundreds of thousands of girls can now attend school, something they were forbidden to do when the Taliban had sway over almost all of Afghanistan.

Posted by: Wellington at December 20, 2007 8:05 PM

My Dear Wellington
Anyone who needs so many paragraphs to explain
themself shows alas, the weakness of their argument.
Perhaps you might understand what I am trying to say if put in another scenario-
Okay, China says to U.S-people in Virgina want to break away & have their Independence.We don't care
if its been part of America for yonks-we are more powerful than YOU economically & militarily. Also
if you don't allow the Chinese People's Army to
monitor a Peace "We will bomb you!"
Sound familiar? Well, it should as America has been there & done this often enough...
Afraid you've seen too many Rambo movies & wound
up believing your own propaganda.
Whilst U.S sinks further in quagmires & wars of its own making, posturing on the world stage like
the arrogant,bullying Superpower it ONCE was-China,Russia & India are forging ahead on fully
charged cyclinders.
Remember, All Empires have their expiry date!

Posted by: Morgane at December 20, 2007 8:13 PM

GuitarBob: Thanks for your response. I would make two contentions. One, I don't think we should keep in mind that Russia has historically thought of Eastern Europe as their backyard if Russia wishes to continue to dominate countries there, which it clearly does. I'd love to be in an audience of Poles when you try to tell them that Poland shouldn't be in NATO because it offends the Russians. Yep, that would be a Kodak moment. Two, I dispute your claim that Putin is not ideologically opposed to the West. Oh yes he is. He's very much in the mold of the Russian leader who looks far too suspiciously at the West and understands it virtually not at all, including the incapacity to realize that Western idealism (particularly in the Anglo-Saxon world) is not just some kind of con game but is for real when put forward by folks like Lincoln and Churchill.

Posted by: Wellington at December 20, 2007 8:16 PM

Wellington:

http://www.afghan-web.com/woman/amnestyreport_may2005.html

Posted by: darcy at December 20, 2007 8:20 PM

"China,Russia & India are forging ahead on fully
charged cyclinders."

Wow, I sure hope not. Especially since both China and India are uber-misogynist countries, and have practiced female infanticide for so long that there aren't enough females in those countries for the men to marry.

Go USA. Of all civilizations on the planet, the *most* civilized.

Posted by: darcy at December 20, 2007 8:32 PM

Wellington:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/magazine/09BRI.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Posted by: darcy at December 20, 2007 8:37 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/07/04/magazine/09BRIDE2_ready.html

July, 2006, photo. Uh Huh, females are better off, ya think?

Posted by: darcy at December 20, 2007 8:39 PM

Goodnight, Wellington. Hope you have become more enlightened as to the current status of females in Afghanistan.

Posted by: darcy at December 20, 2007 8:42 PM

Wellington

You make a good point about Poland, and I can understand why they still fear Russia. All too recently they were behind the iron curtain, and Putin isn't someone I would trust. Plus some of Putin's actions suggests that he might still consider Poland and other eastern European countries part of the Russian empire, a scary thought for someone living in Belarus or Poland.

I'm not trying to make Putin out to be a saint, and I'm not trying to suggest that we support any imperial ambitions Putin might or might not have in Eastern Europe.

All I'm saying is we should consider how the Russians would react to our actions, and to plan according.

And I'm not sure if expanding NATO so quickly up to the Russian border was the best action to take. Perhaps if we would have expanded more slowly the Russians would feel less threatened. Whether or not they our justified in feeling that way is another matter.

Posted by: GuitarBob at December 20, 2007 8:56 PM

Morgane

China and Russia's fertility rates are too low for them to become a super power. They'll grow old before they grow powerful, and India has it own unique problems.

Posted by: GuitarBob at December 20, 2007 9:03 PM

Putin has shown that given the opportunity, he will bully recently liberated nations into submission (e.g. Internet attacks, shutting off energy supplies from state owned companies, threatening to re-target nuclear missiles).

Should the U.S. let motivated allies like Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic and others once again become slaves?

This "realpolitik" is just another word for appeasement of evil. Whether it is appeasing Jihad or something else---it is always a dangerous precident to appease bad intentions. Putin at best is acting in an amoral fashion--he does not have an Western interests at heart.

Whether it makes sense to try and facilitate "democracy" in Iraq is one thing, but the idea that we shouldn't do it in countries where there is a genuine desire to be Western is to be a traitor to Western ideals. Given the Jihad threat, we need all of the true allies we can get.

God Bless the USA-- "over 200 hundred million souls liberated"

I am not a naive American---I am a foreign survivor who loves his rescuer! Those who want to condemn others to slavery should try it for themselves first.

Posted by: JSobieski at December 20, 2007 9:18 PM

Morgane:

You should move to some type of dhimmi-like "client state" and enjoy all of the freedoms they have to offer.

When they throw you in prison for being annoying, I think might think different about U.S. foreign policy. Reagan stood up for dissidents and he is much remembered and LOVED for it.

Don't bother sending a post card from your Russian prison. We wouldn't want to be naive about it.

Posted by: JSobieski at December 20, 2007 9:22 PM

How about Beslan just some prank spoiled by the army? Give Putin the dhimmi of dhimmies award

Posted by: hemoglobin at December 20, 2007 9:29 PM

Some commentators appear to believe that the explanation for Putin's behavior is that he can profit from a relationship with the Islam East, as with the sale of nuclear fuel to Iran. Is this true? Russia is a petrol-based state. It has as yet been unable to harness its highly intelligent and well-educated population to manufacture anything that can compete on the world market. Assorted metals, furs, timber are its exports, and above all, oil and gas. And without oil and gas staying at a high price, the Russian boom, and perceived Russian power, would dissipate.

Think for a minute. Is it in Russia's interest that the Middle East be full of stable regimes, able to produce oil at full throttle, and even go in search of more oil, in Iran, in Iraq, in even Saudi Arabia? Wouldn't it make more sense, even if Putin were not alarmed about Islam (and if he isn't he's not hard-headed but as innocent as the Western rulers), to ensure that the Muslim oil producers are constantly in turmoil, constantly threatening or warring with one another, or with groups within their countries -- in the case of Iran, with ethnic minorities (chiefly Kurds in the northwest, and Arabs in the southwest, but also Baluchis and Azeris), in the case of Saudi Arabia and some of the smaller Gulf states (Kuwait, Bahrain) with sectarian (i.e., Shia) groups opposed to rule by Sunnis.

If Putin were as tough-minded and ruthless as many take him to be, he should be as eager as we should be to see Iraq dissolve into a permanent center of conflict between Shi'a and Sunni, and between the non-Arab Kurds and the Arabs, as a way to inspire other non-Arab Muslims to throw off their Arab masters.

Posted by: Hugh at December 20, 2007 9:47 PM

Hugh

A nuclear armed Iran might trigger an arms race in the middle east which would certainly destablize the region, and if Israel bombed Iran's nuclear facilities there's no knowing exactly how the arab world would respond.

Still wouldn't it be more effective to fund and arm separatist groups throughout the middle east? or am I missing something?

Posted by: GuitarBob at December 20, 2007 10:15 PM

darcy: You provide me with Amnesty International and the NY Times as reliable and objective sources for the situation in Afghanistan? Look, I don't deny Islam is just awful for women, but there are degrees of awfulness and the Taliban were as awful to women as it can get. I noticed you didn't respond to my statement that at least Afghan girls can go to school now, something prohibited under the Taliban. Why didn't you?
Also, Afghan women in most areas of the country no longer have to cover themselves from head to foot, with only eyes and hands showing (men can also now go beardless if they choose, something that would have resulted in severe punishment while the Taliban were in charge). Moreover, anything that would make the Bush Administration look bad, Amnesty International and the NY Times would be only too happy to hype to the max, since they see Bush as the real enemy and not Islamic extremists.

I stand by my original contention and that is that the lot of women (and people in general) in Afghanistan has taken a turn for the better since the Taliban have been marginalized by America and its allies. I'm certain that the vast majority of American soldiers who have served in Afghanistan would agree here. Or would you still prefer to go with AI and the NYT over all these in the field Americans?

Posted by: Wellington at December 20, 2007 11:46 PM

GuitarBob: I appreciate your comments though I would add that I for one am heartily tired of taking into account Russian feelings when doing so will almost always result in deferring to what Russia wants----freedom, independence, democracy and security for others be damned. Poland now has its greatest security in its entire thousand year history as a nation precisely because it belongs to NATO. No amount of another nation's "feelings" can be an effective counter, ethically or logically, to that, especially in light of the fact that NATO in reality is not a threat to Russia even though Russia thinks it is. The greatest alliance for freedom in man's history should not be looked upon by a free nation as menacing. Russia sees NATO as menacing. Says a lot about Russia I would very strongly contend. I close by quoting Dennis Prager. He said, and I agree fully with this, that "the Russians have a problem with freedom."

Posted by: Wellington at December 20, 2007 11:57 PM

Morgane: All right, I'll make this brief since it seems your short attention span has made you think cogent arguments, merely several paragraphs long, suffer from prolixity. Again, you reveal more about yourself than you intended. In any case, your analogy of China and Virginia is not apt because China has never been in the forefront of promoting freedom as America has. America acts from far purer motives (not perfect mind you) and has been prepared to sacrifice the blood of its soldiers for the freedom of others more than any poltiical entity in world history. Everywhere people are free, truly free, they owe a debt, whether they realize it or not, to the American soldier. It would be ludicrous (and obscene) to maintain the same thing about Russian or Chinese soldiers. Sometimes, my dear, idealism combines with realism. America is the best example of this ever, though I have no doubt your ignorance and dislike of America will insure you do not grasp this, probably forever.

Posted by: Wellington at December 21, 2007 12:15 AM

Morgane, get a grip. If you want to rip America to shreds, which you do with gusto, do it in less ambiguous terms. The tyrannical regimes you accuse us of supporting, like Saudi Arabia, et al, are also supported by every other Western government in the world, including Great Britain. As I recall, there is an ongoing, very controversial scandal involving Tony Blair's government and Saudi Arabia. Last time I checked, Europe, not America, colonized the Middle East and today's Europeans are paying dearly for the empires of yesteryear, thanks to obtuse elitist guilt or an EU sellout, or both. If we consider the historical record, Europe beats the U.S. hands down when it comes to wars, invasions, and miscellaneous atrocities.

Every time the U.S. is dragged into somebody else's war, we end up being the cursed villian. It's quite apparent that you hate the U.S. but to blame us for every ill-fated fiasco in the world is rather infantile. 9-11 was a bad day for the U.S. We had every right to retaliate by going after the terrorist networks in Afghanistan and if you believe that was unjustified, f*&k you!

Every American that posts here has expressed utter disgust and disbelief at George Bush and his idiotic Secretary of State for defending islam and calling it a religion of peace. Nobody has even hinted that it's ok for them to tell blatant lies and mislead the public about the biggest threat this country has ever faced. Americans are not the naive rubes you seem to think they are and I resent your arrogant hostility, much of which appears to be based on misconceptions and left-wing, anti-American bullshit. If you really believe we're an evil, destructive force in the world, you're a fool and it's useless to argue with fools.

Posted by: Susanp at December 21, 2007 12:58 AM

My dear Wellington
If America LOVED democracy SOOO much, please explain why U.S didn't join WW2 until Japanese bombed them at Pearl Harbour in 1941? WW2 started for everyone else
in 1939....
Regards

Posted by: Morgane at December 21, 2007 1:01 AM

Dear SusanP
Don't get 'ya knickers in a twist becuse I praise
Putin for what he has done for Russia. Doesn't seem to occur you or other rednecks on this site that you may not like it but U.S & West are certainly going to NEED a strong Russia.
It is a great pity America & Russia aren't uniting
against a common foe,maybe it will take more 9/11's to do this. There is an old saying-
"Be nice to those you meet on the way up because
you might meet them on the way down..."

Posted by: Morgane at December 21, 2007 1:23 AM

He doesn't have a stupid bone in his body.

He's blowing the arabs a kiss and flipping us the bird in one gesture.

Posted by: joeblough at December 21, 2007 1:29 AM

Putin cannot link islam with terrorism because of a large mohammedan population in russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Russia

Posted by: anti islamocommunist at December 21, 2007 3:42 AM

darcy: You provide me with Amnesty International and the NY Times as reliable and objective sources for the situation in Afghanistan? Look, I don't deny Islam is just awful for women, but there are degrees of awfulness and the Taliban were as awful to women as it can get. I noticed you didn't respond to my statement that at least Afghan girls can go to school now, something prohibited under the Taliban. Why didn't you?
Also, Afghan women in most areas of the country no longer have to cover themselves from head to foot, with only eyes and hands showing (men can also now go beardless if they choose, something that would have resulted in severe punishment while the Taliban were in charge). Moreover, anything that would make the Bush Administration look bad, Amnesty International and the NY Times would be only too happy to hype to the max, since they see Bush as the real enemy and not Islamic extremists.

I stand by my original contention and that is that the lot of women (and people in general) in Afghanistan has taken a turn for the better since the Taliban have been marginalized by America and its allies. I'm certain that the vast majority of American soldiers who have served in Afghanistan would agree here. Or would you still prefer to go with AI and the NYT over all these in the field Americans?

Posted by: Wellington at December 20, 2007 11:46 PM

Good Morning, Beef Wellington.

I notice you did not remark on the photograph of the 11-year-old child bride and her 40-year-old husband. One picture is worth a thousand words, isn't it? Snapped in 2006, I might add.

Fine. You furnish me with sources *you* consider reliable to substantiate your generalizations concerning the current status of females in Afghanistan. Oh, there's nothing wrong with Amnesty International concerning the info in the link I provided. Nothing. The problem is that for some reason you don't want to believe that dismal info. And, not all NYT items are PC, btw.

Posted by: darcy at December 21, 2007 8:45 AM

Generally speaking, Beef Wellington, Muslim males are Muslim males. They don't have to be the Taliban to oppress females, and to oppress them mightily.

Posted by: darcy at December 21, 2007 8:47 AM

Morgane: Funny how you keep jumping topics on me without SPECIFICALLY responding to my contentions, but I'll answer your latest attempt to denigrate America rather easily. FDR knew only too well that America couldn't enter WWII unless we ourselves were attacked. There was too much isolationist sentiment in America at the time. Nonetheless, for all intents and purposes, America de facto, though not de jure, had entered the fray before December of 1941. An undeclared war in the North Atlantic had already begun between America and Germany and even before this, through such initiatives as relaxation of the Neutrality Acts and eventually the Lend-Lease program, America was providing Britian (and Russia too) enormous amounts of war materiel for practically nothing.

Interesting how you fault America for being too ready to fight and yet you fault her too for not being ready to fight soon enough. Face it, Morgane, you have a stick up your behind where America is concerned. Too bad. That's your loss, not mine. America is the greatest nation on earth and is the guardian of other peoples' freedom in a way Russia never has been and almost certainly never will be. But I doubt you will ever grasp this essential truth.

Posted by: Wellington at December 21, 2007 8:49 AM

darcy: "Beef Wellington?" Hmmm. Seems you're stooping to personal insult now. Too bad. OK, if you wish to believe that women in Afghanistan are in no way better off today than they were five years ago or so, I completely support your right to think that. Perhaps we can find agreement in a recognition that Islam is the one major religion that is bad news all around, for women, for Western liberties, for the Constitution of the United States and much more. Have a nice day, darcy.

Posted by: Wellington at December 21, 2007 9:06 AM

Wow - Beef Wellington is delicious! How is that a "personal insult?"

Where are YOUR links I requested substantiating your numerous generalizations about the current status of females in Afghanistan? You diss the links I furnished but provide none of your own.

Waiting.

Posted by: darcy at December 21, 2007 9:51 AM

"Face it, Morgane, you have a stick up your behind where America is concerned." --posted by Wellington

Now, *that* is a "personal insult," Beef.

Posted by: darcy at December 21, 2007 9:52 AM

darcy: You seem intent upon ignoring any positive development for women in Afghanistan. I'm only too conscious of how terrible it remains for women there, as it does for the population at large, but you remain absolutist here, no bending whatsoever. All right. Here you go. Here are a couple of statistics and a web site for you. First the statistics. Prenatal care for women has gone up from 5% of the female population in 2003 to 30% in 2006. Women make up 27% of the national legislature in Kabul (yes, Karzai's government doesn't control much territory but I still look upon something like this as a very modest but important beginning). The web site you can check is www.afghan-web.com. That should take you to some articles on some improvement for women in Afghanistan in the last few years. Much remains to be done, an enormous amount, for one of the very poorest countries on earth, made all the more backwards because of Islam, but I think something has started there which would not have begun but for America and her allies going into Afghanistan. I will await another withering and cynical assessment from you, because, frankly, I think you've made up your mind about this matter irrespective of any information that would contradict your opinion that nothing has changed in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Wellington at December 21, 2007 1:09 PM

There's no link between Islam and terrorism??? Then perhaps Mr. Putin would like to explain the following quote:

"I HAVE BEEN MADE VICTORIOUS THROUGH TERROR" AL-LAH, THE QUR'AN.

Posted by: pythagoras at December 21, 2007 2:15 PM

Beef - why don't you post the link?

Also, your link is run by males? That speaks volumes.

YOU seem intent on ignoring the horrors for females that continue in Afghanistan. Why is that? Can't face reality?

You never commented on the photo of the 11-year-old bride. Gee, I wonder why not.

Posted by: darcy at December 21, 2007 5:01 PM

"I think you've made up your mind about this matter irrespective of any information that would contradict your opinion that nothing has changed in Afghanistan." --posted by Beef Wellington

I would LOVE to think that horrific conditions for females had changed in Afghanistan. Alas, it's not so...

Posted by: darcy at December 21, 2007 5:06 PM

darcy: I will now comment on the 11-year old bride story and here it is: It's horrible. It's disgusting. It's one of many things that needs to change in Afghanistan. I blame Islam mostly for this, but inveterate paternalistic tribalism is also at fault. There. I've commented. If you went to www.afghan-web.com you would have found numerous stories detaling conditions for women in Afghanistan. Most of the articles (at least a simple majority) are negative respecting the lot of women in that sad country and should be, and so your rather strange criticism that the site is "run by males" is thus not germane. Nonetheless, there are positive signs, which you seem intent upon ignoring. Here's another: There are some 10,000 women now attending college in Afghanistan. Under the Taliban that figure was zero. Will you ignore this statistic as well? Hopefully you're not one who thinks facts should never get in the way of a brilliant theory.

I'll use the glass metaphor. Under the Taliban the glass was completely empty for women in Afghanistan. Now, I'd say it's maybe 10-15% full. That's a start but only a start. Much work has to be done to free women from the conditions under which they still suffer. But the glass would still be empty but for American and allied intervention.

Finally, I do not appreciate your calling me "Beef." It is done by you as a way of demeaning me. It's very cheap. Stop it or I will not respond to you again----ever.

Posted by: Wellington at December 21, 2007 7:22 PM

Wellington,

My apologies for taking so long to get back to you.

You wrote "Russia looks upon NATO as a threat" as if NATO were not. This is absurd.

It was NATO that waged an unprovoked war of aggression against Orthodox Yugoslavia on behalf of Muslim terrorists. Seeing Yeltsin as weak and beholden to the West, they took advantage of Russia's inability to resist both NATO aggression and expansion. Fortunately, Putin is no Yeltsin and is making Russia strong again.

Yes NATO is an enemy of Russia and of Orthodox civilization. Just look at the NATO imperial enterprise in Kosovo. If you dont think Russia is the ultimate target, you are blind. NATO and the US have promoted decadence and capitalism while opposing every attempt to restore Russia's pre-communist greatness.

The so-called "colour revolutions" supported by the US and funded by George Soros are examples of this. So far these movements have been successful in Georgia (the 2003 Rose Revolution), Ukraine (the 2004 Orange Revolution), and (though more violent than the previous ones) Kyrgyzstan (the 2005 Tulip Revolution). Each time massive street protests followed elections where the West did not like who the majority chose so it manufactured an election-dispute and an orchestrated uprising.

In every case, the "colour revolution" was followed by a US military in the country or the US installed new government's attempts to become a satrap of NATO.

However, the chickens are coming home to roost, especially in Serbia and Ukraine where the leaders installed by the colour revolution are hated by the people. In Ukraine, the colour revolution installed president Viktor Yushchenko, who even manufactured a fake assassination attempt by poisoning right before the election to gain sympathy votes. Yushchenko's approval rating is dismal while a majority of Ukrainians rank Putin as a most admired leader.

In Georgia, a "colour revolution" installed the corrupt Mikheil Saakashvili but his days are clearly numbered. A majority of Georgians openly support closer union with Russia despite threats from their government. As for Russia itself, only the blind could fail to see that Putin has the support of the majority of his people.

As for Russia building a temporary friendship with Iran, this makes geo-politcal sense. In Chechnya and other places, Russia faces a terrorist threat that is exclusively Sunni. There are virually no Shi'ites in Russia so they are not a current threat. Keeping Iran from helping the Chechens is wise, regardless of how the US feels about Iran.

In fact Iran is actually helping the Christian Armenians against fellow Shi'ite Azerbaijan. This is because Iran's mullahs fear Azeri separatism more than they loath helping Christians kill Muslims. Don't forget also, that Russia's relationship with America's enemy Iran is less disturbing than America's full-fledged friendship and support of Saudi Arabia and Turkey who are the trainers and funders of the murderers of Beslan etc. So before you condemn Russia, you ought to look closer to home. Remember, Russia has suffered more Islamic terror attacks than any other country except, perhaps Israel.

Seventy years of atheistic Communist tyranny, followed by 15 years of oligarchical exploitation, has left Russia broken and prostrate. Now she is finally getting her act together. If the Western leaders were smart, they would want Russia is a strong ally in the War against Islam.

Sadly, however, the West always seems to support Islam against Orthodox Christian civilization. It has been doing so since the Crimean War. Nevertheless, the Third Rome is being reborn and Russia will fulfill its Christian destiny. I, for one, am thankful for this.

Posted by: Provoslavni at December 21, 2007 10:30 PM

Morgane, it wasn't your defense of Putin that bothered me, it was your overt hostility toward America and your nebulous insinuations that we flex our muscle not to help other nations, but to bully them into doing our bidding or giving us what we want. I think your rancor is unfair and unjustfied but of course, I am prejudiced. And FYI, I'm not a redneck, I'm a redhead.

Just because we disagree on certain issues doesn't make me an uncouth, illiterate manual laborer or farm hand, which is what a redneck is. I happen to agree with you about Russia but I think it's Russia that has no desire to ally itself with the U.S., not the other way around.

Isolationism sounds better to me every day. There have been wars going on somewhere in the world almost all my life, wars that America didn't start but somehow became involved in. Foreign wars have touched my life and the lives of just about every family in America. We're sick and tired of seeing our fathers, husbands, and brothers sent off to the other side of the world to fight and die for people that hate us. We're sick and tired of pompous European hypocrites calling us racists, warmongers, oil thieves, cowboys, and uncultured, unsophisticated, provincial rubes.

We'll see how the next major and imminent conflict plays out, the one between islam and the rest, which will begin in Europe. It is so ironic to me that the EU, created to ensure that European nations would never wage war against each other again, has set the stage for the mother of all wars on the European continent by inviting hostile, bellicose muslims to invade Europe. This has to be one of the most bizarre fiascoes in the history of the world. My compliments to the left-wing social engineers, the apathetic European populace that allowed it to happen and silently tolerates it, and the self-hating multiculturalists and utopian elitists. May they all live happily everafter.

Posted by: Susanp at December 22, 2007 12:55 AM

Provoslavni

Do you honestly believe that the west is conspiring to destroy orthodox christianity? I'll admit that Kosovo was a mistake, and the expansion of NATO wasn't the best diplomacy, but to believe these actions are the results of some conspiracy to destroy eastern european civilization is simply ridiculous.

Besides even you would have to admit that Russia has made mistakes too, if it truely seeks better relations with the west. Conducting military excercises with the Chinese, and helping the Iranians with their nuclear ambitions is not a good way to gain western trust.

NATO may be seen as a threat to Russia, but Russia's actions are seen as no less threatening to the West.

Posted by: GuitarBob at December 22, 2007 1:36 AM

GuitarBob,

I don't believe it is a conscious conspiracy against Orthodox Christianity but rather a clash of values. The West, having abandoned the last vestiges of Christendom for liberal secularism appears, rightly or wrongly, to be hostile to every form of Christianity.

That the former Soviet bloc, having experienced the unmitigated horror of atheistic communism and then the faliure of liberal capitalism is now returning to its Christian roots is incomprehensible to the modern Western mind. Liberalism, including its neo-Con variety, cannot or will not distinquish between traditional religions such as Orthodox Christianity (or Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) and the real ideological threat of Islam. Unlike traditional religions, Islam is totalitarian and violent by nature. Unfortunately, the modern West wrongly sees all traditional religions equally as reactionary fundamentalism. Thus the unprovoked aggression against Serbia.

As I wrote above, Russia is finally getting her act together. Nevertheless this will take years and many mistakes will be made. However, the neo-con attempts to impose their absurd cult of democracy on the entire planet can never be accepted. Russia and many other soveriegn nations simply do not want to be like the United States and want even less to be its colonies.

That is one reason why Russia is doing military exercises with China. Also Russia and China are neighbors and have a mutual interest in good relations. Finally, history shows that every time one nation begins to dominate the world, other nations have no alternative except to form alliances to counter-balance its power. It is a simple matter of preserving their independence. A strong US is needed in our current struggle but one with less hubris and... hopefully... one which will finally wake up to what the real threat is.

Posted by: Provoslavni at December 22, 2007 10:28 AM

Provoslavni: Thanks for your response. I would like to comment in detail but I've got things to do my wife would like done before Christmas and I've sure you'll understand that takes priority. I will, in general, say that the idea that the West is eternally hostile to Russia and Orthodox Christianity is something I've come across from Russians on a fairly regular basis, including a very good friend of mine who is Russian. I'm alwyas kind of stunned by this. The attitude to Russia and the Orthodox faith by the West is pretty much what the attitude to Canada is by America most of the time-----indifference. But just as Canadians can't stop thinking about the United States (George Will's line is best here: "Canadians are obsessed with not being obsessed about America"), so it seems that Russians are always concerned with Western impressions of and designs on them. It's just not true. The West, including America, wishes Russia well, but Russia persists in seeing the world in terms of "spheres of influence"-----and Eastern Europe is hers.
Another matter. The mess in Yugoslavia in the 1990s was something America had little to do with. In fact, as I've posted before, America under Bush I and then Clinton told the Europeans this was their problem. Well, after four wars in eight years and thousands of people slaughtered and with enough blame to go all around, the feckless Europeans and even the UN were practically begging America to step in. When we did in 1999 and bombed Serbia, that was unfortunate indeed but it put a stop to the unremitting slaughter that had gone on for eight years. We ended the killing by the use of force and Russians, Serbs and others blame us. I suppose it's the price of being the great power. I assure you if America had done didly in 1999 and the slaughter had continued, we would have been blamed by much of the world for doing nothing. Can't win for losing. I do agree, though, with those who think America should not push for an independent Kosovo. At least here, I believe you and I would be in accord with one another.
As for Russia, yes, Putin has turned things around somewhat for his fellow countrymen, but at what a price-----freedom. I'm reminded of what I believe Disraeli said of Bismarck when told he had made Germany a power to be feared. Disraeli's retort was, yes, he has made Germany great and Germans small. Ditto where Putin and Russia are concerned. From my vantage point, Putin's Russia is beginning to look like one gigantic criminal enterprise----prosperous and tough, but also ruthless, corrupt, paranoid and certainly short on freedom.
Thanks again for your perspective. I appreciate it and look forward to future give and takes. We may disagree here and there but that doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable. In any case, Merry Christmas. I gotta' go. I've got things to do. Take care.

Posted by: Wellington at December 22, 2007 1:31 PM