Future of Russian Government

[SANDRO43]

as someone that said "I dislike all Italians"

Impossible statement, we're too lovable for that .

[deccie]

Deccie, you made a general statement that the world dislikes Americans.  I corrected you factually and multiple times because your statement implies a perception problem on your behalf.

1.  The "world" doesn't dislike Americans. 
2.  Those individuals that dislike Americans are prejudiced because people are unique and special and should not be stereotyped.
3.  The "world" doesn't dislike America either except for five specific countries run by dictators and one faction of a particular religious group.

My first reply to this statement was "That statement is completely false."  I stand by that statement.       

Just for you timothe I will rewrite my statement as thus.

A  body of people (size unknwon) dislike the policies or actions of a particular group of Americans (size unknown) , particularly where said polices or actions of this group negatively impact others located outside the USA who appear, at face value, to not warrant the negative consequences of such actions or policies.
 

As for your statement that individuals don't matter in this. I disagree, since a change of government in a democracy is merely the sum  of those individuals exercising their rights.

There was a time not too long ago, where, in my home state, a government fell because of one seat in a by-election that was lost with a margin of 16 votes. Individuals can and do count.

[timothe]

Just for you timothe I will rewrite my statement as thus.

A  body of people (size unknwon) dislike the policies or actions of a particular group of Americans (size unknown) , particularly where said polices or actions of this group negatively impact others located outside the USA who appear, at face value, to not warrant the negative consequences of such actions or policies.
 

Actually, you could have just rephrased it this way: (it may have been more truthful and it is certainly less prejudiced)

And Americans wonder why I dislike them so much sometimes.  The Mind just boggles.

 

[BillyB]

IMO, you're making a mountain out of a molehill because it suits your argument.If they're unaccounted for (missing), how could you read the markings on those shell cases, or are you again referring to the 500 out of a supposed 30,000 ?

Sandro, the mountain out of a mole hill comment should be directed to the non believers.

I gave a link to a place where all here can read the UN resolutions. If someone here found something that gave exceptions to what WMD's are, then I will concede. As far as I know, there are no exceptions to give Saddam a pass whether it be him keeping old WMDs, in possession of less potent WMDs, or in possession of no more than 500 WMDs. The bottom line is Saddam had WMDs.

If numbers are important to you, the 500 WMDs were found between 2003-May 2004. There could be more when classified info is declassified. The Republican Senators are confident more will turn up. Maybe they know more has already turned up but they can't talk about it now. Don't expect Democrat's to announce the news if more documents are declassified.

Sandro, this may seem like small potatoes to you but if one of the many missing WMD's are obtained by terrorists and used at a busy airport in Rome, will you blame Bush for not taking WMDs serious enough to hunt them all down? Certainly the World would want Bush's head for not preventing this. 12 years of UN inspections and searching by coalition forces at a huge cost for your's mine, and the World's safety. Do you believe this was all about putting money in Bush's pocket?

Don't be upset with me when I bring this news to attention, be angry with your media who failed to at minimum, report it. It's so much better if they let their readership continue to think Bush lied for an illegal war. Maybe the main stream media knows what they're doing by not reporting it? Based on the reaction of anti-Bush people, they don't want to hear it and now continue to talk about Bush's "other" problems. Is it too hard to say "Bush is right" on the issue of WMDs? Bush can't win even when he's right. At least he takes the high road of not rubbing this issue into people's noses although for years, he had, and will continue to take crap from others who refuse to believe WMDs existed or is simply naive.

Here's a sample of what the media does. CNN reports a missile is found hidden in a soccer stadium but CNN reporter says it is unknown whether the missile violated the range of 150 kilometers (93 miles) set under U.N. sanctions. Most people would read that and think it's legal for Saddam to have that and Bush is still wrong. But... CNN DOES know that ballistic missile is illegal, it's just that you have to additional work and click a link they give you for the full truth. Unfortunately most people do not do additional research beyond reading the article to get the truth. Understanding truth doesn't have to be this hard, that's why the media sucks.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/10/sprj.irq.hidden.missile/index.html

Just because people have a difference in politics doesn't make them evil. I'm sure both Bush and Clinton want to do their best for this nation and the World although there are great differences on how to get there. Do any of you out there really believe Bush is pure evil and intentionally trying to tear the World apart?

For those that think I only defend Republicans, you're wrong. These last few days I've been defending Franklin D. Roosevelt from people who are accusing the Democrat of collaborating with the Japanese in attacking Pearl Harbor. America is evil and can't win no matter who is president.

Maybe a mod can separate this thread and make it a sticky for anyone who wants to talk politics so we have a place to go instead of going off topic as we occasionally do. We could call it "The Mother of all Political threads"

Stalin/Saddam had many photos showing affection towards children.

Reminds me of a story about Stalin or Saddam. I can't remember which but same difference. While playing with a child, Stalin/Saddam had scheduled the child's parent for execution.

[deccie]

Actually, you could have just rephrased it this way: (it may have been more truthful and it is certainly less prejudiced)

 

Actually, that would not be true.  I know quite a few Americans (that I like) and am friends with several. Close friends with two.
But there would only be two Americans on this forum I would class myself as "friends" with and neither would share the prevailing politics here.

I don't dislike Americans as such. Just the loud boorish ones.
 

[deccie]

I gave a link to a place where all here can read the UN resolutions. If someone here found something that gave exceptions to what WMD's are, then I will concede. As far as I know, there are no exceptions to give Saddam a pass whether it be him keeping old WMDs, in possession of less potent WMDs, or in possession of no more than 500 WMDs. The bottom line is Saddam had WMDs.

Billy, by your own criteria any material dumped by the Iraqi army as no longer being a viable weapon still constitutes a WMD. Secondly, any material disposed of by the UN weapons inspectors by landfill on Iraqi soil could also potentially in your criteria still constitute WMD. Claiming that as a credible weapon I would suggest to you is pretty thin ice.

In essence it would be exactly the same as claiming the US maintains a Biological weapons program purely because they maintain stocks of smallpox and/or anthrax  for research and development work.

[BillyB]

Billy, by your own criteria any material dumped by the Iraqi army as no longer being a viable weapon still constitutes a WMD. Secondly, any material disposed of by the UN weapons inspectors by landfill on Iraqi soil could also potentially in your criteria still constitute WMD. Claiming that as a credible weapon I would suggest to you is pretty thin ice.

Twice, I showed you where to read the report. Based on that statement above, you did not read the report on where the WMDs were found. Where did it say landfill or dump? Unbelievable. 

[deccie]

Here's a sample of what the media does. CNN reports a missile is found hidden in a soccer stadium but CNN reporter says it is unknown whether the missile violated the range of 150 kilometers (93 miles) set under U.N. sanctions. Most people would read that and think it's legal for Saddam to have that and Bush is still wrong. But... CNN DOES know that ballistic missile is illegal, it's just that you have to additional work and click a link they give you for the full truth. Unfortunately most people do not do additional research beyond reading the article to get the truth. Understanding truth doesn't have to be this hard, that's why the media sucks.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/10/sprj.irq.hidden.missile/index.html

I read this link Billy, exactly as i had before and I am still not clear what your point is. If you read the secondary link you allude to the following text stands out in the article:

"Iraq began to comply but also said it would stop the process if it becomes clear that the United States intends to go to war."

It seems like the Iraqi's were very upfront. (1) They admitted they had them (2) They started destroying them (3) They reserved the right to stop destroying them if they were attacked.  The only piece of deception I can see is that they (the Iraqi's) argued about the range.

So what's the suprise?

The other point is that a missle is only a WMD delivery vehicle (or conventional weapon DV). It is not a WMD itself. For this missle to be a danger in terms of WMD there would have to have been WMD warheads for it. Where are they??? Do you really think the USA was threatened by a weapon that had a range of between 150 and 200 miles?

Yes, it may have been a banned weapon. But Iraq was destroying them. The text in the first article goes on to say:

 "During the last round of U.N. inspections -- which ended when the war began March 19 -- Iraq destroyed more than 70 al-Samoud 2 missiles the United Nations said exceeded the 150-kilometer range. Iraq denied the missiles violated that range. "

It seems fairly neutral text to me and leaves it up to the reader to work out who to believe. The UN or the Iraqi information ministry. (The victories keep on coming - just closer and closer to home!)

[BC]

Just FYI, I don't think all classes of chemical weapons would classify as a WMD. I won't go into details, but does a stink bomb count?

Battlefields of WW1 are still filled up with old chemical munitions ready to be dug up.  Has it degraded? .. well they still have warning signs everywhere but not one guard in sight. 

It would be interesting to know what types of agents were found.. maybe that is the secret part.

[BillyB]

It would be interesting to know what types of agents were found.. maybe that is the secret part.

That info is in article I provided along with where it was found. With so many people placing an importance on finding or not finding WMDs and wanting to hold Bush accountable, I would have thought everybody would have read it by now. My mistake.

[BC]

That info is in article I provided along with where it was found. With so many people placing an importance on finding or not finding WMDs and wanting to hold Bush accountable, I would have thought everybody would have read it by now. My mistake.

Billy,

I think the attached clears things up considerably.  Is this what all the fuss is about?  You would think that the intelligence agency involved would love to show a real smoking gun.

This ain't it. 

Does show however that the majority our elected officials are truly in the dark.

[deccie]

Billy,

I think the attached clears things up considerably.  Is this what all the fuss is about?  You would think that the intelligence agency involved would love to show a real smoking gun.

This ain't it. 

Does show ho
wever that the majority our elected officials are truly in the dark.

Yeah, it was a bit of a let down wasn't it. For a smoking gun I don't think it even got there as a cigarette butt.
Billy, as an FYI I was referring to Video I saw years ago of UN Weapons inspectors disposing of WMD material by landfill. It is unknown by me if they applied any and what processes to the material before hand but it certainly did include artillery shells - and they were intact as the video showed them being buried.

IF such disposal methods are applied to the criteria YOU outlined above such material would still constitute WMD.

[Bruno]

Is it too hard to say "Bush is right" on the issue of WMDs?

Bush is right about the WMD when he say himself :

"BUSH: The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."

"The Duelfer report makes clear that much of the accumulated body of 12 years of our intelligence and that of our allies was wrong."

"At a time of many threats in the world, the intelligence on which the president and members of Congress base their decisions must be better, and it will be."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14897-2004Oct7?language=printer

Bush was not wrong... he have simply take a decision based on wrong informations given by his intelligence service !!!

Now, about the "hate" of USA, a very interesting article :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072001806_pf.html

I think that these article show a enough neutral point of view... not all is black or white... nothing is perfect, the US is not a exception... but US have give a lot to the world... of course, when a oliphant is moving, sometime he is breaking thing... great power mean great responsability...

[BC]

Nice 'catch' Bruno.

This particular statement sorta caught my eye:

Based on all the information we have to date, I believe we were right to take action, and America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison. He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction, and he could have passed that knowledge on to our terrorist enemies.

Boy that sounds sooo familiar.. - and a crazy high school chemistry student could also qualify.


Transcript from October 2004 and declassified document June 2006.. the full report from 2004 here from a 'been there, done that' kinda guy:

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html

Guys, I'm getting bored with all this bluff.  Unless some cold hard facts are presented contradicting those above there is really little point in continuing this discourse.

I'm not buying 'the rest is top secret, so trust me..'

Can we get back to the future of the Russian Government now?

[timothe]

The second article was a nice catch as well.

I think the USA is in a no-win situation with the media.  If the US doesn't involve itself as a peacemaker in world affairs, then it is possible for other power with bad intent to arise and replace the current world structure.  (Which really has been beneficial to almost everyone.)  If the US does involve itself, then it is labelled as a busy-body and when someone...anyone is affected negatively, then it's the fault of the US.

If the USA has as its first goal to be liked by the world, then we as a nation are way way off course.  I don't mind that we spend our money and our troops to keep world peace.  But we need to be able to react unilaterally when it is deemed necessary, regardless of what "the world" thinks. 

The US military is not just a humanitarian organization that brings supplies to the hungry.   

I think the whole concept of "the world hates us" is vastly overblown by the mainstream media.  The concept is used by the media as a bludgeon against taking action in the arena of foreign policy, as if there are terrible and justifiable consequences to any kind of unilateral action by the US.  As the article properly points out, the majority of any "hatred" of the US comes from envy and the actions of those envious taken against the US has no reasonable justification. 

[BillyB]

If you guys can show a link of Democrats accusing Republicans of bluffing and fabricating the find of WMDs, place one here. To catch two Republican Senators in a lie would be harmful to Bush and the Republicans to the thrill of the Democrats.

If you can show a link of an international WMD body or government accusing coalition forces of not having access to the WMDs found to verify authenticity themselves, place one here.

If you can show a link of the UN protesting the WMDs that were found were out of a previous burial site of theirs, place one here.

Surely people and organizations in high places would love to catch Bush involved in a hoax.

Individuals continue to protest and deny but fail to show any protest or denial except from each other. You may continue downplay the finding of WMDs but I doubt you'd sleep next to those 500 WMDs to prove they're harmless let alone hand them over to terrorists to play with. Somebody had to find them and it wasn't your cherished UN men. A lot of good people after the war ordered troops to rush and guard all known weapon's caches. It was the unknown cashes they found WMDs mixed in with conventional weapons. Yes, one can tell the difference based on the markings/numbers of the outside of an shell casing if it's conventional or WMD and where it's from. Same for understanding the current terrorists are supplied by Iran when it comes to weapons.

For those that think UN inspectors will bury WMDs without neutralizing them and film the location on camera, you need to think more. Besides exposing the location of the burial on camera for terrorists to recognize, environmental conditions change and what is buried now may turn up in 50 years. The UN may not have done a good inspection job but those guys are smarter than that when they found and want to discard a dangerous weapon.

[William3rd]

Is there anything else that the Bushistas want to talk about before we return to our regularly scheduled program?

Good- now back to the future of the Russian government!!!!!

[Mir]

Billy

I am afraid there are problems with your theories.

First of all there are serious questions about the legality of the invasion in context of UN resolutions. Most of the evidence points to the fact that the invasion was not legal.
You keep referring to the claim of US senators that WMDs were found. How can you accept that the two Washington based politicians know more then trained weapons inspectors who have spent time in Iraq and written reports.
And further more:
Lawmakers Cite Weapons Found in Iraq
Thursday, June 22, 2006; Page A10
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told reporters yesterday that weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found in Iraq, despite acknowledgments by the White House and the insistence of the intelligence community that no such weapons had been discovered.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Santorum said.
The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.

The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html

So even Bush himself does not justify his actions on finding of these weapons!!
Perhaps with you it is a case of being more loyal than the King himself?

[BillyB]

Mir, you should know the Washington Post never endorses a Republican for President. They are right that these WMDs were not evidence of Saddam MAKING WMDs. But they were there and were evidence of him having them. I like how they refer that it was a blister agent that was found. They didn't mention the other although they got access to the declassified info.

The Washington Post fails to mention the names of certain officials they are quoting and places their article on page 10. Strange, for a story of this importance with traditional Bush bashing it is normally placed on page 1 on that publication.

The author of the article is a Washington Post reporter instead of one coming from a more neutral AP(Associated Press). Google the name and look at all the Bush bashing articles written by that reporter. There seems to be little else the reporter knows to report on except when presented with the opportunity to take a shot at Bush. Using that reporter here is like me bringing in Rush Limbaugh to defend Bush and telling you to believe Rush.

Also Mir, the Washington Post/reporter makes it sound as if those crates of WMDs were buried for disposal. They were not. One doesn't recklessly dump tons of dirt on live WMD munitions for burial unless they have a death wish to go out with a bang to be with Allah. They were carefully buried for storage and the chemicals in them, although old and weak, were not neutralized.

Mir, next time please be careful on who you choose to read.

Whether you believed they were WMDs discarded or buried for future use, you must know that the burial site was documented and Saddam and company had 12 years to show inspectors that burial site and possibly many more yet to be discovered to prove he got rid of them as he said he did. Saddam failed to do that and give accountability for the known WMDs.

Mir, I know you and some of the guys here don't trust Bush but do you guys mistrust the whole US government? There are checks and balances in our government and if a President gets a blow job by a woman other than his wife, the opposing party will speak out for the World to hear. Same with the announcement of WMDs by the Republican Senators. The Democrats will speak out loud if it isn't true and since they do have access to classified info as much as the Republicans, they're silence speak volumes. Call your country's UN Representative if they feel this is all a hoax or the that WMDs found are not serious or if they feel war was illegal because no UN resolutions were violated.

Do you find yourself having a deep mistrust for government when they keep things top secret? Do you have to know the exact location of where the WMDs  were found to believe? Do you mistrust your elected officials but trust only the anti Bush/American media because it caters to your views?

Why doesn't Bush declassify info to make himself look good is anybody's guess. 2003-4 turned up 500 WMDs. How many were found in 2004-2007? Maybe it'll remain classified so the exact location of where they are successfully finding WMDs isn't known to terrorists in the name of saving lives. Maybe Bush has his priorities straight that he keeps this classified for the time being. Maybe, just maybe he started this war to do something he thought was right, not to make himself a buck.

[SANDRO43]

Why doesn't Bush declassify info to make himself look good is anybody's guess.

Wake up, BillyB, most likely because the news was too irrelevant to do him any good media-wise, as both DIA and CIA probably mentioned such irrelevance in their field reports.

How many were found in 2004-2007? Maybe it'll remain classified so the exact location of where they are successfully finding WMDs isn't known to terrorists in the name of saving lives.

Good wall-climbing, you should try the Himalayas next as a more fulfilling challenge .

[DKMM]

Anybody catch the footage in Kosovo today? 

You will notice as those people lined the streets and marched for the right to choose their own destiny, they waved American flags.  Right there in the middle of SE Europe, very far from America.  Why do they associate America with their freedom?

[timothe]

Is there anything else that the Bushistas want to talk about before we return to our regularly scheduled program?

Good- now back to the future of the Russian government!!!!!

William, quality content has been seriously lacking in your posts on this thread.  We'll let you know when we're done, m'kay?  In the meantime, please keep the Bush = Hitler comments to yourself.  They are not welcome here.   

[William3rd]

Hey Timmy.  Were you just appointed God? Or were you recently anointed by the White House?

I think I referred to your ilk as Bushistas. Before that you were accusing me of calling you a wife beater, weren't you? This is a bulletin board, Timmy. Although more restrained than some.

Why don't you get back on topic instead of spouting the same old tired crap the American people in general are rejecting in droves. Or did you already get laughed off the mainstream political boards?

So tell me Timmy- what is the future of the Russian government? If you know.

I will not waste any more time on this thread with you. Else, this one may end up  relegated to the pit. Obviously I wont expect a Christmas card from you this year. . . . 

[acrzybear]

Reminds me of a joke I heard years ago that shows how the people we support usually end up biting us in the ass.

 Why was the U.S Government so sure Saddam had WMD's?

They still have the receipts!

  So will Putin transfer the powers of the President to the Prime Minister position right before he assumes that position?  It would be foolish to think that Putin at a relatively young age would just give up power and retire, remember this is the former head of the KGB and should not be underestimated.

  Will Russia go back to the bad ol hardline days?  I don't think it will get that bad, in todays world economy you need to have at least semi open borders.

[deccie]

Anybody catch the footage in Kosovo today? 

You will notice as those people lined the streets and marched for the right to choose their own destiny, they waved American flags.  Right there in the middle of SE Europe, very far from America.  Why do they associate America with their freedom?

I would suggest  they were doing it in an effort to stimulate US support as a Bulwark against Russia.
Especially as Russia is clearly opposed to the Independance plan.
If you have a big bully fighting against you what better counter than to have another big bully fighting for you.