Times person of the year cover

[thompsongunner06]

Well if anyone even cares,,,,Putin won the cover of Times person of the year. Sure he did put Russia on the road to Democracy but now I think its a Dictatorship. Seems he cannot give up the Power Drug.

[BC]

Well if it works, don't mess with it is my opin.

What's not working?

(not talking something just being handled or accepted differently)

[alantodd]

I personally like him.  Russia is in a lot better shape today than 8 years ago.  He also could care less what rest of Europe and USA think.  He is making strong ties with China and Iran.  Very smart.  Majority of people love him there.  Very few countries can say their leader is popular.  It is very good for USA if Russia assumes #1 power in Europe again and quarrels with France, Germany, and England. 

[BillyB]

I think Time magazine votes for man of the year based on few criteria and some of it is how much a man has hands on in country and the impact he's made made in the news whether good or bad. Osama bin Laden was left out though so they don't always pick the man who's in the news the most. Men of the year includes Hitler, Ayatollah Komeini, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, Endangered Earth, and Joseph Stallin TWICE.

Last year in an online vote, Time's readership voted for Hugo Chávez who got a 35%. Second was Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at 21%. Then came Nancy Pelosi. In the end, Time chose "YOU" as person of the year for 2006. We're all winners of the award! I feel special and I'm picking up a subscription today.

[thompsongunner06]

I'll give him that. He did an OK job but why will he not let the next person run it. Why does he have to be the Prime Minister and still run Russia? What would you say if Bush was Prime Minister and some one else just ran the US per PM Bush? I think power is worse than crack. Oh well, I'm just glad it was not Al Gore!

[alantodd]

If Bush could serve 8 more years I would be very happy.  Last 8 years have been great for everyone I am personal friends with.

[Erwin]

Russian President Vladimir Putin was named Person of the Year 2007 by Time Magazine for bringing stability to Russia.

Time managing editor Richard Stengel interviewed Putin at the presidential dacha for 3 1/2 hours.

To understand Putin, read the excerpts of his answers to the interview questions or watch the video of his interview here: http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/personoftheyear/article/0,28804,1690753_1690757_1691279,00.html

Best,

E

[BC]

Given the chance to meet either Bush or Putin for dinner, I think I would choose pelmeni over steak.

[WmGO]

Today's Wallstreet Journal has an excellent expose' of Putin:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119820263246543973.html?mod=hps_us_pageone

[WmGO]

Given the chance to meet either Bush or Putin for dinner, I think I would choose pelmeni over steak.

Ya tozha!

Hands down there is no competition as to which one is the smartest and
most interesting.

[BillyB]

Today's Wallstreet Journal has an excellent expose' of Putin:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119820263246543973.html?mod=hps_us_pageone

Interesting article. Putin thought he may have to resort to driving a taxi after USSR broke apart. If he took a different path and history was a little different, it is quite possible some of us may have had Putin as a taxi driver!

[WmGO]

He is a good economic competition strategist also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21pipeline.html

[BC]

Interesting article. Putin thought he may have to resort to driving a taxi after USSR broke apart. If he took a different path and history was a little different, it is quite possible some of us may have had Putin as a taxi driver!

Oh I don't think so.. he doesn't seem to believe in luck..

From the Q&A session above:

Q:You must feel lucky that the price of oil is so high.
Putin: Fools are lucky. We work day and night!

I've noticed that we are often most effective when the carpet is swept from under us.  I work daily with a couple of guys in FSU and admire their ability to look up instead of groveling over something they cannot change.  Men are not made in palaces.

[timothe]

Given the chance to meet either Bush or Putin for dinner, I think I would choose pelmeni over steak.

Actually, I'd prefer to have my polonium-210 with a T-Bone. 

[timothe]

Ya tozha!

Hands down there is no competition as to which one is the smartest and
most interesting.

I don't know about that. 

Putin: Suppresses enemies like Kasparov with imprisonment, excommunication, and materials from long side of the periodic table.  Anyone in power can do that.

Bush:  Suppresses enemies with Executive privledge, kills his most ardent critics with kindness, defeats the legislative branch over and over again despite a minority in both houses and a hostile media.  Uses Vitamins in moderation.  Very few have the will to do that.

I mean really...would it really be more interesting to hear a guy gloat about how manipulated his already corrupt government to maintain his power indefinitely or to hear a guy who thought he was doing what was right, not what was politically expedient?  How many men do you know personally that would not cave under the massive amounts of political pressure Bush has been under? 

[BC]

Timothe,

There is a huge difference between pushing your program with backing of the majority of the population than pushing a minority program without the will of the majority.

Which do you feel is more democratic?.. -and I'm talking principles, not politics.

Putin: Suppresses enemies like Kasparov with imprisonment, excommunication, and materials from long side of the periodic table.  Anyone in power can do that.

I won't address the rest of your statements as you are clearly stabbing in the dark.  Excommunication??.. really..  get wise guy.

[WmGO]

I don't know about that. 

Putin: Suppresses enemies like Kasparov with imprisonment, excommunication, and materials from long side of the periodic table.  Anyone in power can do that.

Bush:  Suppresses enemies with Executive privledge, kills his most ardent critics with kindness, defeats the legislative branch over and over again despite a minority in both houses and a hostile media.  Uses Vitamins in moderation.  Very few have the will to do that.

I mean really...would it really be more interesting to hear a guy gloat about how manipulated his already corrupt government to maintain his power indefinitely or to hear a guy who thought he was doing what was right, not what was politically expedient?  How many men do you know personally that would not cave under the massive amounts of political pressure Bush has been under? 

You miss the whole point. Hint: no moral judgments were made or
implied in my above comment. And if you think "W" is more intelligent
or more interesting than Putin you are living in an imaginary world.

To answer your last question: MANY.

BTW it is unbecoming  to be a cheerleader for ANY political party.

[timothe]

You miss the whole point. Hint: no moral judgments were made or
implied in my above comment. And if you think "W" is more intelligent
or more interesting than Putin you are living in an imaginary world.

He's smart enough to stay a step ahead of the many and varied lynch mobs.  And his life experiences and achievements far surpass Putin's.  Seriously.

To answer your last question: MANY.

Name two...but you can only go back to a period of history that you personally remember.

BTW it is unbecoming  to be a cheerleader for ANY political party.

It is equally unbecoming for an American to insult the current American president on an international forum.


[/quote]

[timothe]

Timothe,

There is a huge difference between pushing your program with backing of the majority of the population than pushing a minority program without the will of the majority.

You see, this is where you have steered off the road.  If you are trying to infer that the resolution to invade Iraq was not the will of the majority, then you are suffering from short-term memory loss.  The resolution was supported by 3/4 of the Senate and 2/3 of the House of Representatives.  Last I recall, those people are the elected representatives of the American people. 

Now, the "will" of the people to bail after a couple thousand American casualties could not possibly be an option for the American president because of the precedent it would set. 

"IF" the will of the American people was to bail on Iraq after a couple thousand American casualties, then Congress would have been able to defund the war effort.  They (Congress) couldn't do it and they knew they couldn't do it.  That's why they disingenously attempted to legislate the war, which is a breach of the American Constitution.  The president is the Commander-in-Chief, period.  For better or for worse, it is his job to execute the war. 

Now, you could say the war was executed very poorly and many would agree with you. (I do to some extent, but Bush and Rumsfeld knew they had to manage the war with a great deal of compassion and the imported Al-Queda insurgents reacted to that compassion by hiding amongst the civilians.  Thank goodness for David Petraeus!) 

However, that's not your contention here.  Your contention here is that the American people did not want to invade Iraq, which is simply not true.  (BTW, Bush's approval ratings at that time were about 70%) http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm

I won't address the rest of your statements as you are clearly stabbing in the dark.  Excommunication??.. really..  get wise guy.

It was an exaggeration, sir.  Are you arguing the point that Putin squelches his enemies in ways that a Democratic nation cannot?  Do you support this type of behavior in your leaders?

[Mir]

It is equally unbecoming for an American to insult the current American president on an international forum

Duh! Are non-Americans allowed to do this?

[BC]

Timothe,

You really need to begin trying to comprehend what folks write here instead of shoving words down our throats. If you don't understand, then ask before spouting.  You seem bent on waging another Iraq discussion here.

My remark upthread that you quoted and objected to is in reference to Putin managing to somehow maintain majority popular support whereas Bush has not.  I also asked you a question and tried to indicate that I was looking for views not related to political systems.

Here's another question regarding your statement:

Putin: Suppresses enemies like Kasparov with imprisonment, excommunication, and materials from long side of the periodic table.  Anyone in power can do that.

It was an exaggeration, sir.  Are you arguing the point that Putin squelches his enemies in ways that a Democratic nation cannot?  Do you support this type of behavior in your leaders?

Maybe you want to identify the 'exaggeration(s)?' should we consider the entire statement as exaggeration solely for entertainment, your questions as well?  - just wanted to know so I can address any 'serious' parts and (chuck)le the rest.

btw.. who's arguing? ?

[Bruce]

Things are really improving in Russia.  My sis -in - law is 22 and is making $700 a month in Tver these days selling cell phone plans to people.  That should tell you something right there about how much things are improving in their economy.

There is a good argument for giving the man of the year to David Petraeus.  He did what no other American general could do, and through his leadership it is being accomplished very quickly. 

Still, there is a good or even better argument for Putin.  He is popular and has done a great over all job for Russia.  If oil and gas prices come down Russia's economy will be in trouble, but I believe there is a ground swell of economic progress to hold up Russia these days without just oil and gas. 

Poor Bush.  If he was not so fisically irresponsible a lot more people would like him.  Over all I like him, but I wish he was fisically more responsible ie. balanced budget.

All I know is that if the next Republican candidate for President does not believe in evolution I may vote for H, ah bury the thought! 

[Jet]

The resolution was supported by 3/4 of the Senate and 2/3 of the House of Representatives. 

Based on information that was known to be false at the time it was presented to them

Now, the "will" of the people to bail after a couple thousand American casualties could not possibly be an option for the American president because of the precedent it would set.

Because of the precedent it would set? Timothe, let me ask you this...What kind of precedent was set when the administration decided to initiate hostilities against a sovereign nation based on known false information with no clearly defined objective and no exit strategy?

Further, we've been in Iraq longer than we were in the second world war, so to even imply that "the people" are just stupid gutless "cut and runners" is ludicrous.     

 

Now, you could say the war was executed very poorly and many would agree with you. (I do to some extent, but Bush and Rumsfeld knew they had to manage the war with a great deal of compassion and the imported Al-Queda insurgents reacted to that compassion by hiding amongst the civilians.  Thank goodness for David Petraeus!

How many Al-Queda insurgents were in Iraq BEFORE we got there? and how many now, and what was the motivation for them to show up? 
According to Petraeus' own writings, the formula to put down an insurgency takes a minimum of 1 soldier per 40 civilians, so why has he totally abandoned this formula? and why is that a good thing?

Are you arguing the point that Putin squelches his enemies in ways that a Democratic nation cannot?  Do you support this type of behavior in your leaders?

Putin runs his country in the way it presently needs to be run. His policies and tactics probably would not fly here in the states, just as American style democracy will probably never fly with the Russian population at large.
___________________________

I was in 5th grade when American troops withdrew from Viet-Nam and I learned lessons from the way that conflict was managed. Bush was a grown man at the time and he couldn't?  ???

[timothe]

Based on information that was known to be false at the time it was presented to them

I challenge the accuracy of this statement.  Who knew the intelligence was false?  The correct answer here is that the intelligence wasn't "false", the intelligence was "thin" in that there wasn't enough to justify the invasion.  But Bush rammed it through Congress anyway and Congress, knowing the intelligence was thin, gave him authorization.
 

Because of the precedent it would set? Timothe, let me ask you this...What kind of precedent was set when the administration decided to initiate hostilities against a sovereign nation based on known false information with no clearly defined objective and no exit strategy?

  The precedent set was the one that caused 9/11 in the first place.  Al Queda "knew" America did not have the stomach for war.  That's why Al Queda flooded Iraq after the invasion.  Bin Laden determined Iraq to be the central front in the war on terror and told his minions to hang in there because America would leave Iraq soon.  Bin Laden knew that because the USA has a history of taking terrorism on the chin like we did in Beirut and Mosambique. (sp)

Notice now that Al Queda is now reported in larger numbers on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.  After four years of poorly executed strategy and six months of well executed strategy, we finally got them to leave Iraq.  Why Petraeus didn't get Time's Person of the Year stuns me.   

Further, we've been in Iraq longer than we were in the second world war, so to even imply that "the people" are just stupid gutless "cut and runners" is ludicrous.   

Is there a timetable on winning?  This point is irrelevant.  And we're still in Germany...and South Korea.  
 

How many Al-Queda insurgents were in Iraq BEFORE we got there? and how many now, and what was the motivation for them to show up? 

None, not many now, and see my point above about weak American will.

According to Petraeus' own writings, the formula to put down an insurgency takes a minimum of 1 soldier per 40 civilians, so why has he totally abandoned this formula? and why is that a good thing?

Putin runs his country in the way it presently needs to be run. His policies and tactics probably would not fly here in the states, just as American style democracy will probably never fly with the Russian population at large.
___________________________

I was in 5th grade when American troops withdrew from Viet-Nam and I learned lessons from the way that conflict was managed. Bush was a grown man at the time and he couldn't?  ???

Perhaps you have also read by now that the Tet offensive, which was reported as a massive loss, wasn't?  The US was teetering on victory in Vietnam but pulled out just before the dawn, which ended up causing 3 million additional civilian casualties.  I'm glad Bush didn't pull out before the dawn and I'm more glad that they finally let Petraeus do his thing. 

In case you haven't noticed Jet, the worst is over in Iraq now. 

[timothe]

Duh! Are non-Americans allowed to do this?

Mir, it's not a matter of being allowed.  We live in a free society.  However, I consider it slightly unpatriotic for Americans to bash their country while in an international setting, especially while we have troops in harm's way.