posted February 11, 2007 08:16 PM              

Putin: People who teach us democracy don't
want to learn it themselves [AFP]
Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, has harshly criticised the US for what he said was an attempt to force its will on the rest of the world.

"What is a unipolar world? No matter how we beautify this term it means one single centre of power, one single centre of force and one single master," Putin said to an annual gathering of top security and defence officials in Munich, Germany, on Saturday.

"It has nothing in common with democracy because that is the opinion of the majority taking into account the minority opinion," Putin said.

"People are always teaching us democracy but the people who teach us democracy don't want to learn it themselves."

Responding later on Saturday, the US rejected the Russian leader's remarks.

Gordon Johndroe, press secretary for the White House National Security Council, said: "We are surprised and disappointed with President Putin's comments. His accusations are wrong."

'World less safe'

Putin said that the US, above other western nations, had repeatedly overstepped its national borders in questions of international security, a policy that he said had not made the world safer.

On the contrary, the world had become less safe, he said.

Putin said: "Unilateral actions have not resolved conflicts but have made them worse.

"This is very dangerous. Nobody feels secure any more because nobody can hide behind international law."

He did not mention any specific conflicts, but he has been very critical of the US decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

Missile defence system

Putin also voiced concern about US plans to build a missile defence system in eastern Europe, probably Poland and the Czech Republic, and the expansion of Nato as possible challenges to Russia.

"The process of Nato expansion has nothing to do with modernisation of the alliance or with ensuring security in Europe," Putin said.

"On the contrary, it is a serious factor provoking reduction of mutual trust."

He also dismissed suggestions that the European Union and Nato had the right to intervene alone in crisis regions.

"The legitimate use of force can only be done by the United Nations, it cannot be replaced by EU or Nato," he said.

On the missile defence system, Putin said: "I don't want to accuse anyone of being aggressive" but suggested it would seriously change the balance of power and could provoke an unspecified response.

"That balance will be upset completely and one side will have a feeling of complete security and given a free hand in local, and probably in global, conflicts...," he said.

"We need to respond to this."
Source: Agencie

quote:

---

Why would you need to hide behind the laws? I wonder.

---

posted February 11, 2007 08:30 PM            

quote:

---

The legitimate use of force can only be done by the United Nations, it cannot be replaced by EU or Nato," he said.

---

posted February 12, 2007 08:45 AM            

Not a fan of Putin myself.

quote:

---

Nobody feels secure any more because nobody can hide behind international law."

---

posted February 12, 2007 06:43 PM              

quote:

---

As messed up as Putin is and as hypocritical as he is sounding, he really does have a point.

---

posted February 13, 2007 12:35 PM            

And some here want to equate...via a vehicle named "moral relevancy"...the same motives to the United States.

Russian soldiers 'used for sex'

Russia's military has been tarnished by a series of scandals

The Russian military is reported to be investigating claims that army conscripts were forced to work as male prostitutes in St Petersburg.

The command of the interior ministry unit denied the claims made by the Soldiers' Mothers human rights group.

The group says it was contacted by a parent of a conscript who had been forced to work as a male prostitute.

Last year, an 18-year-old soldier was so badly beaten that he had to have his legs and genitals amputated.

The BBC's James Rodgers in Moscow says the latest claims follow a series of scandals which have damaged the Russian army's reputation.

A spokeswoman for the Soldiers' Mothers, Ella Polyakova, told the BBC that in St Petersburg there was "a network of clients" who would pay for sex with soldiers.

Older servicemen are said to have forced younger conscripts into prostitution and then taken the money for themselves.

Brutality

The Sychev bullying case drew worldwide attention to Russian army abuses.

Private Andrei Sychev was forced to squat for several hours by fellow soldiers and then tied to a chair and brutally beaten up last year.

As a result he developed gangrene in his legs and genitals, which had to be amputated.

Now permanently disabled, Pte Sychev has just announced that he is to write a book about his ordeal.

Such cases have highlighted the appalling conditions suffered by some Russian service personnel at a time when Russia is seeking a greater role on the world stage, our correspondent says.

posted February 13, 2007 01:31 PM            

Do you honestly think that the current American foreign policy (to the rest of the World it's more like meddling) has made the world a safe place...or has it done nothing but cause chaos and growing resentment of the American gov't?

Again, not champoining Putin or anything but he really said it best here:

quote:

---

People are always teaching us democracy but the people who teach us democracy don't want to learn it themselves

---

posted February 13, 2007 01:35 PM            

Surely, all leftists can get firmly behind that concept too. Hollywood's drooling airheads already have.

Charlize Theron on Cuba
Humberto Fontova
Monday, Feb. 12, 2007

A Hollywood A-lister (Charlize Theron) recently traveled to Cuba and returned without the paeans to its Stalinist regime that habitually issue from her colleagues after such visits.

Pigs worldwide started sprouting wings.

During her Cuban visit Ms. Theron helped produce a documentary ("East of Havana") on Cuban hip-hop artists that cast the Castro regime in a negative light.

Pigs worldwide started flapping and taxiing down the runway.

Last week on ABC's "Good Morning America," Charlize Theron said: "I think the (Cuban) younger generation is starting to say, 'You know what? It doesn't work. We're not happy. We want to have freedom of speech. We want to be able to travel.'"

By now every pig from Bangkok to Stockholm was galloping madly and flapping furiously while nearing the end of his runway.

During a subsequent interview on CNN, anchor Rick Sanchez started to ask Theron about the lack of freedoms in Cuba. She interrupted the question with the following: "I would argue that there's a lack of freedom in America."

Pigs worldwide promptly cocked their ears and started slowing down both their hoofbeats and wingbeats.

"I seem to recall," explained the Academy Award winning Best Actress, "some time ago some reporters being fired from their jobs for speaking up on television about how they felt about the war."

"But do you think the lack of freedoms in Cuba are parallel to the lack of freedoms in the United States?" asked CNN's Sanchez.

"Well, I would," answered Theron. Pigs worldwide now stopped flapping and cupped their ears in rapt attention. "I would compare those two," continued Theron. "Yes, definitely."

Inches from the end of the runway pigs worldwide dug in their heels and jammed their engines into reverse, thus remaining earthbound. "AH!" they squealed. "Now this is more like it!" Their wings retracted and they returned to their wallows, grunting contentedly.

After many nights of scrutiny and meditation, the best my team of analysts can determine is that Charlize Theron equates the policies of a regime that incarcerated political prisoners at a higher rate than Stalin's, that machine guns to death entire families for attempting to travel abroad, that mandates (under penalty of prison or firing squad) what its subjects, read, say, eat, earn, eat (both substance and amount), where they live, travel or work — she equates this regime with a government under which a private corporation owned by stockholders terminated some employees for violating company guidelines.

Who in Hollywood could argue with that? By Hollywood standards her logic seems airtight.

Meanwhile, back in the studio, Rick Sanchez remarked to Theron: "It sounds like you don't have a very high opinion of the United States."

Theron retorted that she actually lives in the U.S., so he was clearly wrong. As Sanchez continued to seek clarification of her comments Theron interrupted with, "I want to make out with you right now." Amazingly, this dust-up occurred on CNN "Castro's a hell of a guy!" Ted Turner had gushed to a Harvard audience in 1997. "You'd like him!"

Within weeks of Ted's comments at Harvard, CNN had a bureau in Havana, the first ever granted to a U.S. network. Bureau chief Lucia Newman assured viewers, "We will be given total freedom to do what we want and to work without censorship."

Hard-hitting stories immediately followed. To wit: CNN soon featured Fidel's office in its "Cool Digs" segment of CNN's "Newsstand." "When was the last time you saw a cup full of pencils on the boss's desk?" asked perky CNN anchor Steven Frazier. "And they do get used — look at how worn down the erasers are ... Years ago, our host worked as an attorney, defending poor people ... He's Fidel Castro, Cuba's leader since 1959!"

Rick Sanchez was born in Cuba and knows about conditions on the island. But for his background, Theron might have sailed though the interview a la Hillary Clinton with Katie Couric. But for Sanchez' impertinent behavior Theron might have forsaken her riposte, which was obviously both brilliant and germane, dug out Hollywood's thumb-eared script on Castro/Cuba and started reciting the lines. Among the choicest: "Fidel I love you. We both have the same initials. We are both powerful men. And we both use our power for good" (Francis Ford Coppola).

"Castro is a genius and Cuba is a paradise" (Jack Nicholson).

"Socialism works. I think Cuba might prove that" (Chevy Chase).

"Castro is very selfless and moral, one of the world's wisest men" (Oliver Stone).

"If you believe in freedom, if you believe in justice, if you believe in democracy, you have no choice but to support Fidel Castro!" (Harry Belafonte).

"It was an experience of a lifetime to sit only a few feet away from him (Castro)" Kevin Costner.

"The eight most important hours of my life," Stephen Spielberg describing his dinner with Castro.

posted February 13, 2007 01:55 PM            

The lesson which should be learned is for dictatorships to not attack the United States or our allies, either directly or by use of proxy forces, to stay within their own borders and not attempt to spread their poisonous political or religious doctrines by overthrowing the governments of other nations...and if not, then expect the United States and our allies to remove them and set up governments elected by their own people which will not threaten the US, our allies or their neighbors and will not torture, rape and murder their own citizens.

In the case of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, there were 16 United Nations Security Council Resolutions demanding Saddam live up to his ceasefire agreement which he ignored. The final Security Council Resolution demanded the exact same thing and promised "serious consequences" if he didn't.

He didn't.

posted February 13, 2007 02:34 PM            

You fail to understand the first thing about the ceasefire resolution. I've posted it here several times and it involved much more that WMD.

Under the banner of the UN, "no fly zones" were established in Iraq to protect the Shia in the South and the Kurds in the North from Saddam's military forces.

US and Coalition aircraft patrolling the "no fly zones" were repeatedly fired upon by Saddam's missile forces.

Saddam was both training and funding terrorists.

You need to get your facts straight.

posted February 13, 2007 02:49 PM            

And 500 munitions? Whoop-dee-doo! They're probably just left overs from the artillery that was destroyed. (And sidestracking: why does the U.S have a say in who can have WMD and who cannot...when its a known fact they have WMD themselves. If it were me, I would say that no one should have them, but its hypocritical of the U.S. to decide who can have them IMO).

posted February 13, 2007 03:18 PM            

If you had read either, you would not be making absurd statements about the (single) reason the US took Saddam out.

In other words, get your facts straight before sharing your foreign relations wisdom with the rest of us.

I suppose the US has a say in whom has WMD because in the case of Saddam, he used them on his own population...and the UN demanded he get rid of all his WMD and refrain from making any more.

The US also has the right to prevent the handoff of WMD to terrorist organizations who would use them against the United States or our allies.

You and all who think like you need to get the idea firmly planted in your minds that the US is in complete control of decision making as to what defense measures are necessary to protect the US, our citizens, our allies and the citizens of our allies.

posted February 13, 2007 05:59 PM            

As for the UN, they never even supported the War in Iraq so why do you want to use their name now...I thought you despised them anyways.

And guess what, there was no Weapons Program still running nor were there any huge stockpiles of weapons that this gov't claimed Saddam had....no proof of either existing.

posted February 13, 2007 07:19 PM              

------------------
Virgo Rising 8'57, Sagittarius Sun/4thH 3'26, Pisces Moon/6thH 8'22

"Our passions are not too strong, they are too weak. We are far too easily pleased." - C.S. Lewis

posted February 14, 2007 07:11 AM            

quote:

---

a regime that incarcerated political prisoners at a higher rate than Stalin's, that machine guns to death entire families for attempting to travel abroad, that mandates (under penalty of prison or firing squad) what its subjects, read, say, eat, earn, eat (both substance and amount), where they live, travel or work

---

It's sad that that's the reality of what is happening in Cuba and yet so many people that are supposedly all about freedom and love support Castro and his cronies. It's not just sad, it's revolting. I guess equality and freedom to some means that everybody should be poor and do only what their murderous dictator says or die.
Gotta' love the ever "informed" Hollywood crowd and their equally "informed" followers. "Don't worry, soandso celebrity says this is good/important so it must be."
(For the clarity that is so needed in this forum in order to avoid an ambush ... I'm not saying that every celebrity, merely by virtue of being a celebrity, is full of it. Neither am I saying that every person who happens to agree with any celebrity is full of it.)

******

Curiously, why is it okay for some here to "bully" people with their knowledge but not others? (I wouldn't call it bullying to express your opinions and the facts supporting them, btw ... just using the word that was tossed out there.)
No one person's (or even one group's) way of thinking is everyone else's. There might be a more convivial atmosphere here if we all could accept the fact that there are many people who will think we are wrong ... and not be so quick to injure and lash out when those people express their own opinions, and certainly not for simply supporting their opinions with knowledge/facts. Just my opinion.