|
|
March 28, 2003
Putin calls for immediate end to war
Via SIFY: Russian President Vladimir Putin called on Friday for an immediate end to the US-led war against Iraq, Interfax news agency reported. Posted By Alan at March 28, 2003 08:27 AM | TrackBackComments
You have GOT to be kidding. Gotta love Putin though, certainly has a pair. Posted by: telzey at March 28, 2003 08:30 AMAsking for something you're never going to get is a good way of advertising your political impotence. Or are there elections coming up in Russia? Posted by: Steven Chapman at March 28, 2003 08:31 AMI think it's a way to defuse popular animous within Russia. If Putin is out front against the war then less Russians will feel the need to disrupt daily life to protest it. Posted by: alan powell at March 28, 2003 08:38 AMEver see pictures of what Putin did to the Chechen capitol? Talk about war crimes! Posted by: politicaobscura at March 28, 2003 08:42 AMWe must really be getting close to some more Russian-supplied WMD. Posted by: Kevin at March 28, 2003 08:43 AMit's astonishing, really, that our "friends" (I don't dare mean that anymore) such as Russia and India make these ridiculous calls for cessation. Can you imagine if we just got up and left? That's far more of a crime (against the Iraqi people, whom, I'm sure Putin pretends to be looking out for) than staying there and fighting now that we are there. I have to believe there are some intelligent people in France, Germany and Russia who can understand what the consquences would be if we left now, whether they were opposed to the war from the beginning or not. Posted by: bd at March 28, 2003 08:45 AMIt didn't take long for that mass murderer Putin to show his real face. Just remember what Vladimir Bukovsky and elena Bonner said less than three weeks ago: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6553 Dear Mr. President, … we are not joining those who seek to dissuade you from taking a military action in Iraq. On the contrary, we think that this action is long overdue, and that the Iraqi people were left to suffer from the evil regime of Saddam Hussein for too long. Neither can we share the pacifist sentiments expressed recently by many millions of marchers. Our own experience under no less evil regime of the Soviet Union has taught us that freedom is one of a few things in this world worthy of fighting and dying for. And the sooner we do it the better because such regimes, as history proved time and again, leave us no option but to confront them and to destroy them for they, by their very nature, are both oppressive internally and aggressive externally.
… The case in point is, of course, Russia. Contrary to popular belief in the West, it is not on the way to democracy and market economy. Last presidential elections show you what kind of democracy this country had established for itself, when the voters had a choice between a Communist leader and a KGB colonel. That is elections Russian-style. Indeed, the KGB has won. After ten years of some hesitant, half-hearted attempts at reform, the power was handed back to them, once again, and they were very quick to re-establish their authority throughout the country … Several people are already imprisoned for speaking out against the war in Chechnya, or some abuses of the military powers over there, or about the pollution by the military nuclear waste. Chechnya today is one of the festering wounds of the country, where, in view of many international observers, actually a genocide is perpetrated against the small defenceless nation. There are plenty of well-documented reports about so-called ''zachistka'' (cleansing operations), when the whole population of villages placed into filtration camps, tortured, murdered and only those of them would survive whose family provided ransom. Corruption today in Russia is something out of the other world. It is not a corruption anymore, it is a system where the KGB (now called FSB) is running most of the organised crime, protection racket, drug trafficking, arms sales and contract killings. In reality, they became something like a crime syndicate, not unlike the famous ''Spectre'' from ''James Bond.'' And yet, as the effort to create anti-terrorist coalition was launched, British Prime-Minister Tony Blair, undoubtedly in consultation with Washington, went to Russia and welcomed aboard this new ally. He expressed his delight that in this war Russia will finally stand alongside the West, particularly he said, "because Russia has such a vast experience in fighting terrorism." We never thought we will live long enough to hear such words from a leading Western politician. It is almost as callous and ridiculous as to say that Germany has a vast experience in dealing with Jews. Russia, in its former incarnation as the Soviet Union, has practically invented modern political terrorism, elevating it to the level of state policy. First, in order to control its own population, and then, in order to spread its influence across the world. Their "experience" in dealing with Muslim terrorism is even more spectacular. As you undoubtedly know, they were arming Saddam for decades, providing him, among other things, with facilities for biological warfare. … The danger of "partnership" with criminal regimes is that they never stop until they make you an accomplice in their crimes. Slowly but surely, the Russian rulers force their Western partners to accept their crimes in Chechnya as a part of common struggle with terrorism … Suddenly, Western law enforcement agencies became some sort of errand boys for the KGB, as they are obliged to arrest anyone Moscow points out as a "terrorist" and to start extradition procedure, even if a person in question is a well-known official representative of the legitimate Chechen government, like Ahmed Zakaev. If this is to continue, you can safely count us all as terrorists, Mr. President: since your new friend Mr. Putin has officially defined any Chechen supporter as a terrorist, we all qualify. Thus the first casualty of yet undeclared war, its first "collateral damage" is the basic principle upon which your country was built and which is enshrined in your country's Declaration of Independence as a right of a nation to rise up against a tyranic government or a foreign occupation. And we are left utterly confused: was George Washington a terrorist or a freedom fighter? There is nothing more dangerous in the war of ideas than the "realpolitik" approach which brought us so many disasters in the past. After all, was not Osama bin Laden a by-product of similar "marriage of convenience" at one point? Was it not true also in the case of Saddam Hussein? And is it not true that your new "partners" such as Russia secretly sell military equipment (including nuclear technology) to the Axis of Evil countries even now? Will the United States ever learn this lesson, or will it continue forever to build up new enemies while fighting present ones? … Bedazzled by the firepower, fascinated by the "smart weapons" in action, we might only occasionally ask ourselves: "Why is the US government not as smart as its weapons are? Why does it always make it so difficult to support it, even when it fights for a just and noble cause?" … Sincerely, Vladimir Bukovsky and Elena Bonner. Posted by: Hunden at March 28, 2003 08:59 AMI see a 3 way split of competing ideologies. Collectivism, Individualism, and mysticism. Mysticism being played by Collectivists against Individualists (or liberals in the traditional sense of the word) and opposite. Dear Elena and Vladimir! I agree with every word in your letter to our President. Unfortunately, Ms. Rice has not grasped the depth of Red Menace. If any of you can read my book "Baltic Winds: Testimony of a Soviet Attorney" and write a book review, it may help. www.simonapipko.com Dear Elena and Vladimir! I agree with every word in your letter to our President. Unfortunately, Ms. Rice has not grasped the depth of Red Menace. If any of you can read my book "Baltic Winds: Testimony of a Soviet Attorney" and write a book review, it may help. www.simonapipko.com Post a comment
|