Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Having cabinet members "concerned" != "Bush has publicly denounced Putin's recent actions." which is what our Resident Republican Drone has been claiming.The Kernel wrote:I didn't say it did, I was clarifying the issue.StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:...which != public denoucement.The Kernel wrote: Immediately after Putin's announcement about tightening his grip, several members of the Bush cabinet claimed they were "concerned" over what was happening in Russia.
Irrelevent, the Russian government is now in control of Chechnya and has even made a point of showing that the majority of the Chechens support his government through popular election. This claim might be bullshit, but as long as their is a function Russian government in Chechnya, the people there are Russian citizens and subject to the same laws as people in Moscow, which means that the Russian military cannot simply go in and suspend individual rights based on a civil disturbance.fgalkin wrote: That was not the case when the first Chechen war began. Which is where this whole deal begins. There is a pro-Moscow government in place now, but that came as a result of 10 years of fighting
So what? How does their presence their mean that Chechnyan citizens are denied the same rights as the rest of Russia's citizens? The troops may be there, but there is a RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IN PLACE IN CHECHNYA. This fact cannot be overstated. It means that any terrorist acts by seperatists is a civil disturbance, and not grounds for coming down on the whole of Chechnya with an iron fist.Like I said, Russian troops have been in Chechnya for 10 years as of the Beslan attacks. The war was going on, so you can't make a comparison between that and the Oklahoma City bombing.
Thank you, I am well aware of that.fgalkin wrote: Having cabinet members "concerned" != "Bush has publicly denounced Putin's recent actions." which is what our Resident Republican Drone has been claiming.
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
That's because the troops didn't "go in and suspend individual rights". They are ALREADY there, and have been there for the past 10 years.The Kernel wrote:Irrelevent, the Russian government is now in control of Chechnya and has even made a point of showing that the majority of the Chechens support his government through popular election. This claim might be bullshit, but as long as their is a function Russian government in Chechnya, the people there are Russian citizens and subject to the same laws as people in Moscow, which means that the Russian military cannot simply go in and suspend individual rights based on a civil disturbance.fgalkin wrote: That was not the case when the first Chechen war began. Which is where this whole deal begins. There is a pro-Moscow government in place now, but that came as a result of 10 years of fighting
That's because the government does not control 100% of Chechnya. Should we suspend military operations in Iraq because there is a pro-US governement there? After all, we must respect the rights of the Iraqi citizens who happen to be terrorists.So what? How does their presence their mean that Chechnyan citizens are denied the same rights as the rest of Russia's citizens? The troops may be there, but there is a RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IN PLACE IN CHECHNYA. This fact cannot be overstated. It means that any terrorist acts by seperatists is a civil disturbance, and not grounds for coming down on the whole of Chechnya with an iron fist.Like I said, Russian troops have been in Chechnya for 10 years as of the Beslan attacks. The war was going on, so you can't make a comparison between that and the Oklahoma City bombing.
This is a silly conversation.The Kernel wrote:Thank you, I am well aware of that.fgalkin wrote: Having cabinet members "concerned" != "Bush has publicly denounced Putin's recent actions." which is what our Resident Republican Drone has been claiming.
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
I was clarifying it insofar as to say that Bush HAS spoken about this issue, but it doesn't back up TK's point.
For fuck's sake YES! Do you think it is right that US warplanes are bombing indiscriminately chasing insurgents in Iraq? Do you think it is right that there is no judicial process to speak of in Iraq and that US soldiers pretty much take away anyone they want AT WILL without any sort of due process? If you think this is the condition you want Chechnya in, then I'm not sure there is much I can say to convince you otherwise.fgalkin wrote: That's because the government does not control 100% of Chechnya. Should we suspend military operations in Iraq because there is a pro-US governement there? After all, we must respect the rights of the Iraqi citizens who happen to be terrorists.
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
I am not backing up TK's idiotic points (hell will freeze over and become a ski community before I agree with that hatfucker on anything) but it's pretty much all the US could have done in that situation. What exactly should Bush have done? Complain that Putin was overstepping his authority? What the fuck would that have accomplished at such an early stage besides to harden Putin's resolve?fgalkin wrote: This is a silly conversation.
Bush's cabinet members != Bush himself. Yes, I am aware there has been "concern" among the Bush administration, and that McCain and other Republicans actually denounced Putin and all. But that says nothing about Bush himself who didn't do shit about the situtation.
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
I didn't know you were part of the "BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!!!" movement.The Kernel wrote:For fuck's sake YES! Do you think it is right that US warplanes are bombing indiscriminately chasing insurgents in Iraq? Do you think it is right that there is no judicial process to speak of in Iraq and that US soldiers pretty much take away anyone they want AT WILL without any sort of due process? If you think this is the condition you want Chechnya in, then I'm not sure there is much I can say to convince you otherwise.fgalkin wrote: That's because the government does not control 100% of Chechnya. Should we suspend military operations in Iraq because there is a pro-US governement there? After all, we must respect the rights of the Iraqi citizens who happen to be terrorists.
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
Not prostitute himself as he did during the debates.The Kernel wrote:I am not backing up TK's idiotic points (hell will freeze over and become a ski community before I agree with that hatfucker on anything) but it's pretty much all the US could have done in that situation. What exactly should Bush have done? Complain that Putin was overstepping his authority? What the fuck would that have accomplished at such an early stage besides to harden Putin's resolve?fgalkin wrote: This is a silly conversation.
Bush's cabinet members != Bush himself. Yes, I am aware there has been "concern" among the Bush administration, and that McCain and other Republicans actually denounced Putin and all. But that says nothing about Bush himself who didn't do shit about the situtation.
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
Gee, the large amount of civilians killed often indiscrimitely by Russian troops?Talon Karrde wrote:Just curious... what do you believe Putin should be allowed or disallowed to do in Chechnya? After all, terrorists from there have attacked his people.Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Yeah, his recent actions. Too bad Putin hasn't been just wiping out Russia's parlimentary power. Bush has been silent on Putin's actions against free press for example, not to mention Bush giving Putin a green light in Chechnya.Talon Karde wrote:Perhaps you choose to ignore the fact that Bush has publicly denounced Putin's recent actions.
Seperate argument, the decision to bring troops home should be based on a logistical assessment on whether they are doing more harm then good in the long run. It's a total red herring.fgalkin wrote:I didn't know you were part of the "BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!!!" movement.
You don't get this do you? Civil disorder cannot be realistically dealt with by brute military force in a society that assures certain basic freedoms (and in the long run, arguably not in totalitarian societies either). Of course I don't think the terrorists involved in the various actions in Chechnya should be spared, but that is an issue for law enforcement, it is not something that is going to be solved by squeezing the Chechen people even tighter.Do I think that the situation in Chechnya is good? Not by any stretch of imagination. But that's life, which isn't always pretty or nice or good. Does that mean we shouldn't take any action against the people who assassinated the leader of the pro-Russian government, downed two planes, blew up a subway station, and took over a school in Beslan? No.
No, it really isn't. Putin's handling of this is of DIRECT bearing on the situation since I am not arguing that Chechnya needs tighter security. But Putin seems to be gearing up for civil war and a lot of civilians are going to get killed in the process.The fact that Putin's handling of the war was even more incompetent than Bush's invasion of Iraq is a different story entirely.
Around here, the Socialist dipshits are saying we should wihdraw from Iraq because we're evil Imperialists, blah blah blah.The Kernel wrote:Seperate argument, the decision to bring troops home should be based on a logistical assessment on whether they are doing more harm then good in the long run. It's a total red herring.fgalkin wrote:I didn't know you were part of the "BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!!!" movement.
The only problem is that the law enforcement agencies are rather useless against bands of heavily armed guerillas roaming in the mountains and other hard to reach places. It takes the resources of the military to get them. The Army is killing and torturing civillians? Well, that is why I said I have a problem with Putin's way of handling the situation.You don't get this do you? Civil disorder cannot be realistically dealt with by brute military force in a society that assures certain basic freedoms (and in the long run, arguably not in totalitarian societies either). Of course I don't think the terrorists involved in the various actions in Chechnya should be spared, but that is an issue for law enforcement, it is not something that is going to be solved by squeezing the Chechen people even tighter.Do I think that the situation in Chechnya is good? Not by any stretch of imagination. But that's life, which isn't always pretty or nice or good. Does that mean we shouldn't take any action against the people who assassinated the leader of the pro-Russian government, downed two planes, blew up a subway station, and took over a school in Beslan? No.
Of course. There is even a theory out there that his recent policy was directly aimed at provoking the Chechens into doing something like the recent terror wave so he could go therough with his "reforms". Now, I'm not sure I would go that far (even though I do believe he organized those terrorist acts in Moscow in order to get elected in the first place), but his use of the Beslan tragedy to increase his power is evident.Besides, isn't it obvious to you that despite the tragedy in Beslan, Putin immediately used it to increase his already growing power? The man wants to have total control over Russia and he is using the tragedy in Beslan to do it.
Like I said, I have a problem with Putin in general (I've had a problem with him since the beginning). His handling of Chechnya is beyond despicable. he is deliberately prolonging the war in order to maintain his power. That's not to say that I believe the Chechen problem is entirely Putin's fault or that it needs to be left alone. The rebels need to be dealt with decisively, and you need troops to do that. You also need someone in charge who isn't deliberately refusing to take decisive action.No, it really isn't. Putin's handling of this is of DIRECT bearing on the situation since I am not arguing that Chechnya needs tighter security. But Putin seems to be gearing up for civil war and a lot of civilians are going to get killed in the process.The fact that Putin's handling of the war was even more incompetent than Bush's invasion of Iraq is a different story entirely.
Well, the Bush Doctrine does smack of old-fashioned imperialism, but that really isn't the issue in Iraq (considering we are already on the ground there), the issue is whether or not we can do any good long-term in Iraq by keeping troops there.fgalkin wrote: Around here, the Socialist dipshits are saying we should wihdraw from Iraq because we're evil Imperialists, blah blah blah.
I don't have a problem with using military troops to police the situation; we do that in the US with the National Guard in extreme situations and it works. The problem I have is giving control of the situation to the leaders in Moscow rather than the local authorities, which causes a great deal of hardship on the local population.The only problem is that the law enforcement agencies are rather useless against bands of heavily armed guerillas roaming in the mountains and other hard to reach places. It takes the resources of the military to get them. The Army is killing and torturing civillians? Well, that is why I said I have a problem with Putin's way of handling the situation.
Yep, he didn't even wait until the bodies had been buried before he used the situation to start seizing power. Let's face it, Putin wants to be a dictator, and it isn't just the Chechen situation which has proved this. His attack on the Oligarchs (you may have not liked them, but it was obviously a power grab), his rutheless control over the media and his direct supervision of the Russia legislature and governance shows beyond a shaodow of a doubt that Putin's only real concern is to consolidate his own power.Of course. There is even a theory out there that his recent policy was directly aimed at provoking the Chechens into doing something like the recent terror wave so he could go therough with his "reforms". Now, I'm not sure I would go that far (even though I do believe he organized those terrorist acts in Moscow in order to get elected in the first place), but his use of the Beslan tragedy to increase his power is evident.
Of course it isn't all Putin's fault, but it is a distraction from the main issue going on in Russia today. After the Beslan school incident, I was extremely sad for all the innocent lives that were lost, because it was a national tragedy. However, after Putin used the incident to pursue his own political ambitions, I realized then that the world had changed and that no matter how many lives were lost in Beslan, Putin was about to make the lives of millions more people into a tragedy.Like I said, I have a problem with Putin in general (I've had a problem with him since the beginning). His handling of Chechnya is beyond despicable. he is deliberately prolonging the war in order to maintain his power. That's not to say that I believe the Chechen problem is entirely Putin's fault or that it needs to be left alone. The rebels need to be dealt with decisively, and you need troops to do that. You also need someone in charge who isn't deliberately refusing to take decisive action.
Well, that was my point about Chechnya. we were on the ground there since Putin took power.The Kernel wrote:Well, the Bush Doctrine does smack of old-fashioned imperialism, but that really isn't the issue in Iraq (considering we are already on the ground there), the issue is whether or not we can do any good long-term in Iraq by keeping troops there.fgalkin wrote: Around here, the Socialist dipshits are saying we should wihdraw from Iraq because we're evil Imperialists, blah blah blah.
What about Turkey?Personally, I am extremely skeptical about setting up a non-totalitarian secular regime in any Muslim country. One of the biggest reasons Saddam was able to seize power from the religious leaders was because he had absolute power over his people; without that I doubt very much that the US/Iraq civilian leaders are going to be able to sway the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people away from the religious leaders.
TrueThe only conceivable way I can see of doing this is to educate the population (which is one of the reasons I think an Iranian secular revolution is inevitable) but we have put almost zero priority on this and it is far too long-term a solution for the US coalition to handle.
That may be a problem under the Russian system, since Chechnya is an autonomous republic, and the troops are controlled by the federal governemntI don't have a problem with using military troops to police the situation; we do that in the US with the National Guard in extreme situations and it works. The problem I have is giving control of the situation to the leaders in Moscow rather than the local authorities, which causes a great deal of hardship on the local population.The only problem is that the law enforcement agencies are rather useless against bands of heavily armed guerillas roaming in the mountains and other hard to reach places. It takes the resources of the military to get them. The Army is killing and torturing civillians? Well, that is why I said I have a problem with Putin's way of handling the situation.
So, why were we arguing? We agree on every point about PutinYep, he didn't even wait until the bodies had been buried before he used the situation to start seizing power. Let's face it, Putin wants to be a dictator, and it isn't just the Chechen situation which has proved this. His attack on the Oligarchs (you may have not liked them, but it was obviously a power grab), his rutheless control over the media and his direct supervision of the Russia legislature and governance shows beyond a shaodow of a doubt that Putin's only real concern is to consolidate his own power.Of course. There is even a theory out there that his recent policy was directly aimed at provoking the Chechens into doing something like the recent terror wave so he could go therough with his "reforms". Now, I'm not sure I would go that far (even though I do believe he organized those terrorist acts in Moscow in order to get elected in the first place), but his use of the Beslan tragedy to increase his power is evident.
Now, here we disagree. The Chechens are just as dangerous. Most of the drugs entering Russia come through Chechnya, and the guerillas are closely tied to the global islamofascist movement. It's like having your own little terrorist breeding ground in your back yard.Let me make this clear once and for all: Putin is a hundred times more dangerous to the Russian people then the Chechen rebels will EVER be.
Well, Putin's handling of Chechnya is dierctly tied to his rise in power, so it does make quite a lot of sense to discuss it. That means, of course, that the Chechen problem would be much more solvable if Putin wasn't in power.Of course it isn't all Putin's fault, but it is a distraction from the main issue going on in Russia today. After the Beslan school incident, I was extremely sad for all the innocent lives that were lost, because it was a national tragedy. However, after Putin used the incident to pursue his own political ambitions, I realized then that the world had changed and that no matter how many lives were lost in Beslan, Putin was about to make the lives of millions more people into a tragedy.Like I said, I have a problem with Putin in general (I've had a problem with him since the beginning). His handling of Chechnya is beyond despicable. he is deliberately prolonging the war in order to maintain his power. That's not to say that I believe the Chechen problem is entirely Putin's fault or that it needs to be left alone. The rebels need to be dealt with decisively, and you need troops to do that. You also need someone in charge who isn't deliberately refusing to take decisive action.
Chechnya needs to be addressed, no question about that. But arguing over how Putin is handling it right now is sort of like telling the guy operating the electric chair that your hands are hurting because the cuffs are too tight.
Turkey is a pretty special case since a majority of its population happens to be of the extremely loose Muslim variety. I had a Turkish girlfriend so I'm pretty familiar with the liberal Islam they practice (even so, there is a powerful conservative Muslim segment in Turkey that is gaining power).fgalkin wrote: What about Turkey?
Agreed, but by trying to solve the Chechen problem within the limitation Putin has created, we would be solving the wrong problem. Like I said, the Chechen situation needs to be dealt with, but with Putin at the head it will only cause much more harm then good.That may be a problem under the Russian system, since Chechnya is an autonomous republic, and the troops are controlled by the federal governemnt
Not really, Russia could get the UN to deploy peacekeepers. This would be the ideal case for them actually as the situation practically screams for a third party.
Putin has the potential to ressurrect the Soviet Union. That strikes me as just a tad more dangerous.Now, here we disagree. The Chechens are just as dangerous. Most of the drugs entering Russia come through Chechnya, and the guerillas are closely tied to the global islamofascist movement. It's like having your own little terrorist breeding ground in your back yard.
Well, Putin's handling of Chechnya is dierctly tied to his rise in power, so it does make quite a lot of sense to discuss it. That means, of course, that the Chechen problem would be much more solvable if Putin wasn't in power.
You really think Russia will allow foreign troops on its soil?The Kernel wrote:Turkey is a pretty special case since a majority of its population happens to be of the extremely loose Muslim variety. I had a Turkish girlfriend so I'm pretty familiar with the liberal Islam they practice (even so, there is a powerful conservative Muslim segment in Turkey that is gaining power).fgalkin wrote: What about Turkey?
Not really, Russia could get the UN to deploy peacekeepers. This would be the ideal case for them actually as the situation practically screams for a third party.That may be a problem under the Russian system, since Chechnya is an autonomous republic, and the troops are controlled by the federal governemnt
Putin likes the Soviet appearance, the hymn, the parades, etc. But restoring the USSR? His relations with the CPRF are less than stellar, to say the least. he may be a dictator, but he's no commie.Putin has the potential to ressurrect the Soviet Union. That strikes me as just a tad more dangerous.Now, here we disagree. The Chechens are just as dangerous. Most of the drugs entering Russia come through Chechnya, and the guerillas are closely tied to the global islamofascist movement. It's like having your own little terrorist breeding ground in your back yard.
We agree on this one.Agreed, but by trying to solve the Chechen problem within the limitation Putin has created, we would be solving the wrong problem. Like I said, the Chechen situation needs to be dealt with, but with Putin at the head it will only cause much more harm then good.Well, Putin's handling of Chechnya is dierctly tied to his rise in power, so it does make quite a lot of sense to discuss it. That means, of course, that the Chechen problem would be much more solvable if Putin wasn't in power.
