Posted on 09/07/2004 5:27:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
"The reason we succeeded in Afghanistan and the Russians didn't is that the Russians had nothing to offer the Afghanis but more repression and misery under some cheap greasy little commissar and centralized bureacracy applied with firepower. Ties to a collapsing communist hellhole.
"
I was under the impression that a lot of the reason afgh. was taken so quickly was because the US arranged with non-taliban tribes to help them depose the taliban, presumably giving said tribes a big part of autonomy subsequently.
You are kidding! Right?
So tell me what "freedom" the Afghan women had from 1979 until post 9/11. For 22 years, they had no more freedom post-Russian invasion than they had pre-Russian invasion from my observations. Unless you see something nobody else in the world saw, you are more off target than a typical Kerry comment.
Ping me when you retract that point.
Putin supposedly referred to some "mid-level" officials.
Our official position has been to repeatedly criticize Russia for "human rights violations" in Chechnya. Check this out:
Washington, 1 February 2002 (RFE/RL) -- The foreign minister of Chechnya's separatist leadership has ended a trip to Washington with a plea to the international community to make a concerted push for peace in his republic.
Ilyas Akhmadov, foreign minister for Chechnya's elected president, Aslan Maskhadov, said Chechen separatists were ready and willing to start peace negotiations with Russian officials. But he told RFE/RL in an interview on 31 January that the combination of international apathy and Russian obstinacy had left him with little hope that the violence that has ravaged his North Caucasus republic for over two years would end any time soon. "The current analysis of the present situation doesn't leave us with even the slightest bit of optimism."
The trip by Akhmadov -- who met with U.S. State Department officials, Senate leaders, and human rights groups -- came amid a mild revival of international criticism of Russia's war in Chechnya and intensified contacts between separatist leaders and several Western governments.
Moscow reacted angrily last week to meetings between another Maskhadov envoy, Akhmed Zakaev, and representatives of the French and British governments. It then accused the U.S. of undermining the world fight against terrorism as well as its new friendship with Russia, after State Department officials held informal talks with Akhmadov at a Washington university.
U.S. rights activists and commentators, however, criticized the administration of President George W. Bush for not welcoming Akhmadov at a state venue, since another Chechen envoy was recently received at London's Foreign Ministry and the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly.
"The Washington Post" called it "skulking diplomacy," adopted out of fear of offending Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has been welcomed by the U.S. as a partner in the international antiterrorism coalition. The newspaper said the Bush administration's decision to forgo an official meeting had sent the wrong message to human rights abusers around the world -- that the U.S. president can be intimidated. It added that the decision would only encourage other governments to defend rights abuses as campaigns against terrorism.
Akhmadov delivered a similar message. He says the U.S.-Russia antiterrorism alliance is fueling Moscow's sense of impunity in Chechnya. Since the September attacks on America, Moscow has emphasized that its engagement in Chechnya is also a war on terrorism, much like the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan.
The U.S. government, which views Chechnya as part of Russia, has rejected that comparison. And the State Department recently accused Moscow of violating human rights and using "overwhelming force against civilian targets" in Chechnya. Akhmadov told RFE/RL he made several requests during his meetings with the U.S. officials, but said his main concern is that Washington continue to apply "constructive pressure" on Russia to enter peace talks to end the conflict.
Did you forget the United Sates paid for two North Korean nuclear reactors in the mid 1990s?
My guess would be the career commies at the State Department.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.