Posted on 11/25/2004 1:09:33 AM PST by Cutterjohnmhb
As President Vladimir Putin and the new European Commission chiefs gather for a summit on Thursday in The Hague, disagreements over the Ukrainian election cast a dark cloud over their first meeting. Putin may have been planning to cash in the chips Russia earned by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol -- indeed, welcoming Russia's support for the environmental treaty was at the top of a to-do list for the summit as recently as Monday, according to an EU press release. Instead, it looks more likely Moscow will be playing defense.
Russia's relationship with Europe -- and with America -- was already under pressure, ever since Putin unveiled plans to do away with elections for governors and single-mandate Duma deputies. Even U.S. President George Bush took Putin aside last week at a summit in Chile to express concerns about the electoral changes. Putin reportedly offered a long, rambling response that reached back into Russian history and the country's experience with Stalinism. It's not yet clear how Bush (who is not, incidentally, a history buff) took it.
(Excerpt) Read more at themoscowtimes.com ...
Agreed. But please don't spell it out here quite like that.
Naw, not happily, but yea we can understand what kind of leadership to expect - like Stalin. Cut from the same Russian Bear Clan. If you know your quarry you can hunt it.
Europe depends more upon Arab oil than we do. The Islamic fundies want to take over Europe just as much as they do America. They're succeeding at it rather nicely too, with European cooperation. When the mobs of angry Arabs start demanding YOU submit to Sharia law, what will you do?
You'll warn us that if we don't help the fundies will get their hands on your nuclear weapons. Best you dump them now if you feel you don't need them.
pretty much any attempt by western europe to increase its expeditionary military capability is howled at by the US, you can't have it both ways.
Nonsense. You howl when we threaten to leave.
do you remember lend-lease? we're fighting for our survival and you lot are counting the cash. so don't get too sanctimonious.
Typical, you want it all for free, as if you deserve it somehow. Let's see, Europe foists reparations under Versailles over American objections (after we had bailed them out), which then bankrupts and impoverishes the Germans. The Germans renounce the deal and go for revenge and conquest per the historic European pattern. THEN Europe wants America to GIVE them the weapons that they wouldn't build in advance when America was not legally involved in a European war? To do so would have been an act of war by itself. Thus, you were asking us to pay for the privilege's of protecting you from yourselves.
the ivory tower tends not to be so comfortable when you have to sit on the spike.
That must hurt. I suggest you get medical attention.
i'm not interested in having a conversation with someone who isn't interested in the moral equilancies of their own actions with those of others.
you gob off about how europe ripped off the american people in the cold war, yet you see nothing wrong in doing the same in WW2.
you complain about our reliance on russian oil, yet you take oil and give money to a government that refuses to allow christians to publicly worship, that is ambivilant about attacks on your country and has a human rights record that almost eclipes the talibans'.
i can accept that my country and my region does things in a way that i sometimes disagree with, that i think are morally wrong.
but you don't, to you everything is someone elses fault, america is allways right and everything it does is beyond reproach, its never hypocritical and it never supports states in return for economic or military advantage that you wouldn't allow your children to visit.
i think buying oil and gas from russia is pretty disgusting, likewise with saudi, i'd like it to stop and i do what i can both politically and personally to end that economic relationship.
i know that until we've done that we won't be able sit right on top of the ivory tower.
what do you do to remove the stain of doing business with unpleasant countries from your self-image?
I'm not interested in having a conversation with someone who has to constuct bogus moral equilancies between their own actions with those of others in order to make a point.
You have clearly been fed a steady diet of "conflict resolution" claptrap and are no longer capable of objective reasoning.
you gob off about how europe ripped off the american people in the cold war, yet you see nothing wrong in doing the same in WW2.
Demonstrate how America "ripped off" Europe in World War II. Looks to me like Americans DIED to free Europeans from a disaster of their own making.
i can accept that my country and my region does things in a way that i sometimes disagree with, that i think are morally wrong.
Only after justifying it by creating a sense "moral equivalency" where such does not exist.
but you don't, to you everything is someone elses fault, america is allways right and everything it does is beyond reproach, its never hypocritical and it never supports states in return for economic or military advantage that you wouldn't allow your children to visit.
I never said anything of the sort. That you have to resort to fantasy in order to have your "moral equivalence" is demonstrable proof of my retort.
I would have preferred that we went on to Moscow and finished the job instead of funding our future adversaries. Not to take out the Russians in 1945 was a terrible mistake.
i think buying oil and gas from russia is pretty disgusting, likewise with saudi, i'd like it to stop and i do what i can both politically and personally to end that economic relationship.
Then build nuclear power plants, repatriate the Arabs and Turks, and put that unemployed 10% of your labor pool TO WORK.
what do you do to remove the stain of doing business with unpleasant countries from your self-image?
I invent and advocate policies consistent with depriving them of the cash to fund their operations. Interestingly, my principal barrier to overcome such barriers is regulatory law pursuant to multilateral treaties that Europeans demanded when they loaned us money... TO DEFEND THEM (thank you Charles DeGaulle).
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.