Bush and Putin unite against a common 'foe'

Toronto Sun ^ | June 16, 2002 | Eric Margolis

[zapiks44]

Bush and Putin unite against a common 'foe'

http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_home.html

By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor

GENEVA -- If you can't beat them, join them. Russia has wisely decided to accept junior membership in NATO and link itself to Europe at last week's Rome summit rather than challenge the overwhelming might of the United States and its allies.

As former president Lyndon Johnson pithily noted, it's better to have someone inside your house spitting out, than someone outside spitting in. The George Bush administration has followed this sensible dictum and is to be congratulated for steering Russia into Europe's arms. The alternative would be a sullen, isolated, dangerous Russia.

So far, so good. But a cloud hung over the heavily guarded Rome meeting. The new U.S.-Russian entente may be more a temporary liaison of convenience driven by sharing a mutual enemy - Islamic militancy (known as "terrorism" to its enemies) - rather than common goals or ideals. As the Arabs say, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

In 1999, George Bush denounced Russia for its savagery in Muslim Chechnya thus: "When the Russian government attacks civilians, killing women and children ... it can no longer expect aid. The Russian government will discover it cannot build a stable and unified nation on the ruins of human rights." Now, in May, 2002, Bush lauds Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, as a friend and ally in the war against terrorism, man of peace and respecter of human rights. The same Putin whose forces invaded independent Chechnya, razed its cities, killed over 70,000 civilians and continue to destroy it. This week, Amnesty International again accused Russia of ongoing torture and human rights violations in Chechnya.

Just as Chechens fighting 300 years of brutal Russian occupation are now branded "Islamic terrorists" by the Bush administration, so, too, are Muslim Kashmiris struggling against Indian rule. As India and Pakistan teeter on the verge of war, the White House, whose ham-handed diplomacy helped ignite this latest Kashmir crisis, has swallowed India's claim that militants fighting its occupation of Kashmir are "Islamic terrorists."

Short memory

Any armed resistance by Muslims to oppression or denial of their basic rights is now deemed "terrorism" by Washington, which has conveniently forgotten America's creation of Cuban rebels, Nicaraguan Contra guerrillas, and Afghan mujahedin. India accuses Pakistan of terrorism while forgetting its support for Bangladeshi insurgents, Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers, and the dispatching of saboteurs to Pakistan.

As a result of 9/11, Chechen and Kashmir independence fighters have now joined Palestinians in a triumverate of evil. According to the new Bush interpretation, any Muslims who resist the status quo, no matter how unjust, may be terrorists - especially if they use their own bodies or bombs as weapons.

Political militants who blow up buildings and airliners, or slaughter civilians, are terrorists. Unfortunately, revolutionary warfare always involves a certain degree of terrorism. Let's recall Jews who waged a campaign of terrorism against the British in Palestine; India's bloody suppression of Sikh separatists; the Irish uprising against British rule, and so on.

There is no clear line between "clean" legitimate resistance and terrorism. Terrorism remains the weapon of the poor, the unarmed, the oppressed. If Muslim militants had tanks and helicopter gunships like the Russians, Indians and Israelis, they would use them instead of suicide attacks. But they do not. How is an oppressed people without arms to resist?

Pakistan has armed and supported many of the Kashmiri mujahedin operating against India. But India is a major violator of human rights in the Kashmir Valley, as Amnesty International also reported last week.

In 1948, the UN mandated that India and Pakistan hold plebiscites in their portions of divided Kashmir to determine the wishes of the population, 80% of whom were Muslims. India has persistently refused to hold the vote and instead annexed its portion of Kashmir, insisting the disputed state is purely an internal matter. India's claims that the latest uprising in Kashmir is entirely due to Pakistani machinations are as false as Pakistan's claims it gives nothing but "moral support" to Kashmiri militants.

Legitimate grievances

In fact, the Kashmir uprising spontaneously ignited in 1989 and caught Pakistan as much by surprise as India. But India, like Israel and Russia, has jumped on George Bush's anti-terrorism bandwagon in order to crush enemies who are fighting as much for land and freedom as they are for Islam. Trying to demonize and dismiss the legitimate grievances of Palestinians, Muslim Kashmiris and Chechen by branding them terrorists is immoral and will ensure that even more terrorist acts become the norm.

To the Muslim world, America has now joined Russia as its main oppressor. As the Israeli thinker Uri Avnery observed, the U.S. is now acting like the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the 1830s by ruthlessly enforcing an unjust, repressive and politically reactionary status quo.

Three decades ago, America was regarded as a friend and saviour by the Muslim world. In the 1990s, the United States saved the Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo from genocide - a noble act insufficiently recognized by the world's Muslims. Today, after 9/11, America is now seen as the leading enemy and oppressor of Muslims, a fact underlined by the new U.S.-Russian entente. Such is the continuing tragic fallout from 9/11.

[Burkeman1]

And as bad as Stalin was, at least he didn't kill you for whom your great grand parents were.

No- he and Lenin just killed people because of whom their grandparents were and parents- did they once own a shop? Did your grandparents "exploit" workers (employ help) in their cottage industry? Why does that peasant have a tin roof and the rest only wood and hay? Is he a kulak? Nice.

[Stavka2]

Welcome back to reality. First of all, British, French and Free German? Yeah...that's a load. Lets see, the British and French wanted peace, no matter what...the Germans were busy starving with most of the male population killed or in camps....while their cities were nothing more then rubble. As for Berlin, yes it was hurried, Stalin's orders. Yeah it sucked, yes it was a hard battle with large casualties, exactly the reason the US was afraid to launch it itself...allowing the Soviets the honor....fear of casualties. Yes 8 million Russian soldiers died, and so did some 6.5 million Germans.

The King Sherman? The Sherman tank was the worst main battle tank of the war. It was called the flaming coffin since it had a gasoline engine that caught fire really quickly. Unpowered gun and thin armor. Yup, what a hoot. That's why they were burning so often in Korea when facing T34/85s. And those were Soviet medium tanks. Remember the Stalin III? Probably not, the Wehremacht sure did though.

As for openning a second front, unless you actually consider Africa a second front...more like a joke for a front. Normandy wasn't openned for 3 years...quite a bit of time.

[Stavka2]

Benevelant occupation...you might discover that all benevelant occupiers of the Motherland eventually ended up fertilizing her fields with their blood. As for taking Russia, hmmm, Americans never had the stomach for the casualties your grand schemes and dreams come up with. Sorry, wouldn't have happened even if you were in the White House.

[Stavka2]

By the way, A bomb factor? The US didn't build another A bomb for 5 years, not enough Urainium in America. The Soviets were a nuclear power by the time the US A-bomb threat was real. By the way, just out of curiousity, would your type of rule be as benevalant as that given to the Indians and the Mexicans? Or the Phillipinoes?

[Burkeman1]

I never said the French. They are useless. 6.5 milliion Germans died in combat? That is just not even close to the truth. Germans are good record keepers. About 1.8 million died on the Eastern Front. Now if you are talking about the Germans killed in Soviet camps after the war- even I wouldn't say it approached 6.5 million- but about 2 million. And Germanies economy was very vibrant even at the tail end of WWII- as most of it had gone underground. In fact Germanies most productive war year was in 1945! Thus showing how useless "strategic" bombing was at the time. If you mean A Germany occupied by Russia was incapable of war then I agree since Russians brought with them the same sort of warped non sensical economic plans. But A Germamy Occupied by America would have fared far better!

The assault on Berlin should have been America's Honor and we could have done it and with far less casualties! Everyone knows that the Germans fought harder against Russia because your troops were free to kill and rape and loot and if they surrendered they were libel to be shot or worked to death in some camp. Russia likes to talk about the death rate of their POWS in German hands. And it was atrocious. But Stalin never recognized the Geneva Convention and branded every POW as a traitor- even shot trainloads of them after the war! But more Soviet POWS returned home than German POWS! OF the 90'000 German troops taken at Stalingrad less than 3000 ever returned home and most of them were officers whom the Soviets treated with care!

The King Sherman was not the gasoline box of the early years. It was a great tank. But nevertheless a war in 1946 between America and her allies against Russia would end only one way- with Stalin on a light post hanging by his neck and Russia free. But Communists and traitors in this country saw too it that he survived to make your country what it is today= a sick land - broken both culturally, spiritually, and economically.

[Burkeman1]

The Indians? There are 12 million Indians alive today in the United States. The best estimates of their collective population in 1800 was less than one million. The Mexicans? What about that? There were no Mexican settlers where the white man went except for the occassional Missionary outpost. AM I missing a "genocide" that you know about and I don't? The Phillipines. I agree. We never should have been there as I am against empire. But then again I would wager that less died in the Phillipines under American rule (and we were fighting muslem murderers) in 100 years than died in Afghanistan under Soviet rule. Funny- there is a sizable Philipine immigrant group in America. Tell me- other than the toadies who supported the Communists are there many Afghans in Russia?

[Burkeman1]

OH that's right- because our government was so riddled with communist Russian spies and traitors you would know that. Tell me? What would have done if you were the American President at the end of WWII and it is clear the Soviet Union has no intention of leaving Eastern Europe or letting free elections occur?

[Burkeman1]

ANd Russians have the stomach for casualties or are just subserviant slaves who do what they are told? Pathetic. No sane country would have accepted those loses or even have been in a position to receive them! The United States underwent the most horrendous war experience of the 19th centuary. It was our Civil war in which a nation of 30 million went to war and Half a million combatants died and another million more maimed for life. Other than the Rebellions in China at the time- it was the worst conflict the West had ever scene and it scared Europeon observers!

I am sorry if your nation was ruled by ruthless thugs and you want to say that Americans are afraid to die. But the truth is Russians are just as afraid- it is just that your various autocratic governments never care and you never had a media to show it. Thus your cavilier and heartless statement about Russians being shoved into battle unprepared and without training. Disgusting. No Free society would ever accept that.

[Stavka2]

First of all, if all this was so true, then why didn't America attack? Why the hell didn't the Yanks just roll on over all of Europe and on through China and the rest of the world? After all, you were so powerful...you should own the whole world right now. (/sarcasm)

As for the German dead...do some math. Stalingrad cost the Germans over 500,000 dead. They lost another 300,000 at Kursk and another 300,000 at the Summer '44 Offensive....that's 1.1 million and that's about a fifth of the war.

As for the King Sherman, I can't find anything on it and I didn't see one at the Patton Museum and all American tanks are at the Patton Museum. Find me a link that has it. My manuals sure don't.

[Stavka2]

First of all, lets try this: American census of 2000, seems there are only 2.4 million Indians in America I was low by .4, you were over by 9.6 million. Get a clue, there were a hell of a lot more indians before. As for the Mexicans...yup they were no where except in Texas, New Mexico (geah...wonder why they called it that?), Arizona and California. Nothing like some revised history to clean your hands, is there? First off, the Phillipinoes helped America take the land from Spain in 2 weeks, and then fought the US for 4 years once they figured out they'd just trade Colonial masters. The proper comparison of Afghanistan was Vietnam, where 3 million vietnamese died. Nothing like Carpet bombing the northern cities or Zippo Expressing the southern villages.

[Stavka2]

Yeah, big guy, you say that to the Islamics when they nuke a few million Americans that you don't have the stomach for the casualties it'll take and call ole George insane for wanting the fight...except the Germans didn't have nukes, they had gas and machine guns...slower work, same results.

[Burkeman1]

The Germans did not lose 500,000 men at stalingrad. Check your sources. But the Russians did lose a million out of incomeptence and their own Brutality towards their own men. Official Soviet records show that 15000 men were executed for "cowardice" at Stalingrad. Given that Soviet stats are almost always lies I would multiply that by ten. The number of those encicled was about 250,000. By the time of Surrender 90'000 or so Germans and Rumanians went into captivity. 3 to 6 thousand returned decades later alive. Lovely.

[Burkeman1]

Hmmm- even in the Chronicles of Cyril- Russians are destined to be ruled by foreigners always- whether it be the German Czars or the Georgian Stalin. Pathetic.

[Burkeman1]

Yeah there were "millions" of stone age Indians living in America! Funny- that is why a handful of sick Europeons were allowed to conquer them? Hunter Gathers need alot of land- the best estimate is that maybe at the time of the first English settlement on America there were a million Indians. Please!

The Mexicans? tell me- were are the mass graves- the mexicans thrown off their land? There were none because the only people living on that land were White Settlers being ruled by a mexican government that had no mexican settlers! Idiot.

[Burkeman1]

Viet Nam itself claims 2 million dead. America says 1 million. But regardless- most of the fighting was between the ARVN and the NVA or Viet Cong- Ie a civil war. We never carpet bombed cities in Viet Nam. But Russia did strafe civilian refugee caravans with routine! The Russian behavior in Afghanistan was one of the lows in human history. Poising wells- executing entire villages as a matter of routine! Land mines shaped as toys for kids to pick up!

Anyway- where did the refugees flow? In Viet Nam they came South- to Freedom and American held territory. Did the refugees flow North into Russia in Afghanistan? No- don't think so.

[Burkeman1]

As far as why America didn't attack? Lack of will. It was enough of an achievement to get us bamboozeled in that war in the first place and once Hitler is dead we were going to go after Russia? No - couldn't be sold to the American people who were ladden with pro soviet propaganda at the time because of the war. And Plus- the business of America is Business and we were anxious to get back to that.

I may surprise you. I think what America did under Clinton was wrong. Expanding NATO to Russia's borders, the disgusting murderous war we conducted against Serbia! Our entire policy in Yugoslavia made me sick.

When those Russian tanks rode through Pristina- to a crowd of cheering Serbs I was thrilled!

Despite all the barbs we throw at each other I hope Russia and America will unite. Because when all is said and done we are Westerners and Christians.

[Stavka2]

Yeah, that's why by Paulus' own records there were 300,000 men in the encirclement and no one got out...and that's after Uranus and Naptune kicked off, not counting battle losses up to it. Do some research...read Enemy at the Gates or Stalingrad by Ballentine press. Get informed.

[Stavka2]

???? Ruled by whom? Please, don't prove your ignorance...I want to guess at it. Go over throw your own masters, the Kennedies and Turners.

[Stavka2]

Really? Funny, seems I know more about Vietnam then you do. Nixon regularly used carpet bombing on N. Vietnamese cities to bring N. Vietnam to the negotiating tables. Stop trying to white wash your own history.

[Burkeman1]

Paulus? The same man who did Soviet Propaganda speeches for the Soviets in Captivity? The same man who in the early 50's assured German relatives of those taken captive in Stalingrad that they were coming home when he knew most were dead? The same Paulus who died a toadie of East Germany? I guess you love fiction. I read Jane's and Schiffer military press not crap.