Vladimir Putin

[The Wrath]

Is it just me, or does this guy seem dangerous? I've heard, though I can't confirm, that he has his political opponents silenced and jailed. And one thing that I've seen in the news lately is that he is doing away with local elections, to be replaced by his own appointments which have to be confirmed by local governments. And let's not forget his recent support of Iran. Sounds like he's setting up a dictatorship to me...

[Cole]

Yes. He decided that governors should be appointed by him and then approved by a legislature, instead of democratically elected by voters. He also supported the idea that voters elect a political party instead of an individual candidate. Last year he claimed that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a "national tragedy on an enormous scale." Unlike his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, Putin has endorsed a trend of reacquainting the Russian government with it's Soviet roots, instead of distancing itself through means of acknowledging individual rights and privatizing national resources.

I'm not sure about jailing dissidents, but almost all of the media in Russia is controlled by the government.

And yes, his government signed an agreement to supply anti-US Islamofascists in Iran with enriched uranium fuel. The agreement will make it possible for Iran to be operating an atomic power plant within months.

[The Wrath]

So, what are the odds of another cold war with Russia or, worse yet, a real war? Actually, it would almost be a relief to be at war with a real country, instead of crazy factions.

Edited February 27, 2005 by Moose

[Cole]

With Russia? The chances are slim.

Since we're on the topic...

Drudge recently reported that, when Bush emphasized the necessity of a free press to Putin, Putin became defensive and brought up the issue of Dan Rather. Apparently he is unable to seperate matters of private industry with the actions of government. A Senior Administration official said, "Putin thought we'd fired Dan Rather. It was like something out of 1984."

[The Wrath]

You say the chances are slim, yet it is likely that we'll wind up going to war with Iran, and Russia is supporting Iran. Russia, Germany, and France haven't exactly been our allies in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they weren't really our enemies, as they were not allied with the people we were fighting. What happens if we go to war with Iran, while Russia is actually helping them out?

[The Wrath]

Can you imagine what the media backlash would be like if Bush had been so completely ignorant of the way another country is run?

[Atlas]

Cole said:

Since we're on the topic...

Drudge recently reported that, when Bush emphasized the necessity of a free press to Putin, Putin became defensive and brought up the issue of Dan Rather. Apparently he is unable to seperate matters of private industry with the actions of government. A Senior Administration official said, "Putin thought we'd fired Dan Rather. It was like something out of 1984."

Yep, a friend of mine showed me that earlier in an article from Time.

Here's a link, if anyone is interested.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1032354,00.html

Incredible, isn't it?

[Eric N]

Yes, it is Putin’s ignorance of America, the influence the Soviet Union still has on him, and his inconsistent foreign policy relating to nuclear issues that makes him dangerous.

This article, dated 1/24/05, from CNN.com discusses how Bush and Putin had come to an understanding that neither North Korea nor Iran should possess nuclear material.

Today, Russia and Iran have signed an agreement in which Russia will supply Iran with nuclear fuel.

yet it is likely that we'll wind up going to war with Iran

What makes you say that it is likely that America will go to war?

[The Wrath]

Bush has stated that we will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. And they aren't gonna stop trying. It may not happen anytime soon, but I have no doubt that will wind up taking some kind of military action in Iran.

Edited February 28, 2005 by Moose

[Eric N]

With American forces spread thin across the globe as they are now, a full scale war similar to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is not a viable option. Putin knows his country can get away with supplying Iran with nuclear materials as there is no country capable or willing to respond in such a manner as a full out war. The U.S. is stuck with diplomatic measures unless something similar to Israel’s bombing of a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981 is to take place. Of course, it need not be Israel that carries out such an attack. America is quite capable of such a tactical strike, just so long as such a strike does not lead to exacerbated operations.

On the topic of a possible American invasion of Iran, there are already two other threads on this forum:

Will US invade Iran?

Inside Iran?

[EC]

With American forces spread thin across the globe as they are now, a full scale war similar to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is not a viable option.

This is simply not true. During the second world war we probaly had ten times as many troops in combat. If we need that many we can get them in this third world war (sorry, War on Terrorism) if we need them, and without an immoral draft. If the case for an Iranian war is presented to the American people correctly there will be men lining up to sign up to fight tommarow. We can also pull troops from places where the are uselessly stationed, like Germany.

[IDC]

Yep, a friend of mine showed me that earlier in an article from Time.

Here's a link, if anyone is interested.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1032354,00.html

Incredible, isn't it?

Thanks for the link, I can hardly believe it. You hear about that kind of superstition/conspiracy theory stuff on the Arab street, but one would expect the Russian president to be better briefed.

[Eric N]

The problem with presenting a case for war to the American people is that there has not yet been a direct attack on America by the state of Iran. In World War II, the Japanese state used a surprise attack that made it clear to the American people that they meant war. The issue is a matter of time. In World War II, America began to fight after being attacked. With Iran, Bush would have to make the case that in the future, Iran will attack America and thus America should deal with the threat sooner than later.

Edited February 28, 2005 by Eric N

[EC]

The problem with presenting a case for war to the American people is that there has not yet been a direct attack on America by the state of Iran. In World War II, the Japanese state used a surprise attack that made it clear to the American people that they meant war. The issue is a matter of time. In World War II, America began to fight after being attacked. With Iran, Bush would have to make the case that in the future, Iran will attack America and thus America should deal with the threat sooner than later.

Exactly. That is a much more rational policy, a nation shouldn't wait until its enemy destroys one of its cities with a nuclear weopon. Instead it should destroy the enemy before it has that capability or before it decides to use it on us.

And to those that think this is a new policy of the United States I offer this quote from George Washington to his Secretary of War on December 13, 1798: It has been very properly the policy of our Government to cultivate peace. But in contemplating the possibility of our being driven to unqualified War, it will be wise to anticipate, that frequently the most effectual way to defend is to attack. (italics mine)