Putin's Administration

[HoboFactory]

To answer the question, I'd say no.

 

It seems strange to me thatn in the mid- and late 90's... the west was so happy about Russia being a "developing democracy"... there was even talk of Russia joining NATO... at the same time, it was a very dark and chaotic time for Russia.... inflation was at its worst, crime was at an all time high, and of course there was the economic collapse of 1998.

 

Under Putin, the strengh of the ruble went up many times, from there being hundreds/thousands to the dollar to around 28. Russia's GDP has been growing by 7% every year, and it's up by more than 50% from the 1990's, and even though only a few years ago, the per capita income was something like $5400/year, it's now more than doubled to around $12,000. Recently Russia has become the nation in the world the 3rd largest amount of billionares (Germany #2 and USA #1), some even project the Russia's buying power will exceed that of the UK within a decade or so. With this added economic success, Russia has now started making efforts to restore to some extent its military, operate at something of a surplus, bring down inflation, fund solutions to the health crisis, fight crime, and to be more assertive on the world stage. Don't get me wrong, it's not the land of milk and honey, but the rate of improvement is defintely impressive. Suddenly the west is pissed. The Bush administration's been making all these criticizing speeches about "backsliding on democracy." So, given that some polls place Bush's approval rating at around 24%, and Putin is rated by polls between 75% and 80% I'm just not sure there's any room to judge. It seems like America and the rest of west, when they say Russia should be a democracy, they really mean Russia should do what appeases the West in every way possible. It doesn't matter if Putin is on the authoritarian side of things, it is not only what the people seem to need, but also what most of them seem to want. It seems like American and Europe are saying, "you guys are free to choose your government, provided that it's one that will always do as we please." They've been trying to force Russia into a corner, setting up bases in central Asia, planning to set up missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, and then expect Russia to just bend over and take it, and if Putin raises a fuss, he's just being undemocratic. Russia's got all these natural resources, and the former Soviet nations are all dying to be part of the West in every way possible, and yet refuse to pay the same sort of prices the West pays for the same resource. Ukraine wants to be one with NATO and the EU, at least in part to spite Russia, but heaven forbid Russia charge it as much for oil as the West has to pay... that's just "economic blackmail."

 

Seems ridiculous to me, almost as if the West can't stand to see Russia get it wants.

[garsk]

i think it is the fact that we see a reporters mysteriously dieing after they talk badly about Putin.

[HoboFactory]

But that may as well be conspiracy talk.

[Some Random]

i have nothing but nice things to say about putin. i have a feeling that man could make a phone call and have anyone he wanted disappeared. if you read this putin: i think you're awesome. good job!

[no yu begin wher i end]

On the Daily Show the other night, they mentioned that 13 journalists critical of Putin have been murdered since he took office. Probably more than a conspiracy theory...

[HoboFactory]

But it's still beside the point. Putin's still a popular president, and the nation is more successful under him... in fact it's under him that the Russian economy works for like the first time in 100 years. I really doubt the USA can somehow legitimately claim moral superiority. And look at China, they've an even more oppressive and undemocratic regime, and the USA can't stop singing its praises. The EU says that it can't fully consider itself a partner with Russia until it adopts the kind of political system they want from it, but China is a-okay. It's hypocritical. They all turn a blind eye on human rights abuses and oppression when it profits them, and then blow the less-necessary whistle when someone has the guts to stand up for themselves.

[heyrabbit]

what are the actual critisisms? I think the U.S. is more worried about china than anything. they're increasing their military spending by 17 percent this year.

[supercanuk]

But it's still beside the point. Putin's still a popular president, and the nation is more successful under him... in fact it's under him that the Russian economy works for like the first time in 100 years. I really doubt the USA can somehow legitimately claim moral superiority. And look at China, they've an even more oppressive and undemocratic regime, and the USA can't stop singing its praises. The EU says that it can't fully consider itself a partner with Russia until it adopts the kind of political system they want from it, but China is a-okay. It's hypocritical. They all turn a blind eye on human rights abuses and oppression when it profits them, and then blow the less-necessary whistle when someone has the guts to stand up for themselves.

I feel as though there is a real jumbled understanding here of Russia and I

[Matt]

I was watching this doc on Russia and there was this Russian satirist who was kicked off the air in Russia by Putin. Satire, is not a terrible thing, yet Putin would not tolerate it. State owned TV stations are not allowed to diss him or his government. People who do mysteriously go missing. This is becoming a Communist state. Democracy does not always working, but Communism is worse because it's an even tinier elite deciding who shall win.

[HoboFactory]

Your right, the economy has grown in Russia, but this does not mean that the people live happily under economic prosperity, there as in here, the large income gaps are menacing.

 

Like I said, it's definitely not the land of the milk and honey, but there is in fact a quickly-growing middle class, and there is also a significant growth in small businesses. So Russia's economic success isn't just the super-rich getting even richer.

 

Putin is insane, he's ex-KGB and he's cabinet is also filled with these thugs who continue to brutalize entire populations, look at Chechnya where he has put a militia leader in control.

 

If one is to talk about brutalizing entire populations, one may definitely wanna take a peek at Iraq. Or perhaps China's taking of Tibet.

 

"you guys are free to choose your government, provided that it's one that will always do as we please."

This is the way empires work. If you cease to be "relevant" using their term, then they will simply ignore you. By this I mean, that if you fail to ask how high, when Washington say's jump, you will be ignored and called undemocratic and if your lucky, apart of the axis of evil. This is not at all frivolous either, being "relevant" is incredibly important, keeping Washington happy is basically crucial to your countries economy unless you can find viable alternatives (like China dealing with Saudi Arabia because Bush snubbed them for a PR event).

 

So, by consolidating its power, Russia is once more trying to become "relevant." One of the things they plan to do with their added economic success is to raise military spending by 30%. I don't see why that would be wrong for Russia, seems like it's just trying to keep America from dominating it. It becomes clear, that the Western powers don't stand for what's right as it claims, in fact they probably don't care about right and wrong. Just look at all of the governments they backed in Asia and South America, in many cases, these were as brutal and oppressive regimes as any other, the only difference was that they were anti-communist.

 

I feel optimistic about Russia's prospects, economic projections seem to indicate Russia's steady growth will continue, and the nation will continue to stabilize and grow stronger, I think that's what seems to bother the west so much.

[garsk]

Putin is insane, he's ex-KGB and he's cabinet is also filled with these thugs who continue to brutalize entire populations, look at Chechnya where he has put a militia leader in control.

 

If one is to talk about brutalizing entire populations, one may definitely wanna take a peek at Iraq. Or perhaps China's taking of Tibet.

yes, we don't try to turn a blind eye to China or Iraq or Iran or etc etc etc, so why should Russia be any different? Sure you can talk about how Chechnya's terrorist are targeting women and children (we all remember when they stormed the school and the opera) but that's what terrorist do. Why can't Putin take the higher ground?

[HoboFactory]

Putin is insane, he's ex-KGB and he's cabinet is also filled with these thugs who continue to brutalize entire populations, look at Chechnya where he has put a militia leader in control.

 

If one is to talk about brutalizing entire populations, one may definitely wanna take a peek at Iraq. Or perhaps China's taking of Tibet.

yes, we don't try to turn a blind eye to China or Iraq or Iran or etc etc etc, so why should Russia be any different? Sure you can talk about how Chechnya's terrorist are targeting women and children (we all remember when they stormed the school and the opera) but that's what terrorist do. Why can't Putin take the higher ground?

Sure you do. At least your governments do, in fact the US gov't is responsible for Iraq.

[Matt]

I am a Canadian, I supported our PMs decision not to go to Iraq. I openly insult Harper at every chance I get. I do not support going to war unless there is an actual threat to our freedom. Russia, does not need Putin to help the economy because he takes away people's rights. The right to choose is fundamentally important in a democracy. That is why he is bad mouthed. Wasn't his time as President over in 2006 and he had to step down at that point? This man is becoming a dictator. What will be the long term ramifications?

[HoboFactory]

I am a Canadian, I supported our PMs decision not to go to Iraq. I openly insult Harper at every chance I get. I do not support going to war unless there is an actual threat to our freedom. Russia, does not need Putin to help the economy because he takes away people's rights. The right to choose is fundamentally important in a democracy. That is why he is bad mouthed. Wasn't his time as President over in 2006 and he had to step down at that point? This man is becoming a dictator. What will be the long term ramifications?

You're mistaken, his term as president did not end in 2006. He became president in 2000, and was re-elected in 2004, his current term isn't due to end until 2008, and they're pretty sure he'll honor the Russian constitution and step down once the day rolls around.

Edited March 10, 2007 by HoboFactory

[supercanuk]

Putin is insane, he's ex-KGB and he's cabinet is also filled with these thugs who continue to brutalize entire populations, look at Chechnya where he has put a militia leader in control.

 

If one is to talk about brutalizing entire populations, one may definitely wanna take a peek at Iraq. Or perhaps China's taking of Tibet.

yes, we don't try to turn a blind eye to China or Iraq or Iran or etc etc etc, so why should Russia be any different? Sure you can talk about how Chechnya's terrorist are targeting women and children (we all remember when they stormed the school and the opera) but that's what terrorist do. Why can't Putin take the higher ground?

Sure you do. At least your governments do, in fact the US gov't is responsible for Iraq.

Just so its clear, im not giving the U.S. a pass on Iraq, im just saying, like the U.S., Russia has blood and it's hands that certainly liken themselves to the U.S (Long period of repressing Chechnyians that CAUSE terrorism to occur, Russia uses terrorism, so Chechnyians use terrorism, its a never ending battle until one side wins). Also, like the U.S. they intervened in Afghanistan, eventually being pushed out, at the time of course this was the Soviets so no i am not saying this is Putin's fault. Anyway.

 

Just for the record, Garsk, i know you probably know this, but the Russian military targets women and children in Chechnya as well, its all a vicious cycle, so i'd really like people to stop using the word terrorism since it's lost all meaning. The major world powers are the biggest terrorists this world has ever seen, its the same parable that Thomas Aquinas posited, it went something to the effect that an emperor is simply a pirate (terrorist) with a larger fleet. There is a whole story to that but this is the jist of it.

 

 

 

So, by consolidating its power, Russia is once more trying to become "relevant." One of the things they plan to do with their added economic success is to raise military spending by 30%. I don't see why that would be wrong for Russia, seems like it's just trying to keep America from dominating it. It becomes clear, that the Western powers don't stand for what's right as it claims, in fact they probably don't care about right and wrong. Just look at all of the governments they backed in Asia and South America, in many cases, these were as brutal and oppressive regimes as any other, the only difference was that they were anti-communist.

 

I feel optimistic about Russia's prospects, economic projections seem to indicate Russia's steady growth will continue, and the nation will continue to stabilize and grow stronger, I think that's what seems to bother the west so much.

 

Just for the record i truely hope that Russia does get better, i hope there is a bigger middle class growing without being impeded, i am not here bashing Russia for the sake of it, i just think everyone needs to be as critical as possible about who pulls the strings in this world.

 

Russia will be unable to stop the U.S. from dominating it, it can try but China will probably also beat it economically for a while yet. The U.S. plans to, and effectively is succeeding in, "full spectrum dominance", look up Project for the New American century to really get an idea of what im talking about. Essentially this is a thinktank who made up a plan called "Rebuilding Americas Defenses"? I think, i have to check again but dont have time tonight. Anyway, it essentially states that it needs to invade one of the Eurasian countries to maintain full spectrum dominance, in other words, military and economic dominance. It's an imperial vision that has dreadful consequences for terrorism, but of course makes perfect sense to those in washington under this "rational"

On a completely other note,

What i question is why bother? I mean seriously why bother put all that money into the military? With that money you could revolutionize your country and make it a place of peace, prosperity and equality. Certainly keep enough to defend the country from fascists (unless Putin is really the fascist here, that is a debateable point).

It seems to me that Putin wants to hold his grip on power, and like all megalomaniac's that run major countries they wont choose the peace they could, by simply stop participating in terrorism.

 

Putin, like many other leaders who dont fall into lock-step with Washington is feeling the burn, but that wont last, and maybe a glimmer of democracy can flourish if its not totally crushed by some other fascist dick.

[HoboFactory]

Russian military targets women and children in Chechnya as well

 

So... which Chechen school did Russian soldiers kill hundreds of children in? Which Chechen civilian airliners did the Russians bring down? I think there's a major difference between stray shells or things that go wrong in battlefield situation and a deliberate targeting of children. As a Chechen rebel explained it later, the purpose of this attack was to elevate the fighting a new level, that is to prove that nothing is sacred... not exactly something civilized "freedom fighters" ought to be doing. Saying "oh well I guess those Russians reap what they sow" excuses, if not condones, such actions.

 

I think Russia definitely has a chance of avoiding American domination. I think Russia's government clearly sees the threat at hand and probably has plans of its own.

 

China is different because it recently had an economic shake up of sorts, and if its role in the capitalist world fails, the nation is probably doomed. It relies far too heavily on the USA purchasing its goods. They say 10-11% of China's exports all go to Wal-Mart alone... that means if Wal-Mart alone decides to pull the plug, it would be a very serious knock to the Chinese economy. And if America as a whole decides to pull the plug for whatever reason, what the hell are they gonna do with 100 million McDonald's happy meal toys? What are they gonna do with those garish Mardi Gras beads? China already exists pretty much at America's mercy.

[supercanuk]

Russian military targets women and children in Chechnya as well

 

So... which Chechen school did Russian soldiers kill hundreds of children in? Which Chechen civilian airliners did the Russians bring down? I think there's a major difference between stray shells or things that go wrong in battlefield situation and a deliberate targeting of children. As a Chechen rebel explained it later, the purpose of this attack was to elevate the fighting a new level, that is to prove that nothing is sacred... not exactly something civilized "freedom fighters" ought to be doing. Saying "oh well I guess those Russians reap what they sow" excuses, if not condones, such actions.

 

I think Russia definitely has a chance of avoiding American domination. I think Russia's government clearly sees the threat at hand and probably has plans of its own.

So its civil to torture,

and kidnap?

These actions are not only systematic, but institutional:

Throughout the past four years, Human Rights Watch research has shown that

Edited March 11, 2007 by supercanuk

[HoboFactory]

Made to stay in Russian when they don't want to? Really now? Notice it's Kadyrov who is being blamed for most of the kidnappings and torture. Newsflash: Kadyrov is a Chechen! Most Chechens probably don't give a damn either way, and certainly there's a significant portion that are for staying in Russia if they're willing to go to such means. Perhaps such actions are not civil, but I would say far moreso than the planned, deliberate murder of children for the sole purpose of showing that they're not above doing so. Your site says the Europeans are aware of 200 incidents of enforced kidnapping, torture, etic... yeah, doing such things to suspected enemies is just as bad as killing schoolchildren that have nothing to do with anything. If one disapproves of the acts of the Russian military, or of pro-Moscow Chechen militias, maybe they should take issue with them, and you know, leave the 2nd graders out of it... I dunno.

 

They've already taken the diplomatic path, in 1996 Russia signed a cease-fire granting Chechnya independance. That nation crumbled as rival criminal warlords all fought each other for control, and attacks on Russia resumed, the Chechens then launched a raid into the neightboring Russian republic of Dagestan. It was at this point Russia launched its second invasion into Chechnya.

[supercanuk]

Made to stay in Russian when they don't want to? Really now? Notice it's Kadyrov who is being blamed for most of the kidnappings and torture. Newsflash: Kadyrov is a Chechen! Most Chechens probably don't give a damn either way, and certainly there's a significant portion that are for staying in Russia if they're willing to go to such means. Perhaps such actions are not civil, but I would say far moreso than the planned, deliberate murder of children for the sole purpose of showing that they're not above doing so. Your site says the Europeans are aware of 200 incidents of enforced kidnapping, torture, etic... yeah, doing such things to suspected enemies is just as bad as killing schoolchildren that have nothing to do with anything. If one disapproves of the acts of the Russian military, or of pro-Moscow Chechen militias, maybe they should take issue with them, and you know, leave the 2nd graders out of it... I dunno.

 

They've already taken the diplomatic path, in 1996 Russia signed a cease-fire granting Chechnya independance. That nation crumbled as rival criminal warlords all fought each other for control, and attacks on Russia resumed, the Chechens then launched a raid into the neightboring Russian republic of Dagestan. It was at this point Russia launched its second invasion into Chechnya.

So you really think that when people are tortured, kidnapped, beaten and when a state commits grave offences against humanatarian law that people dont react in terrible ways? You dont think Chechnya's children suffer?

The destruction in Chechnya has left children at serious risk of disease, and no public health infrastructure to care for them. The risk from TB is particularly grave, and there are high rates of intestinal infections and hepatitis A, as well as growing rates of infection from whooping cough, mumps, and measles. A lack of clean drinking water, basic sanitation, and immunizations are the immediate causes of this situation.

 

A further threat to the children of Chechnya lies in the huge number of land mines and other unexploded ordinance spread throughout the region--thousands of children have been maimed so far.

link.

 

I am not saying that this is something your putting forward, i know your not a heartless person and children are always the first (well women and children) victims of conflict.

So yes of COURSE the actions done against the school children were terrible but all kinds of terrible things are done to kids in Chechnya as well, and its just state policy, fill the area with landmines, something known after a conflict to directly affect the next generation.

 

Kadyrov also believes that ruling with an iron fist is the way to go, so im not too impressed by him either, dont think i support him either.

I support people, not their elected representatives, to take control of their own lives, they don't need oppressors to do that for them.

 

I really don

[Matt]

Russian military targets women and children in Chechnya as well

 

So... which Chechen school did Russian soldiers kill hundreds of children in? Which Chechen civilian airliners did the Russians bring down? I think there's a major difference between stray shells or things that go wrong in battlefield situation and a deliberate targeting of children. As a Chechen rebel explained it later, the purpose of this attack was to elevate the fighting a new level, that is to prove that nothing is sacred... not exactly something civilized "freedom fighters" ought to be doing. Saying "oh well I guess those Russians reap what they sow" excuses, if not condones, such actions.

 

I think Russia definitely has a chance of avoiding American domination. I think Russia's government clearly sees the threat at hand and probably has plans of its own.

 

China is different because it recently had an economic shake up of sorts, and if its role in the capitalist world fails, the nation is probably doomed. It relies far too heavily on the USA purchasing its goods. They say 10-11% of China's exports all go to Wal-Mart alone... that means if Wal-Mart alone decides to pull the plug, it would be a very serious knock to the Chinese economy. And if America as a whole decides to pull the plug for whatever reason, what the hell are they gonna do with 100 million McDonald's happy meal toys? What are they gonna do with those garish Mardi Gras beads? China already exists pretty much at America's mercy.

That would be a blow to China, but they are pretty self-sufficent. I don't think it would be such a problem... The US is also a failing country, it's not going to be a super power much longer, it will go the way if Britain, France, and the USSR before it.

[HoboFactory]

So you really think that when people are tortured, kidnapped, beaten and when a state commits grave offences against humanatarian law that people dont react in terrible ways?

Well, let's put it this way... suppose the Chinese military launched an invasion of your hometown, then backed a pro-Chinese local gov't that kidnapped suspected enemy combatants, tortured them, etc... you'd certainly be pissed, right? I can understand that. But here's the question... do you attack the military (those who are directly responsible for the wrongs, those who are aware of the dangers of the situation, and those who are capable of defending themselves) or would you just go shoot up some Chinese children somewhere?

 

In America a couple of moronic Manson fans (although it should be noted that "moronic Manson fans" is a redundant phrase) shoot a dozen of their schoolmates and the nation and world grieves, some grand explanation is sought, and it extends to everywhere from blaming videogames to America's gun culture. When hundreds of schoolchildren get shot in Russia, many westerners wouldn't even call it a crime and rushed to find all sorts of excuses and justifications. It's a war, and it's an ugly thing, but it makes no sense the liberals in the West get so pissed about what pro-Russian forces do, and then just barely fall short of applause whenever anti-Russian forces pull something off.

 

You seem to have far too idealistic a view of what an independant Chechnya would be like. You get rid of that iron-fisted Kadyrov and all you get is a power vacuum. It's why its independance failed the first time around, even the guy who lead the rebellion against Russia and won independence for Chechnya couldn't actually take power, and just became any of many fighting amongst other factions for control. Iraq's a pretty good example of what happens in a power vacuum. You don't see "the happy freedom-seeking people rising up against and getting rid of the fighting warlords, bandits and organized crime" you get a bunch of scared people as victims that often have no choice but to pick sides or just flee.

[supercanuk]

Well, let's put it this way... suppose the Chinese military launched an invasion of your hometown, then backed a pro-Chinese local gov't that kidnapped suspected enemy combatants, tortured them, etc... you'd certainly be pissed, right?  I can understand that.  But here's the question... do you attack the military (those who are directly responsible for the wrongs, those who are aware of the dangers of the situation, and those who are capable of defending themselves) or would you just go shoot up some Chinese children somewhere?

 

In America a couple of moronic Manson fans (although it should be noted that "moronic Manson fans" is a redundant phrase) shoot a dozen of their schoolmates and the nation and world grieves, some grand explanation is sought, and it extends to everywhere from blaming videogames to America's gun culture.  When hundreds of schoolchildren get shot in Russia, many westerners wouldn't even call it a crime and rushed to find all sorts of excuses and justifications.  It's a war, and it's an ugly thing, but it makes no sense the liberals in the West get so pissed about what pro-Russian forces do, and then just barely fall short of applause whenever anti-Russian forces pull something off. 

 

You seem to have far too idealistic a view of what an independant Chechnya would be like.  You get rid of that iron-fisted Kadyrov and all you get is a power vacuum.  It's why its independance failed the first time around, even the guy who lead the rebellion against Russia and won independence for Chechnya couldn't actually take power, and just became any of many fighting amongst other factions for control.  Iraq's a pretty good example of what happens in a power vacuum.  You don't see "the happy freedom-seeking people rising up against and getting rid of the fighting warlords, bandits and organized crime" you get a bunch of scared people as victims that often have no choice but to pick sides or just flee.

That

Edited March 12, 2007 by supercanuk

[HoboFactory]

The TB and health crisis and all that is probably more liberal guilt talk, the entire Russia Federation is facing this problem as well, the average life expectancy for a Russian male is under 60 years, it doesn't take a war to get that too happen, just nationwide poverty. In a power vacuum with battling warlords aren't gonna start passing out immunizations. It's not a question of nationalism, it's seeing things from a perspective you westerners refuse to even take a look at. Russia has not made it a policy to directly murder people they're 100% certain have nothing to do with anything, they may have done horrible things through the mismanaged and unregulated war, but never was their aim to deliberately make the most innocent suffer.

 

Not everyone in the west deplored the act, I've known and debated with lots of people who simply said the Russians got what they deserved and that was the bottom line. People don't always need an iron-fisted leaders to keep society in line, but in some places, given background, demographic issues, etc it's the only thing that works. If your idealistic vision of the world worked, then Africa would be a much finer place.

[supercanuk]

The TB and health crisis and all that is probably more liberal guilt talk, the entire Russia Federation is facing this problem as well, the average life expectancy for a Russian male is under 60 years, it doesn't take a war to get that too happen, just nationwide poverty.  In a power vacuum with battling warlords aren't gonna start passing out immunizations.  It's not a question of nationalism, it's seeing things from a perspective you westerners refuse to even take a look at.  Russia has not made it a policy to directly murder people they're 100% certain have nothing to do with anything, they may have done horrible things through the mismanaged and unregulated war, but never was their aim to deliberately make the most innocent suffer. 

 

Not everyone in the west deplored the act, I've known and debated with lots of people who simply said the Russians got what they deserved and that was the bottom line.  People don't always need an iron-fisted leaders to keep society in line, but in some places, given background, demographic issues, etc it's the only thing that works.  If your idealistic vision of the world worked, then Africa would be a much finer place.

And which perspective are we refusing to see?

 

 

The people you debated who said the Russians got what they deserved were a pretty sad bunch of folks but i saw no where in the media that even mentioned that perspective.

 

If your idealistic vision of the world worked, then Africa would be a much finer place.

People often cite Africa as an example when i get this response. Well, let's look at "Africa" for starters there are many nations, many regions, who all have very complex histories. Like Russia, you can't ignore that past and then say that if my idealistic vision wouldn't work, Africa has been suffering from Western intervention for hundreds of years. Taking Africa is a total blanket statement, let's take Rwanda, lets take Sierra Leone, let's take South Africa, what do they all have in common? They are all ex-colonial regions, and there also some of the most messed up countries only now recovering. Colonial powers have raped Africa of her resources, people, and health. Africa is to complex to take the entire continent as an example.

 

But let's take North America.

 

Before the Western genocide of the indigenious people there was a complex, egalitarian, and vibrant self-management and governance. People hardly recognize that aboriginals were able to sustain their life and the life of the planet without (in many cases without formal forms of government) kiling each other off like mad. Sure there were battles between groups but not on the scale of annihiliation. That maybe idealistic, but it happened, and because it was like this for thousands of years, it means it COULD happen again.

 

But these maybe are unfair examples, so what demographic issues, and which backgrounds require an iron-fisted leader?

 

People do have the ability to run their own affairs and even if it does turn into tribalism i think that will be a passing affair, like Iraq, there are factions fighting but their common goal is to get the occupyiers out of the country. Once that happens healing between the factions can occur, and we may not like it, but we dont have a right to interfere. We in the West seem to believe we need to control everyones life, and yes some terrible things can occur, but there are ways of helping people without the military and i think this hasn't even been given a chance so i fail to see how its so idealistic.

 

EDIT:

This was in the Ottawa Citizen Today:

Russia faces a choice

No G8 democracy should be on the list of danger spots for journalists. It's shameful that Russia occupies second place on that list, after Iraq.

Ottawa Citizen

Published: Monday, March 12, 2007

 

The ranking comes from the International News Safety Institute, which says there were 88 journalists killed in Russia over the past 10 years.

 

The list of bizarre deaths linked to Russia grows by the month. There was the murder of Anna Politkovskaya, a journalist investigating rights abuses in Chechnya. There was the poisoning death in Britain of Alexander Litvinenko, a former intelligence agent and critic of the Kremlin.

 

Earlier this month, Ivan Safronov, a journalist for the daily Kommersant, fell to this death from a Moscow apartment. Apparently he was working on a story claiming Russia planned to sell weapons to Syria and Iran.

Also this month, an expert on Russian intelligence who blamed that country's government for Mr. Litvinenko's death was shot (but survived) near Washington, D.C. Now there's news that two women, U.S. citizens, have mysteriously come down with thallium poisoning in Moscow.

 

It's possible Mr. Safronov fell out of the fifth-storey window, or committed suicide, or was pushed by someone with a personal motive. It's possible the shooting of Paul Joyal in Washington was simply a criminal act. The same could be true of the poisoned women.

 

But the sad reality is that Moscow is turning into the usual suspect in these cases. The very fact that allegations of official Russian involvement are plausible, even to those who normally resist conspiracy thinking, suggests the sorry state of Russia's international reputation.

 

In its 2006 human rights report on Russia, released this month, the U.S. State Department decries the "erosion of the accountability of government leaders to the population." President Vladimir Putin's apparent nonchalance about the fact that his critics have a habit of falling from windows and succumbing to exotic poisons strengthens his mob-boss image.

 

Not only is Mr. Putin seemingly unconcerned with the freedom of his own people, he's also been reckless in international affairs, supporting strongmen and dubious regimes.

 

Russia's increasingly sinister reputation is not only an internal problem. It threatens trade, diplomatic relationships and international security.

 

Democratic governments ought to express publicly their concern with the direction Russia has taken, and outrage at the treatment of non-governmental organizations and journalists. The world is facing a number of serious threats: global terrorism, climate change, AIDS and other epidemics -- to name only the biggest. Without Russia on side, it will be difficult to win the big fights of our era.

 

Democracies must lead, directly and by example. They must be above reproach when it comes to human rights. They must understand the delicate relationship between security and freedom.

 

Russia can, if it chooses, be among the lights of the world in the 21st century. Or it can slide back into darkness.

 

LINK

Edited March 12, 2007 by supercanuk

[HoboFactory]

Africa is merely an illustration, one that shows that a people, given the right to self-determination, won't suddenly magically become this utopia where everyone is happy and prosperous. Yes, many if not most, of Africa's problems are rooted in colonial past, but many of these nations have been independant for decades and they're probably farther from the idealized vision of the future as ever. You're saying that a people's independance is 100% essential to progress and success, and that naturally, some sort of pleasant democracy results, which in reality isn't the case much of the time.

 

The American Natives are also often over-idealised and a poor example. Yes, they did kill each other like mad, particularly the South American native civilizations, and no, not all of them were conservationsists. In any case, their way of life is not really feasible in the modern day, nor is it desirable to most people. On top of that, the only reason why American Native society seemed to function was because there was no central government, a Pacific Northwester tribe would not have even known of the existance of say a tribe from Florida, it was unfeasible, impractical, and unnecessary for central governments to exist.

 

In the modern day, particularly in a nation with a history of violence and repression from both foreign and domestic influeces, taking away an authoritarian leader is not exactly a recipe for success. There are too many sets of interests, goals, plans that people are too willing to be violent about, so what you get is a chatoic mess again.