It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

While the World Focuses on Bush, Putin Actually Becomes a Tyrant

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   
The simple reason why there aren't much US journalists is because your journalists are govement pupets they don't have the balls to speak out the only real one that I know is Alex Jones and a few other like him.The american press and media is constantly blowing # and disinformation and having in mind the golag in guantanamo I can't say that US is a democratic and free country at all so first look at the problems in your backyard before calling some other country and govermet undemocratic.Sure all politics are bad and are looking only their interests when it comes to a political leader is not a choice between good and evel its a choice between evil and less evil.




posted on May, 19 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
So name a few then and why are the leaders of opposing parties still alive?

Opposing parties? Surely you must be joking. Here is what happens when you try to oppose Putin.
www.telegraph.co.uk.../opinion/2007/04/14/dl1402.xml


Being an opposition politician in Vladimir Putin's Russia must be one of the most thankless tasks in European politics.

Take the "Other Russia" group, for example. This week, it plans to stage demonstrations in Moscow and St Petersburg against President Putin's ever more autocratic regime.

It has been denied permission, and the protests, if they go ahead, could be broken up by riot police.



So how many reporters have died in Russia as compared to the US in say the last decade?

Here is a list. Feel free to try and debunk it.
en.wikipedia.org...

Also, concerning Russia's newfound wealth. Putin didn't have anything to do with it. It is based entirely on oil and gas and prices would have gone up with or without Putin.
www.lrb.co.uk...

Putin, however, had the good luck to arrive in power just as oil prices took off. With export earnings from the energy sector suddenly soaring, economic recovery was rapid and continuous.


I agree that Bush is no better and in a lot of ways worse than Putin. But come on, where would you rather live, Russia or the West? I choose the West.


[edit on 19-5-2008 by TheComte]

[edit on 19-5-2008 by TheComte]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I think the real issue is that people are pissed off that Russia is no longer weak and can't be bullied anymore.

They had a vision of Russia as a subservient and weak nation that had been tamed through its own aggression. Now under Putins leadership he has become everything they hate: strong, independent and he's free from their debt. He has taken on the oligarchs and returned natural resources back to the state. Not only that but he's thwarted their plans for central asia and opposed their expansion into the caucauses.

Calling Putin a tyrant implies tyranny. How can you have tyranny when he has majority approval ratings - and has by every measurable standard improved the quality of life for Russians across the board.

Other Russia is a joke. Their leader is basically an American puppet. To call them the opposition is like calling the communist party in America the opposition. It's a joke. They didn't even get 5% of the vote.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Has anyone noticed the Military build up of the Russian Federation and Red Army "China" This is disturbing. I believe their joint goal is to see the west fall.
China has been sending tainted products abroad... Computer components that allow them access to our nations secrets... And soooo much more.. To me...
This is an act of war and should be dealt with accordingly.

Was that a mushroom cloud I just spotted.

~L

[edit on 19-5-2008 by Lantian]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lantian
Has anyone noticed the Military build up of the Russian Federation and Red Army "China" This is disturbing.


Wake me up when its even half of what the US spends



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Euroche
I think the real issue is that people are pissed off that Russia is no longer weak and can't be bullied anymore.


To me that's not an issue, in fact I welcome more countries to become stronger and influencial in their own but right way. The fact that Russia can not be bullied doesn't change the fact that Putin has curtail freedom of the press, he and his government have been involved in shady murders of those who oppose them, either member of the press or political killings. Those killings send a clear message of intimidation, that's how tyrants and dictators rule.


They had a vision of Russia as a subservient and weak nation that had been tamed through its own aggression. Now under Putins leadership he has become everything they hate: strong, independent and he's free from their debt. He has taken on the oligarchs and returned natural resources back to the state. Not only that but he's thwarted their plans for central asia and opposed their expansion into the caucauses.


Which has also allowed corruption to run rampant in its government institutions. The mafia has more control now and that has been documented for a long time now.


Calling Putin a tyrant implies tyranny. How can you have tyranny when he has majority approval ratings - and has by every measurable standard improved the quality of life for Russians across the board.


Historically many tyrants and dictators have had the support of their own people, Fidel Castro, Stalin, Saddam Hussein and ........... that guy from Germany that killed millions in WW2.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I just care what the average man on the street in Russia says. And the answer is probably quite mixed. That's the answer to this **** in a nutshell. I think on the whole, Russia is better off than it would have been under Yeltsin. I also think most of this recent Russophobia is because Russia is getting richer (unthinkable :wow
and stronger militarily while increasing in influence too. Basically as America declines Russia and China rise. So of course the countries that benefit from the status quo (as bleak as things are right now, someone's benefiting) get slammed night and day and countries that get screwed by the status quo raise holy hell without doing anything positive to change it.

I think Putin's a pretty cool guy. Not saying I agree with his policies but he knows martial arts, could kick Bush's ass, and was in the special forces. The guy could probably make a bomb out of common household items
.

Anyways, Bush and Putin are both tyrants. It's just that while Bush institutes policies that benefit the top 1% if that, Putin throws the peanuts all over the crowd.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merle8

I think Putin's a pretty cool guy. Not saying I agree with his policies but he knows martial arts, could kick Bush's ass, and was in the special forces. The guy could probably make a bomb out of common household items
.





There's a ringing endorsement for a tyrant with his finger on the nuclear button if I ever saw one. Sounds like just the kind of leader we can make peace with. Only thing we can hope for is that the gymnast (1/3 his age) he dumped his wife for will have him so tired that he falls asleep instead of making mischief for the rest of the world.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte
Opposing parties? Surely you must be joking. Here is what happens when you try to oppose Putin.
www.telegraph.co.uk.../opinion/2007/04/14/dl1402.xml


I'm sorry but that's really just a opinion hence the fact that it's in that section! It's the Internet so i am confident you can do better than that. Talking about opposition parties why did Al Gore suppress efforts in the house and senate to get proper recounts going? Why didn't he want to win as it was so abundantly clear that he did?

Since the democratic/republican parties does the same stuff i think the violence used against anti war demonstrators in the USA shows that true opposition in either countries are tolerated only as much as it has to be.


Here is a list. Feel free to try and debunk it.
en.wikipedia.org...


Since i am not here to excuse Putin's crimes ( if one presumes it was state sponsored assassinations as seems most logical) i have no interest in a attempt to 'debunk' the very real fact that Journalist in Russia frequently gets killed for reporting on something organized crime or the state , some will say there is not much difference, would rather not have revealed. My point may not be so obvious but why kill Journalist in a country where presidents, Senators, party nominee's and civil rights leaders are assassinated in broad daylight? If the US is such a 'free' country why does it have more people in jail percentage wise and just how many of those are journalist on trumped up charges? I don't know but what i do know is that there are many ways in which to suppress the truth with the killing of journalist being towards the bottom of the list of most effective means.


Also, concerning Russia's newfound wealth. Putin didn't have anything to do with it. It is based entirely on oil and gas and prices would have gone up with or without Putin.
www.lrb.co.uk...

Putin, however, had the good luck to arrive in power just as oil prices took off. With export earnings from the energy sector suddenly soaring, economic recovery was rapid and continuous.


Maybe Putin didn't have everything to do with it but it's not accurate to say that all the wealth comes from natural resources:


Although high oil prices and a relatively cheap ruble initially drove this growth, since 2003 consumer demand and, more recently, investment have played a significant role. Over the last six years, fixed capital investments have averaged real gains greater than 10% per year and personal incomes have achieved real gains more than 12% per year.

In 2007, Russia's GDP grew 8.1%, led by non-tradable services and goods for the domestic market, as opposed to oil or mineral extraction and exports.

www.cia.gov...


But as always it's hard to know when to trust the CIA.



I agree that Bush is no better and in a lot of ways worse than Putin. But come on, where would you rather live, Russia or the West? I choose the West.


Then we are not disagreeing all that much and my main point was that i believe Bush to be far worse but hampered by the judicial achievements of past generations. If Russians were at a similar point in their democratic struggle maybe we could know but nearly 70 years of state violence, foreign invasions ( Yes, the US and allies invaded the Soviet Union back during the revolution) and the threat of NATO attacking them as they did so many other countries didn't help the Russian people's struggle for freedom.

Stellar



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
And people that opposed them are been killed, intimidated and the press been repressed.


Not all as that would include a good proportion of Russians. Some are being killed and it's mostly those who think they can change Russian overnight by exposing the obvious criminality of some elements in the Russian state or corporate offices.



Like I said Putin is bad for Russian, Bush for the entire world. That does not change the fact they both horrible.


But Putin rule is a fact relatively benign to the average Russian as their incomes are expanding offering them more security. Since that is the primary aim of the absolute vast majority of people in any country Putin , or whoever really runs that country, is not doing a bad job.


To give handouts here and there to those who had nothing its just creates a cloud temporary benefit while in the meantime they reign in on those who oppose them and corrupt the system for their own and those close to them.


Hence the fact that Bush helps the Rich while average Americans get poorer while Putin allows his cronies to get very wealthy but prevents them from taking so much that Russians do not experience themselves becoming more wealthy every year? Why can't Bush manage that?



I think you have a great point here, but what I fail to see is how effective they would have been raising standards of living or helping the poor here in the U.S., is not the same raising standards in Venezuela or Russia as it is in the U.S..


As your working from a nominally lower income base it's , as you say, not so hard to do but since even i know how to guarantee higher incomes for Americans i'm pretty sure the Bush co people could have managed that feat if they chose to. A few hundred billion less Pentagon wastage and proper corporate taxes, as allowed by preventing corporations from moving overseas and instituting trade barriers in other areas than they are now, could make average Americans fabulously wealthy in a short space of time!


But as far as how Bush and Co. would have done been in charge of any of those two, thats a scary thought IMO.



On December 11, 1994 Russian forces launched a three-pronged ground attack towards Grozny. The main attack was temporarily halted by deputy commander of the Russian Ground Forces, Colonel-General Eduard Vorobyov, who then resigned in protest, stating that it is "criminal" to use the military against "ones' own people". Many in the Russian military and government opposed the war as well. Yeltsin's adviser on nationality affairs, Emil Pain, and Russia's Deputy Minister of Defense, Colonel-General Boris Gromov (esteemed commander of the Soviet-Afghan War), also resigned in protest of the invasion ("It will be a bloodbath, another Afghanistan," Gromov said on television), as did Major-General Borys Poliakov. More than 800 professional soldiers and officers refused to take part in the operation; of these, 83 were convicted by military courts, and the rest were discharged. Later, Lieutenant-General Lev Rokhlin refused to be decorated as the Hero of Russia for his part in the war.

en.wikipedia.org...


Maybe but maybe not; when is the last time you saw that happen in the USA?
I really think there is some truth that bad and obvious state propaganda results a in a citizen that will keep his mouth shut when he must but won't believe a damn thing you say and will act when directly threatened. Maybe that's part of the reason why some Russian journalist have to be killed while it's good enough to just destroy a American journalist 'stature' and or career? But your right; it's bad enough that either country has those types of weapons.

Stellar



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I have a question, how can a democratic country only have 2 political partys that win everytime.In the last hundred years their the only ones that won it.Democrats and republicans are the only ones that managed to win elections?All other political parities do not have money for the political campaign when it comes time for elections. I understand that there are some restricions also when participating in elections as another party if you're not mainstream democratic or republican.Not much of a democracy if only 2 sides win all the time.It's practicly their sons and their family members and friends wining over again and again.It's seems like a club to me of the good old boys.
George bush, and then George W bush. Clinton and then who knows his wife? This is just crapy, it's like a xerox machine making copies of the same document.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


"he and his government have been involved in shady murders of those who oppose them"
I need some proof. Do you think 9/11 was an inside job ? I can present tons of proof, will you believe me ? But in case of Russia you need no proof, the media said it so it must be true. Maybe it is maybe not.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by pai mei
 


Do your homework then, murder of member of the press, murder of corruption investigators, murder of former spies or other politically involved people. Information is free and available everywhere. The thing is that is I come here and start giving you sources for this and that it would start and endless debate as I see you aleready brought 911 into the discussion.

The same way you found that "proof", you can find that information that I'm refering too.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Isn't Khodorovsky's wealth now in the hands of Rothschild?


Presuming that the Russian state is in fact a Rothschild front?


That says enough.


Presuming certain presumptions!


But anyway, like said above... Putin is most probably involved in the Russian mafia and I wouldn't be surprised if it was him and his cronies who where behind the murder of those journalists and the poisoned ex-spy.


Isn't the Russian mafia just another name for the old KGB security apparatus?


KGB influence ‘soars under Putin,’” blared the headline of a BBC online article for December 13, 2006. The following day, a similar headline echoed a similarly alarming story at the website of Der Spiegel, one of Germany’s largest news magazines: “Putin’s Russia: Kremlin Riddled with Former KGB Agents.”

In the opening sentences of Der Spiegel’s article, readers are informed that: “Four out of five members of Russia’s political and business elite have a KGB past, according to a new study by the prestigious [Russian] Academy of Sciences. The influence of ex-Soviet spies has ballooned under President Vladimir Putin.”

The study, which looked at 1,061 top Kremlin, regional, and corporate jobs, found that “78 percent of the Russian elite” are what are known in Russia as “siloviki,” which is to say, former members of the KGB or its domestic successor, the FSB. The author of the study, Olga Kryshtanovskaya, expressed shock at her own findings. “I was very shocked when I looked at the boards of major companies and realized there were lots of people who had completely unknown names, people who were not public but who were definitely, obvious siloviki,” she told Reuters.

www.jbs.org...



The BBC's Kevin Connolly investigates the Russian mafia's covert invasion of Israeli society.

There are alarming signs that the Russian mafia has taken over the Israeli underworld and is using the country to launder its vast profits.

A wave of mass immigration from the former Soviet Union has brought 750,000 newcomers to the Jewish state in the last decade.

How Russia's mafia is taking over Israel's underworld


So if the Russian corporate bosses are Ex KGB who earth would the Russian mafia have to be to survive to profit? In my opinion the Russian mafia is more probably the same people's other business ventures and by looking at the infiltration of Israel ( if it's as serious as suggested) i have a hard time believing that either the modern state of Russia or the Ex KGB at Rothschild employees.

The rise and rise of the Russian mafia

Russian Mafia's Worldwide Grip


Something terribly rotten is going on with the Russian government.


As opposed to what's happening in most other government including the US? Who rules the white house if not the same corporate elite, frequently with the same CIA and or military ties, that rules Russia?

Stellar



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Countries do not evolve at the rate of our skewed TV- and movie-induced hyperactive worldview has lulled us into believing.

The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Collapsed. Nearly a decade of chaos ensued. Yeltsin and his drunken follies; the West circling like vultures to grab the country's wealth at firesale prices. It's been only two decades in which to rebuild a government, a military, and a society.

Is it any wonder that, after the grinding grey horror of the last decade of communism, the loss of the Soviet empire, and the chaos that followed it, that Russians want stability, and are actually contented with what Putin has done with their country?

Really, what a special kind of arrogance to lord it over Russia and to judge and criticize them like this for where they are now. C'mon people, democracy doesn't take root and grow in a country that has had totalitarian governments for its entire history in 20 years--you can't even plant a shade tree and hope to see it mature in that time. This is blindingly obvious but what nonsense you see being spouted here. Really.

The stabilization of the country, the development of all the necessary institutions, from a free press to independent parties, to a government based on the rule of law--you all think this is supposed to occur in the blink of an eye?

Look at the development of democracy in other countries--It took France over a century to develop a stable democracy, and Japan's post-war US-created democracy was and largely still is a one-party rule.

Considering Russia's past, the collapse of the Soviet Union and its aftermath, and the West's "help," Putin and what he's done is the best Russia could seriously hope for. Put your flag-waving aside for a moment and be objective; can you really expect more? Or are you just looking through your own smug perspective?



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


I don't disagree with the notion that Russia is doing better now than in a decade past, but they still have a long way to go in the areas that are dire for a democracy to flourish.

Putin has done the necessary and I say necessary to bring Russia back from meaningless in the world stage to relevant, but at what cost? That's the main problem that I have with his style.

If he feels like he need it to bring back some of the hard rule tactics from the former USSR to bring the old glory back, at the expense of setting back the steps for his country to have a healthy democracy then I can't see how we can refer to that as progress at all.

[edit on 20-5-2008 by Bunch]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


Now that post cut right through to the meat of this issue. Especially when you asked, "at what cost?".

As I read the responses on this thread, I can't help but put at least most of the pro-Putin posters into the category of "Gee, we wish russia was as powerful as the old soviet union, and will accept anyone as leader that seems to be able to accomplish that". As you said, however, nevermind the cost or the risk. So, I feel the pro-Putin posts are all about power, and not about what's actually good for the russian people, or world politics.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch--and centurion
 


You both ask, "at what cost," with the demonstrably false position that there was actual democratic backsliding under Putin.

As I'll point out again, where is this mythical unicorn democracy that Russia has lost?

And who on earth thinks that democracy pops out of the USSR--of all places on earth--fully formed, and with all attendant necessary institutions--only to be subverted by Putin?

This is a twisted fairy tale. Get over your ideological blinkers and do a little thinking about the nature and evolution of societies.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by Bunch--and centurion
 


This is a twisted fairy tale. Get over your ideological blinkers and do a little thinking about the nature and evolution of societies.


The twisted part I will agree with. Russia's history is certainly twisted.

Who's to say who is wearing "ideological blinkers" and who is not? Could be you, or the pro-Putin people, as well. Correct?

Also, who's to say that I haven't done "a little thinking about the nature and evolution of societies" and then come up with better, more intellectual conclusions than you have?

On a (related) side note, it is interesting how people from all over the world can rant about the U.S. and Bush, but shine the spotlight on what's going on where they live and look at the responses you get ...



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by Bunch--and centurion
 


You both ask, "at what cost," with the demonstrably false position that there was actual democratic backsliding under Putin.


What false position?



As I'll point out again, where is this mythical unicorn democracy that Russia has lost?


All my points are in regard to the path to democracy that Russia was going for.


And who on earth thinks that democracy pops out of the USSR--of all places on earth--fully formed, and with all attendant necessary institutions--only to be subverted by Putin?


Putin and his policies has done a lot to harm the democracy of Russia, that's all I'm arguing.I have never stated that Russia was the mother of all democracies.


This is a twisted fairy tale. Get over your ideological blinkers and do a little thinking about the nature and evolution of societies.


Nice vitrolic diatribe, you are just grandstanding your position and yet have not address not one single point that I have presented. Obviously
you feel the need to assume something that is not true about me in order to make your point valid.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join