POLITICS: Putin blasts U.S.

Incorrect. It was bought and paid for permanantly from Czarist Russia to the US.

www.everythingalaska.com...

This will tell you about purchase of Alaska, so-called "Seward's Folly" is what his opponents called it.

Aelita
So, could you please quote your sources for this information. I hear the Russian Govt. has a habit of lying to its people. Gulags what Gulags.

[edit on 7-9-2004 by Smudge]

I stand korrekted.

Excellent, komradski.

Though buying Alaska at 2.5 cents an acre could be considered a 'steal.' lol

Huh?

I wasn't aware that the U.S. was in talks of any kind with Chechnya. I agree, those talks should stop immediately, and the U.S. should take a position that this "revoultion" is an internal Russian matter. We should also offer our assistance (most likely intelligence) to Russia as needed.

The idea that the U.S. would even have been having talks with Chechnya is perplexing, especially considering that the Chechen rebels have met with Osama bin Ladin himself in the past, and were on his payroll before the U.S. invaded Afghanistan... (They may still be on his payroll now; it just depends on where and how much of Osama bin Laden's financial structure has been eliminated since Sept. 11, 2001...)

I'd hardly call it "blasting the US".

He's a President whose just been effectively screwed by terrorists, the enormous loss of life and the nature of it is tragic enough to make grown men weep across the world just looking at the pictures.

He has a point, US Policy has always been "Do not negotiate with terrorists".

There is a logic behind his decision and he is a smart man for sticking to his guns.

Read these books: www.afghanbooks.com They are free.

Written by Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, who was the chief guy to construct and run Afghan resistance of Jihadi against Russian occupation.

Clearly the US had interest in supporting some terrorists. Director of CIA flew to Pakistan twice yearly to check up on progress.

Whether US has any supporting connection to Chechen terrorists I don't know, but the "With us or against us" phrase comes to mind.

The US is not beyond reproach in support of all anti-terror worldwide. Geopolitics did not die with the Cold War.

Sounds like common sense to me that the US should agree with Putin and denounce these elements within our government talking to those who support these horrendous terrorist acts. I mean I thought the US was in a war on terror and a foreign leader has to be the one to point out that people in this country are supporting these folks. Give me a break. I thought our politicians in this country were smarter than that. While this is some news to me I wouldn't be surprised that some elements of our government are talking to the Chechyans. my two cents worth of opinion here

How would the people of the US feel if after 9-11, elements of the Russian government were thought to be in talks with Al Queda.

I wonder what these elements of the US government are. I haven't heard of this before.

Is this the country that was selling weapons to a country that his own intelligence said was planning terrorist attacks in the US….not that I think we should in anyway support or talk to those folks, but I’m wondering if there isn’t more to this than reported?

September 7, 2004

The following statement for public release, was uttered by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. as opening remarks delivered at a Labor Day conference held on September 6, 2004.

On President Putin's statement, as reported in leading press in the United States, available today, such as the New York Times. The leading feature, the crucial feature of President Putin's statement, is featured internationally. This is the statement on Russia's reaction, to the attack in North Ossetia, by forces which are deployed from within the Caucasus, and with the tacit support and sympathy of not only certain governments which are closely tied to the U.S. government, in the Caucasus at present, but with actually very obvious participation of covert elements, operating behind the scenes in these regions.

Now President Putin's statement, which is in the press, and which you can get copies of otherwise, is appropriate and ominous, in its characterization, that:

Russia has recognized it is under attack by terrorist methods, from sources outside Russia, which have a strategic interest in reducing Russia to impotence from its current status as a power. As some of this is reflected, in some of the European press, is, the argument is: Russia must pull its forces out of the Caucasus. That's the object.

We know there are people in the United States, including people who lap into the Democratic Party itself, through certain channels, who are behind this operation. This is an attack, a geopolitical attack, on a nuclear power, Russia; and, Putin, in plain language, without going further than need be said, is saying exactly that.

The commentaries which we have received on the Putin speech, in the meantime, as reported from Wiesbaden, for example, in interviews with key people in Europe, is a perception that the people doing this to Russia, are idiots. That, Russia has a history—not just Soviet Russia, but Russia, has a history which includes the history of Soviet Russia. This goes back to the Czars; it goes back to the 18th Century in particular, since Czar Peter, the Great; it goes through Alexander I, who, under Prussian influence, devised an effective strategy for destroying the invading army of Napoleon Bonaparte.

After that, in World War II, it goes to the response of Russia, strategy, which was an imitation, in a sense, of the policy of Alexander I under Prussian advice in the case of the war with Napoleon. Russian cities were to hold out. Stalingrad held out. Meanwhile, the Soviet forces were planning a strike from Asia, led by Zhukov, which hit the flank of the Nazi forces at Stalingrad, and then went on to the battle at Kursk, and a hard, rough, brutal battle, with great relative sacrifice of life and materiel, which ended up, in Berlin, and elsewhere.

This is characteristic Russian reaction. When an existential threat, to the existence of Russia is perceived, Russians, in whatever circumstance, will unite, in the great majority, and with great anger, and great force, against the known attacker.

The implication of the speech by Putin, is pointing directly the finger at President Bush and Cheney, and people around them. Putin is going to be cautious in that respect; but he is going to get the message across, in words which people should not misunderstand. If we do not get rid of the Bush-Cheney Administration, now, we are headed for a form of World War III, beyond the imagination of most.

In 1999 I produced a recorded tape, a videotape, called "Storm Over Asia." If you look at the events which have occurred, since the early Autumn of 1999, when that tape was produced, and trace the course of events up to this moment, the moment of the Putin speech, reported this weekend, then, you understand the nature of the present strategic situation. And you understand, that if we don't get rid of the Bush-Cheney Administration, this planet, as a whole, will go into, very rapidly, a succession of events which will culminate in the establishment of a planet-wide new dark age of all humanity.

This is not a debater's question. This is the question of the survival of humanity. And that is the question posed, in this U.S. Presidential election campaign. If Bush wins, kiss humanity good-bye, for some time to come.


[edit on 8-9-2004 by zcheng]

One thing that is ominous about Putin mentioning the US is that Putin is an individual with a gift for understatement.

Do you have a link to the actual statements supposedly made by Putin? From a reputable news source if possible.

I read this in Russian and there was a veiled reference to external powers trying to degrade Russia's standing. It's vague enough but no matter how you slice it there is a message about the West in these statements.

I would still find it a pretty long jump from external to west….you can interpret it how you like but seeing as how the majority of the folks involved were arab…I think that most would think external = arab….I’m not quite sure that the logic in you jump quite makes sense….but like I said I haven’t seen the quote in question.

His statements are on the NY Times website (free subscription required)
He never mentions the US but writers at Moskow Times have said it seems he is referring to western countries.

NY Times:
Some want to tear off a big chunk of our country. Others help them to do it. They help because they think that Russia, as one of the greatest nuclear powers of the world, is still a threat, and this threat has to be eliminated. And terrorism is only an instrument to achieve these goals.

I'm too lazy to dig it up, but trust me it's about west.

Here's the Moskow Times article referring to the same statements:

Moskow Times
In his address, Putin chose not to specify what terrorist organizations are waging a war against Russia. But in a clearly emotional outburst he revealed that the Kremlin believes some countries could be supporting the terrorist attacks to try to weaken Russia, whose nuclear deterrent they see as a threat.

The efforts to "tear off a big chunk of our country" are being assisted by those who "think that Russia, as one of the greatest nuclear powers of the world, is still a threat, and this threat has to be eliminated."


Putin did not say what countries he was referring to, but he appeared to have Western countries in mind.

Something I read earlier doesn't make sense the way I read it. First of all it sounds like the following statement is saying people within the Democratic Party are the people in the US that Putin is condemning.




Then you somehow claim that Putin is pointing a finger at Bush who happens to be in the Republican party not the Democratic Party. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Latest terror in Russia are great exploits for Republican Convention to show how dangerous the outside world is and how lucky US people are to have Bush Misadministration to keep US safe.

As to the comment by Larouche, I think he is refering to someone a republican in essence but joined Domocratic Party like a fifth column.

Could it be a reference to John McCain, who has condemned Russian actions in Chechnya and Georgia and supported those in power in Georgia and possibly Chechnya?

I don't know for sure as I haven't looked into John McCain's policies too much.
You can read through statements of his that I posted in page one of this thread though:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Although McCain is a republican, I guess you can say he has some ties to the democratic party.
They were even trying to get him on the ticket.

[edit on 8-9-2004 by AceOfBase]