I am delighted that contrary to my early expectations they they would do nothing at all other than make an official grimace and then politely forget about the whole affair, the UK government’s action in expelling Russian diplomats is both all but openly stating the Russian government was behind the Litvinenko assassination and actually trying to impose some political cost on Putin’s regime. It is only a small step but psychologically it is a very important one.
As Blair was showing signs of going soft on this horrendous issue,this is a welcome indication that the Brown government is really not going to let Putin’s regime murder people in Britain in an ostentatiously obvious manner and let it pass with a shrug.
I was pleased that Downing Street is actively discouraging British companies from investing in Russia in the aftermath of the Shell Oil Sakhalin Island appropriations but more pressure over the Litvineko affair is now needed, if only to discourage more of the same. Of course I expect the Russian government to over-react at all but being called murderers and thereby help the process of de-normalising relations with that far from normal state. There is truly no upside to allowing Putin and his cronies to imagine they can do what they want in Britain without consequences.
I was also shocked and delighted by the Brown response. This was the most blatant “in your face” (sorry for the annoying colloquialism) sort of action by Russia. I really didn’t think they would be called on it. Russia is feeling very cocky these days because of it’s oil and gas. Unfortunately, they may well have reason to fell cocky in the medium term.
Absoluteley, I totally agree.
I am pleased to see that under browns new government these tyrants and gangsters will not be accepted here in the UK and we wont be a push over for putins regime. How on earth can Russia expect UK to simply hand over people like exile Boris Berizovsky without question when they themselves have no extradition laws and from previous experience with russia, no law and order amongst it’s citizens with corruption. No country has a right to enter onto foreign soil and commit a crime such as the Litvinenko case and expect nothing to be said or done about it! You commit a crime on foreign soil, you should be prepared to face the consequences and the law within the country that the crime was commited. Having no extradition law is no excuse for the crime that was commited here on UK soil. Reverse the role and what would russia do???
There is much talk from moscow and politicians in the kremlin about Russia being treated like the old soviet union in cold war times and russia still not being trusted, What a surprise! I wonder why!
maybe Russia should start taking a look at its own actions and how they conduct their so called “business” and wonder why the rest of the world still do not trust the kremlin regime!
OK so four Russian diplomats were expelled, should we be reading between the lines of this that four Russian spies were expelled? Is it not common practice to appoint members of the intelligence services to minor diplomatic posts as a cover for their more nefarious purposes? Or have I been reading to many Tom Clancy novels? (I know John LeCarre is better but I do enjoy a bit of trash every so often.)
Whilst I would like to see Lugovoi extradited, I’m uncertain as to why the Government is being as vocal as it is on the issue, if, as the Russians keep protesting, it is a constitutional issues that can only be resolved by a referendum (I’ll be the first to put my hand up and admit that I did not pass Russian Constitutional Law 101 with flying colours). I don’t doubt that they wouldn’t want to extradite him anyway, but the law is what it is, apparently.
It seems like the diplomatic equivalent of banging a head against a wall, surely? The Government already knew what the position would be, yet went ahead and fanned the flames anyway.
Why did it take so long for western statesman to realise that Putin, the old KGB dinosaur, was nothing more than some nationalistic yahoo?
I would say though that there are certain issues that the west clashes with Russia which are not very important. Take Kosovo. Is it really vital that we have an independent Kosovo? I don’t think so. It would only become another ‘pro-western’ state in that it would permanently have its begging bowl targeted at Washington and Brussels. Take NATO expansion. Didn’t Communism collapse years ago? NATO is no longer relevant. It ought to be wound down, not expanded. Obviously we should not be afraid of raising legitimate concerns with Russia, but we should look to alter any foreign policies that damage our relations with Russia and also don’t serve any national benefit.
In the grand tradition of the West, they probably worked on the assumption that he was a relatively small-time thug who could be controlled or at least would play by the (unspoken) rules to an acceptable level.
It has taken a long, long, long time for them to realise that they actually have an aggressive dictator with a large nuclear arsenal and willingness to breach every kind of rule, kill anyone, and appropriate any and all property in order to maintain power.
Russia has just developed new kinds of nuclear missiles which are very advanced and may well prove to be impervious to ‘missile shields’. They have also frozen the conventional forces in Europe treaty.
Good times ahead.
This is not good news for me, for obviuos reasons. Hopefully Moscow will overlook the few thousand expats on Sakhalin Island if and when the time comes to start booting people out.
of course not, which is why the action UKGov’s way of stating that whilst they cannot prove it, it is bloody obvious to anyone with a brain cell that the Russian government was behind the murder. The diplomats were not expelled because they did it but rather because they are representatives of the Russian state and the Russian state killed Litvinenko.
I very much doubt UKGov for even a fevered moment thought the Russians would actually extradite the man they probably told to kill Litvinenko. This is purely about imposing a political cost on the Russian actions because the guy who killed Litvinenko was just doing what his boss told him to do. And that would be Vladimir Putin.
So it is all about sticking two fingers up at Putin to make it clear he is delusionalif he thinks he is so important he can do what he wants to anyone in the UK without paying a price.
To quote Frank Drebbin-“I always knew it!And don’t let me catch any of you in America!”
The only problem with this is that it’s apparently untrue. As this article in yesterday’s Telegraph makes clear, the Russians haven’t had any problems extraditing their own citizens before this, so it’s… puzzling they’ve suddenly discovered insuperable legal obstacles in this case.
I am surprised by your delight over this, Perry, surely we should start at the beginning, rather than the end of the story. Why did Blair let in notorious mafioso Berezovsky, known for his involvement in arms dealing, drug running, contract killing, election rigging, theft, etc., and his bagman Litvinenko? How much was paid and to whom? Why do the papers constantly refer to Litvinenko as a spy when he never was? Why does Berezovsky always seem to have a platform in the UK press? How much taxpayers’ money has been spent protecting the lying, stealing bastard from his former business partners he fell out with?
There is no way on earth Berezovsky ever deserved asylum and he should never have been let in. Was there anything ever more obvious than the fact attempts would be made on his life – is that not after all why he went to the UK?
No, the UK government acted in the interests of a known criminal, placing its own citizens in danger. And now its futile and pointless actions against the Russian government merely place the expats and British business working in Russia in harms way.
Two of my friends arriving back in Moscow yesterday were locked in a room at passport control for 3 hours with no explanation, then let go by a bunch of border guards cracking jokes about polonium. I expect there will be a lot of thuggish harassment like this over the next few weeks.
I don’t know whether Putin ordered the hit or not. I’m inclined to think he didn’t. At many points over the last few years, like the militia raiding schools to find kids with Georgian parents, Nashi protests running wild, various things done by regional leaders to impress the Kremlin, I’ve rather had the impression that he is the only restraining factor standing in the way of a new ‘repression’. I’m sure he was quite happy to see Litvinenko dead, but did he really want to have Russia in a position where it looks to the whole world like they are harboring a criminal?
Thank god I’ll be out of here next year.
I’m sure it is, and I’m quite happy to go along with that, but it just seems daft to ‘push’ to go down the route that Russians say they can’t because of their constitution.
In the case of what RPW mentions below, surely the Government should then be batting away this idea that non-extradition is absolute? I haven’t heard anything from them on that yet.
Thanks for clearing that up for me, RPW.
So it is futile and pointless to react to the murder of a naturalised British citizen in London in a way that put hundred of other people at risk? What the hell? Sorry that is inconveniencing you and your friends but that is the risk you take doing business in a dysfunctional place like Russia.
Well someone in the Russia government sure did. Mafia hits do not use nuclear material. Clearly UKGov thinks it was the Russian state or they would not be doing that they are doing and William of Occam suggests they are almost certainly correct.
Why is it puzzling they do not want to extradite their own assassin? Seems quite a predictable desire on their part really 🙂
Perry,
jb has a point. Berezovsky is a crook, a scumbag and he and his clique never deserved asylum.
But does that really matter? We took in one more undeserving asylum case. Hardly the first and it won’t be the last.
HMG quite simply can’t tolerate the likes of the FSB murdering folk in the UK. And this wasn’t even subtle was it? This was roccoco to the point of being baroque.
If they’d shot him people would have bought that it was an Organistaya hit but someone in the Kremlin didn’t want that. And now they’re bitching about it?
I frankly fail to understand what Putin et al’s major malfunction is. And Sergei Ivanov is even worse.
In completely unrelated news:
RAF intercept Russian aircraft.
The buggers seem to be up for another Cold War. Magic! I’m depressed by facing Jihadis but I at least thought the Russkies were out of the frame. I thought at least that monkey was off our back.
Do I understand rightly that we are all to stand up and cheer Gordon because he’s socking it to the Russians; and is this the same Gordon quivering in his boots because someone might use an expression like Muslim terrorist and set off all sorts of horrid repercussions. This in spite of the fact that the oh so wonderful practioners of the religion which hence forth must be nameless have been murdering Gordon’s fellow citizens for years now even though officially everyone has been advised to be as nice as pie to them and not upset the lovies by teaching our infants rhymes about little piggies and so forth.
The comment by Martin (about not wanting to damage our relations with Russia and so on) shows that the facts about Putin’s rule are still not known.
It is irritating to have to type it all again (especially as Martin is clearly an intelligent person and could do his own fact checking), but here we go.
President Yeltsin was undermined by economic factors. Partly high “progressive” tax rates (bringing them down is the only good thing Putin has done – although, of course, he did it to get more revenue), but mostly a vast credit money bubble (partly caused by the Russian authorities and partly by other nations in the C.I.S.) which created a classic boom-bust (with the run on the banks and so on).
So Yeltisin turned to Putin who has since he came to power:
De facto ended press and broadcasting freedom (the independent stations are gone, there is one little independent newspaper left, as a gesture to the world, but Putin has its journalists murdered if they become a problem).
De facto ended trial by jury (trials are now the farce they were in Soviet times).
Concentrated power in the hands of F.S.B. men (as one would expect from a K.G.B. man).
Ended the election of Governors (how would you like the Governor of your State to be picked by President Bush, Martin?).
Waged war against the Chechins (already happening under Yeltsin thanks to Putin’s advise – and including the killing of liberal minded Chechins including the first President, an ex Soviet Air Force General with an Estonian wife who based the constitution of the country on that of Estonia). These days the men of power among the Chechins are all (as far as I know) scum bags – both Putin’s men, and the rebel leaders. All the decent leaders, at least in the country itself, were killed off long ago.
Allied with such nations as Venezula and Iran (so much for this being just an “internal matter”).
And stolen vast economic assets – not just media ones, but also natural resources.
Partly from “evil Jewish oligarchs who bought the assets too cheaply” (as they are presented in Russia) – of course Putin has no problem with such people if they are in his pocket, it is only ones who have doubts about him who are evil. And as for “too cheaply” – the only way to get more money for the natural resources would have been to sell them all to big external corporations (hardly something that would have been acceptable in Russia).
But he has also stolen new developments from Western companies – so much for our “good economic links with Russia” people who invest in Putin’s Russia are foolish in the extreme.
And, last but not least, ordered a massive arms build up (coventional and nuke) to go with the alliance with anti Western powers round the world.
“Damage our relations with Russia”, “N.A.T.O. no longer needed”.
Never check anything, rely on the a priori method in politics (as if it was economics).
Intelligence and knowledge of economic law (both of which Martin has) is not enough.
Such things as politics and strategic studies are (although often abused) real subjects – they are not just branches of Austrian economics.
Of course Martin is miles better than President Bush.
George Walker Bush being actually worse on Putin (“I have looked into his soul and he is a good man” – I was not aware that a man had the power of God to look into men’s souls) and (unlike Martin) having no knowledge of Austrian economics.
Still the conclusion is this:
Putin’s Russia is a hostile power. The last thing we should do is to have our actions determined by a desire “not to damage our relations with it”.
What I was saying was that we ought not to get into spats with Russia over issues that really are not that important to our interests. It is of no importance to America, Britain, or France and Germany, whether Kosovo becomes independent or stays part of Serbia. But for some reason we still insist on an independent Kosovo, which like I said will only be pro-western for as long as its citizens can make a living at the expense of the western taxpayer. We really should not be arguing with Putin over such a relatively trivial matter. It is not a vital matter of national interest.
And speaking of Kosovo, the bombing war in 1999 showed how ridiculous NATO is in the post cold war era. NATO was invoked by Clinton, Blair, and the other idealists to bomb Serbia without having to bother with any formal declaration of war. This was despite the fact that Serbia had not attacked any NATO member. They broke their own rules. NATO, supposedly defensive in nature, was used to justify a war that had nothing to do with self defense. NATO was a Cold war treaty. I would question whether the security interests of all the members continue to overlap as much as they used to. And from an American perspective, NATO is clearly a con. American taxpayers already have to pay too much for military purposes. European freeloaders makes things no better. As long as NATO keeps going, Europeans will never bother to properly build up their militaries. Europe is a lot richer now than in 1949, and despite all of Russia’s saber rattling, Europe collectively could raise forces sufficient to deter Russia from aggression without major American assistance. That is, if they had the motivation to do so. While Washington continues to con its citizens into subsidizing the defense of Britain, France, Germany, Greece, Poland, Estonia etc etc etc., Europeans will never have that motivation.
If there is an issue of key importance that involves disagreement with Russia, fine. But Kosovan independence and NATO expansion are not even in America’s real national interests, and Washington is shooting itself in the foot with them.
Actually anything which marginalises and damages the Russian government is a good thing. All the proof we ever needed that is the case was the Russian state killing someone in London in a manner that showed they are indeed our enemy. Spats? I’ll give you spats! We should be threatening to dire things, such as assassinate members of the Russian government or security services every time they assassinate someone in the West. The Litvinenko affair was so utterly outrageous that any pretence that the Russian state is not our enemy once again is unsustainable.
It is also of no importance to Russia. Russia is a long way from Serbia and Kosova as well.
I think the mass murderous exploits of the former Yugoslav government during the abortive creation of a Greater Serbia in place of Communist Yugoslavia, many members of whom are still very much active in Serbia’s political class rather than in jail where they belong, has more to do with such policies than pure calculations of ‘national interest’. Simply put, the Serbian state has forfeited the right for anyone to trust them to rule over any ethnic minority. The only reasons Hungarians in Vojvodina are fairly safe is Serbia does not want to give NATO member Hungary an excuse to start giving them problems.
Funny how apologists for National Socialist mass murderers like the late and unlamented Slobodan Milosevic and his ilk are always quick to try and hide behind trivial legalisms in order to distract attention from the real evil going on. The right people got bombed in my opinion. Hell I personally watched some of the bombing of Cetnik positions Bosnia Herzegovina a few years earlier and I got a warm fuzzy glow that for once I could see first hand as someone who has paid far too much tax in the UK and USA, for once my tax money was going exactly where I wanted it to go.
Russia is consistently on the side of the bad guys and although Serbia has certainly changed for the better lately, I am not quite ready to call them the ‘good guys’ yet because until the likes of Ratko Mladic can find no longer find safe haven in Serbia, they have no right to expect anyone to support their claim to Kosova.
You obviously consider these people to be legitimately naturalized British citizens. On the other hand I am ashamed that these people seem to be able to hire the UK for protection so easily. And by futile and pointless I mean achieving nothing more than making the Russians laugh. Although it seems to have gone over well for domestic consumption.
I agree that we would do well to disengage from Russia, but lets not pretend that it something particularly to do with Putin. Russia as a whole is the problem, not a few individuals. A large portion of the population and just about everyone in government is fascist to a greater or lesser degree and we should not expect it to behave as a civilized country whoever is in charge.
Martin,
Genocide and anarchy in Europe was not a legitimate self-defense matter for NATO?
Oddly enough, NATO expansion is in the US national interest. Relocating further East is going to save John Q Taxpayer quite a bundle because Poland is a lot cheaper than Germany.
Europe already has the military might to deter Russian adventures. The Russian military (with some exceptions) is a joke. They got their arses kicked by some ragged assed renegades in Chechnya so how do you think they’d stack-up against the Germans?
Tell ya what Martin. Try taking your thesis about us useless Euros to the Brits in Basra or the Danes in Helmand.
Independance for Kosovo is a legitimate reason for a spat with the Soviets (oops!) as indeed is FSB agents acting like SPECTRE in London. It is the Russians who are being generally beligerant.
Well, the charges made against the Serbs were grossly exaggerated, and the fact is that NATO have been cooperating with muslim terrorists to wipe out the Serb population in Kosovo ever since that war. The Kosovo conflict shows the hypocrisy of our war with so-called islamo-fascism. We are more than willing to help muslim terrorists when it suits the professional uplifters that control the foreign policy.
Did murdering thousands of Slavic, Christian Serbs improve our image with the muslim world? Well, look at the terrorists captured in America for plotting to attack JFK airport. They were Yugoslavs, but not Serbs. No, they were ethnic Albanian muslims. I was completely against the Kosovo war, but if we really had to intervene, we chose the wrong side to intervene on behalf of.
Idiot.
Murdering thousands of Slavic, Christian Croats and Slavic Muslim and Christian Bosniacs did not improve Serbia’s image with whole world. As you sow, so shall you reap. The war started in Kosovo and will end in Kosovo.
So? I could not give a jot what the Serbs did to Croats and Bosnians or Kosovans or vice versa. They are all morons but none of them were a threat to anybody but each other. Hence why I think the west should have minded its own business.
It also amuses me how those that seem very enthusiastic for crusading against the islamofascists of Mesopotamia tend to support the islamofascists of Bosnia and Kosovo.
There were few Islamo Facists in the Balkans before Slobo began kill large numbers of people in places like Bosnia, Martin.
True some Wahabi types began to turn up later (from the Middle East) – but that was after Slobo and his red star cap badge troops had started their work.
And they hit Croat Roman Catholics as well – and they hit Orthodox Christians who did not agree with them
Will you ever learn to check facts?
Or would that not be “amusing”?
By the way this thread is about the muder of people on the streets of London.
Or do you think we should not “damage our relations with Russia” over that either?
Putin is an ENEMY Martin (get that into your head) – he is our enemy because HE WANTS TO BE, it is nothing to do with any bad things we have done (certainly President Bush regards him as a pal – but your opinion of Mr Bush’s judgement is about the same as my opinion of it).
We can not damage our good relations – because we do not have good relations, (you might as well say that we can damage the walls of Tolkien’s Minas Tirith – one can not damage something that does not exist).
You remind me of Ron Paul – with his 9/11 as “blow back” for our wicked actions (when he is not on the radio shows of people who claim that Bush destroyed the towers).
We have real enemies – who would hate us and try and kill us whatever we did. It would be nice if they did not exist – but they do.
Well how many islamofascists were in Iraq before Bush and Blair decided to carry out wholesale slaughter in Iraq? There was maybe a few, but now there are thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands. Good going war whoopers.
And your point about Milosevic is odd considering you think ‘blowback’ is nonsense. Your implication is that Islamic terrorists appearing in Bosnia was blowback for what Milosevic did in Bosnia. Is the west somehow magically immune to any consequences leading from our policies?
And I am well aware that Putin does not particularly like us. But I had no idea he wanted to kill us all. I don’t think we should just do everything possible to spite Russia like you believe. As I have said, NATO expansion only benefits Europe, not America. As I have said, Kosovo is swarming with terrorists and an independent Kosovo will bleed the American and European taxpayer dry. The ‘missile shield’ in Europe only serves to protect Europe, not America. And few people in Europe favour missile shields in the first place. So why bother. Even if dropping it did not improve Russia’s mood, it would still be a good idea because it would save money and Europe does not want a ‘missile shield’ in the first place.
And rather than arguing with Russia, Europe would be better off just not buying Russian oil. Without the oil leverage Russia has over Europe, Russia’s threats to Europe are meaningless. That would be far more effective than expelling diplomats or any other such pointless gestures.
Martin,
Huh!
Kosovo is not “awash” with Islamists. It will not be a huge burden. I predict the Wahabbis etc will bugger off and Bosnian Islam (tolerant and not really very Islamic) will reassert itself.
The missile shield (if it works – the real question) is intrinsically designed to protect the USA. The fact that it may also protect Europe is merely a happy side-effect. But then when has Europe coming to harm ever been in the interest of the USA? This European wants an ABM system, who doesn’t? I hear crickets chirping and dogs howling Martin.
Islamic terrorists turned up in Bosnia not as blow-back from our actions (or inactions) but because of what Milosevic did. Look, it’s really simple the Bosnians turned to these folk because there was nobody else. They had a choice between people who were rather religiously extreme but would defend them and people who hated their guts and would rape and murder them. Isn’t really a choice is it?
Not buying Russian oil (and you forgot to mention gas). Brilliant. Absolutely. We’ll buy it from such friendly, stable regimes as Nigeria and Saudi then.
Nothing will improve Russia’s mood. They got beaten by Ronald Reagan and they will be sore about it for some time to come (beaten by an actor best known for making films with a chimp – cue Nelson Muntz). In the meantime they will act like the loose cannon they are.
Reagan and no other US politician for that matter beat the USSR. Russia was defeated by mere economics. And economics would have killed off the USSR cold war or no cold war. It is a typical delusion of the right-thinker that Western politicos were responsible for the doom of the USSR, when it was merely just the laws of economics that doomed Communism from day one.
We ought not be smug either. The corporatist socialist economies of the west will collapse in the long run for the same reasons.
Yeah, absolutely, Martin,
I agree the simple rules of economics doomed the Soviet enterprise. But, Reagan’s arms build-up pushed Sov defence spending to 25% GDP and broke their economy (such as it was).
It was Reagan who did this. Yes, the Sov economy was structurally weak, but it was Ron and (to a lesser extent) Maggie that decided to screw detente and leap on it and jump up and down till it collapsed.
And BTW. I am not “right-wing”. I came to libertarianism very much from the centre-left.
To some extent I can understand the anti Russian rhetoric coupled with cringing in the most cowardly fashion at the murderous Islamic thugs in your midst. (for example look at the latest manifwestations of good citizenship on the part of Islam thuggery outside the London courts).
Russians aren’t about to blow you up en masse or behead you individually whereas the luvies from the Islamic world are ready and willing at all times to do just that.
The cognitive dissonance is palpable but after reading Giles Milton’s White Slavery I’ve begun to understand Euro quaking and shaking as well as the USM’s anthem reference to the shores of Tripoli.
Sure, BiH took wepons from Iran and Pakistan. They also took weapons from USA, Czechia and Turkey. When the shitheads in the West imposed arms embargo to be only benefited the people who already had already arms from Yugoslav army (Serbia and their cetnics), BiH cannot be too fussy for who they get weapons from. And this makes them islamofascists? Spend some time there and you will see Sarajevo full of girls in miniskirts. Strange islamofascists. Idiot.
I credit them equally. True that Reagan, as prez of the US, had more clout with the Soviets than did Thatcher, as PM of the UK, but she got the ball rolling before he took office – and her staunch support for his missile policies was just the chink needed in Western Europe’s namby-pambiness. Without her, Germany might have panned out differently, etc.
More importantly, Thatcher was fighting on the front lines: against for-real loony-left Marxism at home. She did a lot more to break the will of the Marxist fifth column in the west than Ronnie did. The Dems are annoying, but they’ve got nothing on Old Labour and the Trade Unions, the old SPD, etc. Britain was the first domino of the old world order down, and that had everything to do with Thatcher.
No, they were in Saudi Arabia before they were in Iraq – they’ve just suffled over is all. What contingent they had in Iraq was brutally supressed by Saddam, but that hardly means it wasn’t there.
Nothing about the US presence in Iraq has significantly increased the population of Islamo-fanatics. All it’s doing is drawing the poison out – keeping them concentrated somewhere where we can keep an eye on them – anywhere but here will do.
I don’t think it’s that “blowback” per se is nonsense – just that it’s not what’s going on in the present case. Islamo-fanatics had it in for Saddam as much as they have it in for the US – Saddam just happened to be a lot more effective at containing them, mostly because he didn’t have hand-wringers at home to worry about, and because the entire international community wasn’t standing over his shoulder watching like hawks for the slightest trace of inhumanity, waiting to shout “hypocrite!” at the first available opportunity. Once they finally came ’round to policing him, they certainly didn’t do it with as much gusto as they do it to the US, and he didn’t (couldn’t) care anyway.
The US probably needs to be a bigger bully in Iraq, yes. But I doubt very seriously if our presence there is breeding more Islamo-fanatics than there were before. Giving up and going home would do a lot more to recruit for Al-Qaeda than doing what we’re doing now – just as turning a blind eye to 9/11 would have.
Being a ‘bigger bully’ in Iraq would cause much of the remaining pro-war sentiment in America to evaporate. Even if it was possible militarily (the army is ‘broken’ according to the generals) and fiscally (one day the taxpayer will have to pay up for Iraq, because Washington can’t keep up the deficit forever, and government spending will never decrease regardless of who runs Washington) to send to Iraq the numbers of troops needed to impose order on the place and keep them for a decade or however long counter-insurgent experts claim would be required, it is not politically possible. Even the GOP career pols in congress are on the Road to Damascus because they fear for their jobs. And John McCain’s presidential campaign is already in ruins.
Joshua,
I agree. There have been Islamic fanatics since approximately the 7th Century. There are a shed load in the “Magic Kingdom” of Saudi Arabia because there is bascically nothing else to do. Go to the pub. No. Chat up girls. No. Listen to furious Islamist rhetoric. Yup.
Saddam just kept the buggers out of Iraq via the expediencies of (a) pretending to be a Muslim and opposing the “Zionist entity” and the USA, (b) the use of nerve gas and (c) feeding people feet-first into industrial shredders. Oh, and then there’s (d). Saddam was no Muslim but he understood how to use Islam against people. He had the left hands of a load of folk amputated. This meant they had to “do toilet” (as Lou and Andy would say) with their right hands and that in Islam is a major taboo.
Martin,
I suggest you go to your closest US Army base and tell the soldiers there that the US Army is “broken”. Very revealing what you say about Republican politicos, very revealing.
Maybe maybe not. I think the shift in opinion against the war in the US has more to do with the fact that it’s taking a lot longer and costing a lot more than originally hinted. Support for the war was strong when Iraqis were first voting and people were beating Saddam’s statue with their shoes. I don’t think the turn in opinion has all that much to do with any percieved inhumanity on the part of our troops. Certainly the public doesn’t like these stories, but I don’t think their support or lack thereof for this war hinges on such things. They support the war when it seems to be going well and oppose it when not. If being a bigger bully in Iraq doesn’t buy us any dramatic new success, then you’re right, support for the war will evaporate when any stories of abuse hit the front pages. If, however, being a bigger bully leads to a swift reduction in sectarian violence and greater willingness on the part of the Iraqis to play ball, then I think you’ll find it would increase support for the war.
Deleted. Completely off-topic
This is all drifting waaaay too far off-topic. Serbia at least has a tangential relationship to the article (Russian foreign policy related), but Iraq has none. Save that for Iraq related articles.
“how many Islamofascists were there in Iraq before Bush and Blair decided to carry out wholesale slaughter there”.
Bravo Martin – never let the truth get in the way of a nice debating point. Are you sure your name is not Ron Paul? At least we have not had the Rothbardian line about “national liberation struggle against Western Imperialism”.
There has been no “wholesale slaughter” (or retail slaughter) by Westerners in Iraq – it is the “resistance” that does that (as I have tried to point out to you).
When you watch with horror (as you are supposed to) the latest horror car bombing in Iraq does it ever enter your mind that the car bombing was not ordered by “Bush and Blair”?
By the way why are you typing in ideological order?
The letter “l” comes before the letter “u” – so it should be “Blair and Bush” (I am the dyslexic and dyspraxic here – there is no excuse for you to type badly). Especially as Mr Blair was making speeches calling for the overthrow of Saddam back in 1999 – long before Mr Bush was making such speeches.
By the way there was an article on the topic of the original posting in yesterdays “Daily Mail” (which I always think of as the “Daily Blackshirt” partly for historical reasons, partly because of its anti Americanism) which I happened to see whilst having lunch at a supermarket.
According to the writer (Alex Chancellor a “some of my best friends are Americans, but….” type person) the judgment to kick out the Russian “diplomats” was quite wrong.
Partly because the C.I.A. had murdered …… long list of people none of whom it actually killed and none of whom died in the United Kingdom.
And because the evil West had “provoked” the peace loving Mr Putin in X, Y, Z, bullshit ways.
It was classic “it is your fault that this person has beaten you up, you must have provoked him in some way – and look you have runied his boots with your blood” stuff.
I’m confused. The CIA is an agency of the United States, not the United Kingdom. What is the relevance of the CIA’s behavior to the actions of the UK’s government?
Now, if the argument had been that the Security Service or 007 had killed a bunch of people…well, it would still probably be a pungent form of stupidity.
On Putin:
He’s a bully. He’s a street thug with an education and a very large gang at his back. The mistake that people make is assuming that he has a better nature to which they can appeal or an ideology which may give a handle for logical argument.
This was the hardest lesson for me to truly internalize when I started: Some people are scrotes just because that’s who they are. There are plenty who can reform their behavior if you reason with them and nurture a dormant and atrophied sense of empathy. However, there are also people who will only modify their behavior when you show them that civilized behavior has boundaries, and that to cross those boundaries will carry unpleasant consequences.
A schoolyard bully will not respond to “How do you think that made him feel?” but he will respond to “This time it’s a swift kick in the goulies. If you can’t keep your hands to yourself, next time will hurt far worse.” Unacceptable behavior requires negative reinforcement. Trust me, I’m a professional.