leo

I don't think that number of nukes affects political decision in this case. Let say if Ronald Reagan didn't call them an evil empire and didn't put good pressure on commies quarter a century ago, then I bet mister president Putin would be called comrade general secretary Putin by now. Soviets had more nukes than Putin's Russia has. And it didn't stop the West with that final effort of the cold war. But oil and gas matter. What was the gas price at Reagan's time? And what is it now? If oil price would suddenly drop now (a big "if"!) then it could be very different situation for reincarnated soviet empire (Russia). But we have what we have (high world oil prices). And our governments, hinted by our top business whales, decided that it's better to continue dealing with Putin because he's "our son of a B...". But the article you referred to on another thread ("Russia to the West...") quite logically explains that Putin is not our SOB anymore. So why bother with supporting him, even indirectly? I think it's a mistake. A big one, IMHO.

No, I can't agree on that. "The voting" was a joke or rather to say a very sad story. People's humiliation, no more than that. Read British papers: The Economist - How it was rigged www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10238268 The Times - Russian elections unfair, say Western monitors http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2990947.ece The Times - Russians told: vote for Putin’s party ... or else http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2983720.ece The Guardian - Fraud, intimidation and bribery as Putin prepares for victory http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/art...219492,00.html The Guardian - Intimidation and dirty tricks help Putin to massive landslide http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2220896,00.html

Frankly, I am not surprised. I have no doubt that Pitin must go. He shouldn't gain any bit of support from us.

Thank you for finally agreeing to define nationalism in your terms. As I suspected, your definition is completly different than mine, which I gave you two weeks ago. If you simply indicated your different understanding of the term right away, it would be no need for you to argue since that. Because we talked about different things, like apples and oranges. Again, it's terminological dispute, which doesn't make sense to me.

Excuse me, but Russians do not have a right to vote freely. They MUST vote for Putin. They may not express their free will. A few quotes to support this statement - Houston Chronicle 'Russian workers told where, how to vote' http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/5332223.html "It is unbelievable. The use of bureaucracy is on an unprecedented scale," said Marina Dashenkova of Golos, an election-monitoring group. "People are complaining that their bosses are forcing them to take absentee ballots and vote for whom they say." The use of absentee ballots in this way is new, she said, and kills two birds with one stone for the Kremlin: By getting absentee ballots, people are registered as voting even if the votes are never cast, boosting turnout; and when they vote under the supervision of bosses they are likely to vote "correctly." "It's pure pressure. They are saying, 'We are not forcing you, we are asking you, but if not, you will show your disloyalty to your company,'" said the woman, Anna, who declined to disclose her last name out of fear of being fired. The pressure to get out the vote starts with Russia's more than 80 governors, most of whom are United Russia members. The orders, whether explicit or just implied, are then passed to government agencies, companies, hospitals and schools. Russia Profile, 'Russian Elections 2007-2008: Is There any Choice Involved?', by Leon Aron, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a member of Russia Profile’s International Advisory Board http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?page...eid=a1196172808 - “I am afraid that, short of a miracle, an honest election, the outcome of which would be the result of an informed and effective choice, is unlikely,” he concluded. And even in such prison the turnout on previous legislative election was only 55% ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_legis...lection%2C_2003

Define nationalism first. Answering all of your questions is irrelevant until you could define the term. As I mentioned earlier, it's useless terminological debate, if you cannot offer to your opponents a definition of the subject. I offered you one definition, but you ignored it and keep battling. Define nationalism.

You are making big mistake. It's not Nationalism, but Imperialism in charge for all the wars! An imperial model of state is the evil.

I can see how easy it is to fall into a terminological dispute again. Let me quote (without LOL) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/ "The term “nationalism” is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination. " Basically, if you accept this definition, then previously posted question "What's wrong with Nationalism?" wouldn't cause your "LOL". If you do not except this definition, you might define your own and explain it to your opponents, if you want to talk the same language. If you don't want your opponents to understand you, then sure - keep laughing. I think in your mind you mix Nationalism with vulgar German National-Socialism. I might be wrong, but I got this impression out of your previous posts. Please excuse me if I was mistaken.

I did not call for a war. My point is that if we leave the Russia's crisis along and let it go, we could find ourselves in war one day. As for your personal and anti-American remarks erupted out of you - no comment. Bye.

Oh, dear! There is a slight difference between Iraq and Russia, don't you see that? One got lot of nukes, another didn't. One still has a power to enforce military strength of Venezuela and "grant" the nuclear power to Iran, but another could only dream of such opportunities! You're saying that the country (Russia) is a mess. I don't know, perhaps you are right. But this was like that many times in their history. Wasn't it a mess when communists took power at the end of WWI? Should I remind you how far they advanced in WWII? They paid huge price - they lost millions of men and their industry got severely destroyed by the the strongest military machine (Germany). It was a complete mess again, and...? And they rose again to compete with the West! And it took a lot of consolidated strenth and character of the West led by US to win the cold war. You're kind of saying that we may stay as a couch potato and not to worry much, eh? I'd love to be you... You think they don't want new war? But who are them? Russian people? Let me agree with you, perhaps they don't want a war. But should we worry about Russians not willing to fight? How about that little dictator sitting in the Czar's chair? Doesn't this short man remind you another creatures which our history suffered enough from? You are pleased with him and fully control this little Napoleon temper? Well, I can't be so confident as you are... God bless everyone who could convert Russia's empire into true western democracy! If we have a chance, we shouldn't turn down our friends.

Well, even little rusty riffle could shoot. What would you say about the second after US nuclear power in the world? Even if it's rusty. Do you see R.I.P. on its grave already? I do not.

I think that this fund raising campain shouldn't be advertized as it is now. What mass media is telling us, it's something like whoever is richer should be elected. So they're hinting a voter who to vote for. Why do we need to be prompted of that? You could collect a billion of bucks for your campain, does it matter if you have nothing right in your soul?

Excuse me, but where did you find about NORNA and NRN in this particular article? Are you reading between the lines?

And whois NORNA? NRN?

Tell us your secret. How to make Russia our best friend for a 1 mil?

Agreed. It's kinda terminological debate. And it seems that everybody agreed so far that we consider Russia as definite threat to the West. It never was our true friend and it is not now. Do we want Russians on our side? I think we do. But not the state of Russia as we know it now. Should we help them to convert their country into something better (for us and for them)? I think we should. And I believe we could do it.

It doesn't really matter who did it. What matter is who will prevail. I'm praying for the civilized world.

Actually, I didn't write about the "imperialist xenophobes". It was Sulaco, who wrote this But that's OK. I think I understand what you're trying to say. I'd add to it a little - in my mind a skillful "imperialist" could maninulate a "xenophobes", so that it's even easier to "divide and rule" when people hate each other. Of course, the permanent fire should be always under control. But that's where the firefighters prove their skillset

A successful revolution is launched by a few passionate people, not by a mass. You must be right about the majority of population, but they would just follow a shepherd. Remember, the communists were represented by a small group of people in 1917, and took the power. And you are right again about move active Russians driving to the West, I believe so. But again most of the communist activists came to Russia from the West in 1917

The answer is simple. This Russia is a definite threat to the West. And we should vote for another Russia, which is our hope. If the West will stand firmly against Mr.Putin's Russia's Buggeration, we should see that other different Russia soon. And we will welcome the difference!