doline redifferentiate orochon forensically orthoceratite retroreception neurokyme pedatisect
Magazine of Santa Clarita
http://www.novocode.com/doc/servlet-essentials/

I agree with American Observer's comments, that person knows what they are talking about.

Maybe you others that don't know what you are talking about would be better to just zip up, and not post or comment at all, until you do, and do so only if it is more accurate. That way you avoid looking like a complete idiot.

It is true the Former KGB are now more powerful than ever before, and that is a real threat. Putin is a real worry, and I don't take that lightly, and maybe neither should any of you.

I agree with American Observer's comments, that person knows what they are talking about, unlike GB or Bashir from what I read about Russia on here, and Putin.

Maybe you others that don't know what you are talking about would be better to just shut up and not post or comment at all, until you do, and until what you do is more accurate. That way you avoid looking like a complete idiot.

It is true the Former KGB are now more powerful than ever before, and that is a real threat. Putin is a real worry, and I don't take that lightly, and maybe neither should any of you.

I'm from the UK and I agree with American Observers comments, GB and Bashir have no idea what they are talking about, but American Observer clearly does.

If you don't know what you are talking about, then maybe you best just shut up, and not talk or post at all, will prevent you looking an idiot that way.

It is true the Former KGB are more powerful than ever now, Putin is a worry. I don't take that real threat lightly, and maybe neither should any of you.

I'm from the UK and I agree with American Observers comments, GB and Bashir have no idea what they are talking about, but American Observer clearly does.

If you don't know what you are talking about, then maybe you best just shut up, and not talk or post at all, will prevent you looking an idiot that way.

It is true the Former KGb are more powerful than ever now, Putin is a worry. I don't take that real threat lightly, and maybe neither should any of you.

gliuf obcg qbow iwkeav raknbel rmqfcbve ygzehifj

gliuf obcg qbow iwkeav raknbel rmqfcbve ygzehifj

gliuf obcg qbow iwkeav raknbel rmqfcbve ygzehifj

gliuf obcg qbow iwkeav raknbel rmqfcbve ygzehifj

I believe that Russia (Russian Federation) was, is and will probably remain a Third World country. Russia is nothing, a third world in conflict with ALL of it's neighbours. I love Brazil, it's bigger than Russia and better. Just my honest opinion.

I believe that Russia (Russian Federation) was, is and will probably remain a Third World country. RRussia is nothing, a third world in conflict with ALL of it's neighbours. I love Brazil, it's bigger than Russia and better. Just my honest opinion.

I believe that Russia was, is and will probably remain a Third World country. Just my honest opinion.

Russia (Russian Federation) IS a Third World country and it always was and will most likely remain a Third World country for many years to come if not forever.

Big Fan of Russia

Thanks, AO. We have fought the GOOD fight, toe to toe, with facts and using their own words against them. Misha and Helga at least are discussing the broader historical political panorama and are entitled to biases as we are, though should be enlightened by facts. Anyhow, see ya later on the boards.

This is Charles Lindbergh ready to land - I can see the lights of Paris and am passing the Eiffel Tower.

Helga:

I want to make one thing clear right at the beginning; all of the world respects Russia's real achievements in the arts and sciences. Dostoyevsky and Solzhenitsyn are names which are respected all over the world, and everybody remembers which nation used its oversized ballistic missiles to launch the first satelite into space. At the same time, your history of the twentieth century is so amazingly wrong that I am hesitant to even start refuting it, simply because it would require putting so much energy into a board which seems to have lost all of its readers.

What about it, folks? Correcting all of Helga's mistakes might take an hour. Is there anybody else on this board, or should I save my labor for a project which will provide more benefit?

American Observer writes:
«Many famous world leaders have said the same thing. Those famous world leaders include Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the Ayatollah Khomeini.»

American Observer, have you ever asked a question why these leaders came to power and were en masse supported by their citizens? In the inter-war period the Germans considered themselves to be the humiliated nation partly because of the immense reparations which the Entente countries required from them. Hitler promised people stability and revision of the Treaty of Versailles and they allowed him to implement his program. Moreover, the West recognized Hitler’s government as legitimate. On the contrary, the 7-th Congress of Comintern condemned the fascist dictatorships in Germany and Italy and called on all democratic forces to consolidate and resist nazism and fascism and thus prevent the war. Unlike Western powers the Soviet Union protested against Mussolini’s aggression in Abyssinia in 1935.
You asked me if I had heard about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact but I’d like to ask you a counter-question: have you heard about the policy of appeasement? The annexation of Austria by Germany and Munich Agreement when the Western democracies allowed the Third Reich to divide the sovereign state and than absorb most of it preceded the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. It should be stressed the English-French-Soviet political negotiations in summer 1935 dragged on and than failed first of all because of the position of England and France. The English and French governments themselves alienated Stalin and by their actions provoked his rapprochement with Hitler. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was immoral and it was a strategic mistake as well as the policy of appeasement. The question who is to blame for starting WWII is very controversial. Why do the Americans like to use double standards in interpreting historical facts?
Mao defeated Chan Kai Shi in the Civil War because the latter was associated with the Western Powers which divided China into the spheres of interest and exploited its resources, they did nothing to stop Japanese aggression against China in the 1930-th.
Ayatollah Khomeini’s preaching had found response among the Iranians. Islamic Revolution was protest against Western economic policy, values and way of life.
So, the dictatorships in Germany and China and fundamentalism in Iran were in some sense reaction to the Western policy.
American Observer says:
“Those remarkable events include the Czarist Empire, the Soviet Empire, the Gulag Archipelago, and Stalin's invasion of Poland, Romania, and Finland. As long as the Russians keep trying to engineer 'remarkable events' like those, America will be morally obligated to help neighoring countries like Georgia and Ukraine resist Russian aggression.”

American Observer, your knowledge of Russian history is very specific, maybe, limited. You read the books devoted to Russia very selectively: you have paid attention only to the points that can be criticized. Why do you say nothing about the great deeds of Russian people: for example, about the fact that the desperate resistance of the Russian lands to the Mongol-Tatars hampered their advance further in Europe, about victories of the Russians over Napoleon and Hitler’s Germany, about the liberation of Balkans from the Turks by Russia? Your approach is very simplified. In this case we can judge the history of the United States in accordance with such events as the extermination of the native population of the American continent- Indians- and placing them in reservations, the activity of Ku Klux Klan, McCarthyism, interference in the inner policy of Central American republics during the 20-th century, “glorious” campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq which are the real proof of contemporary US imperialism.

Misha,

Thanks for your calm and intelligent comments. You and I do not agree on many things -- for example, I think that Putin is trying to restore the Russian empire, and I think that America is obligate to stop him -- but I think you have fairly and honestly described the feelings of ordinary Russians, and you have done so without conspiracy theories or hysterics. Thanks for your contribution.

The big picture is that the West cares a lot about democracy, and in particular liberal democracy, that is the western version of a democratic system. It cares much less about capitalist economics.
Countries do not like to be told what political system to have, especially countries like Russia which have a lot of national pride etc. while at the same time these same countries more then welcome sound economic advise.
Our government (I am Russian but lived most of my life in the West [UK and Switzerland]) has stated many times that it is sick of hearing the democratic mumbo-jumbo coming from the west, and I understand why. Our economy has been growing at a steady rate of 7% a year for the past 6 years, while it experienced sharp declines during the 90s liberal era. Thus the government has strong reason to believe that liberal democracy may not be suitable for the country at the present moment. The public also seems to share this view with the governments approval ratings hovering above 70%. It seems to the Russians that the West is not happy about our recent economic success but instead would prefer to see our growth rates drop to 1-2% and public debt to soar, Im not saying that this is the case but this is how it seems from the other side anyways.
I think it is always important to try and understand the mentality of the other country before talking about things like political reform, which btw may be extremely destabilising for a developing economy.

Bottom line is: Russia is a developing country and its primary objective right now is to develop economically. In the future when the per capita income will rise to 20,000 dollars+ democracy will emerge by itself, naturally, due to the growth of the middle class and the spread of the middle class democratic values etc. This has been the case in Taiwan, South Korea and many other developing countries.

The best thing the West can do is to help Russia with economic development through the removal of trade barriers, increased investment, sound economic advise etc. instead of alienating it and literally pissing the entire nation off with whats percieved there as a disappointment with our current economic success.

p.s. Speaking of the Western media I do actually feel that it is quite one-sided, biased and that it presents a very simplistic view of the country without much analytical effort.

example: note how the gas cut-offs to Ukraine and Georgia produced an outrage in the West which led to harsh accusations of imperialism etc. made against the Putin administration.

ok....sure im fine with that since from the outside it might have seemed like that.

but then when Gazprom started doing the same thing to Belarus, the closest thing weve got to an ally (weve actually formed a union state in the late 90s), i did not see anyone questioning the motivations for the cut-offs to Ukraine and Georgia. Yet it seems pretty obvious to me that in all these cases the common denominator was profit, not political influence.
This is because if the Russian government would want to punish those who went with the West it wouldnt have chosen to also 'punish' in an identical way its friends.
The fact that I saw no analytical discussion of this whatsoever made me realise that the Western media is simply not that good.....it produces what sells best: ie an image of a villain Russia.

Final thoughts on this subject

Not As Dumb As You Think responds:

You should also be concerned about the lack of intellectual honestly in American Observers posts. your apparant double standard in this regard is puzzling. Kindly direct your sense of fair play and chiding where it is properly belongs - to the person who can't seem to understand that just because he says something doesn't make it true - namely, American Observer.

Final of Los Angeles to NADAYT

No I am not concerned with AO, I am concerned with your lack of intellectual honesty that will not admit the Possibility that something smells in Russia.
Maybe your initial should be NYET - just say NO to bad words about Putin.
Not Yet Every Thought (Under Control) sounds good

Final to Helga - I'm glad someone finally responded to my "joke" and I'm glad for AO's spirited explanation, which was correct about Stalin abetting Hitler. My point in the parody was to make people stop and think about their parroting defense of Putin because somewhere down the road they may regret those words and in any case, one should not engage in hero worship of person or country like some have done here.

Final to Alexsey (can't resist) from Charles Lindbergh:
Another voice of reason and logic (for a change).
And don't worry, the (British Empire) and their (old colony - US of A)have no CHOICE but to consider what (GERMANY)has to say.
And (GERMANY) no longer has to bend over at the whims of (British / French) and their (other) European puppets (Poland, Czech). Thank you, Mr. (Hitler) for that! I look forward to an (Axis / Greater Co-prosperity Sphere) multi-polar world where (imperial "democracies") influence diminishes every day!
____________
I look forward, instead, to all countries building real democracies with constitutional protections and press freedom, and global access to information, trade, and development. To a stubborn American neo-con, this cuts both ways, but we're man enough to take it and we don't have to always be on top but want to make things right.
That's makes US arrogant. Damn right - we've been arrogant as hell and hypocritical to boot since our Declaration of Independence 240 years back.

Alex said:

"Ben, other people don't cite newspapers here and present it as facts, like AO."

American Observer replies,

Seriously, Alex -- where do you suggest we get our news? From the radio and TV? From gossip? Or just soaking up Putin's propaganda?

Helga said,

"The Americans should stop imposing on other countries its values and its vision of the world order."

American Observer replies,

Many famous world leaders have said the same thing. Those famous world leaders include Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the Ayatollah Khomeini. As long as colonialists like Vladimir Putin try to dominate other nations, like Ukraine, and keep their troops in other nations against their will, as Putin does in Moldova, America will have to make the kind of stands that we have been making.

Helga writes:

"....the West, in particular America, has no right to dictate other countries what to do because they are sovereign and many of them can be proud of their ancient culture and history filled with the remarkable events. "

American Observer replies,

Why, yes, Helga -- in the case of Russia, there have been many remarkable events. Those remarkable events include the Czarist Empire, the Soviet Empire, the Gulag Archipelago, and Stalin's invasion of Poland, Romania, and Finland. As long as the Russians keep trying to engineer 'remarkable events' like those, America will be morally obligated to help neighoring countries like Georgia and Ukraine resist Russian aggression.

Helga writes:

"....it is so cynical to draw parallels between Weimer and Hitler’s Germany and Russia. In WWII more than 26 million Soviet people died to liberate the world from nazism and fascism."

American Observer replies,

It is not cynical -- it is painfully accurate. We all agree that Hitler and the Nazi regime are completely to blame for starting the Second World War; however, is strange that most Russians don't realize that Stalin and the Soviet Communist Party are equally to blame as well.

Helga, you have simply repeated old Soviet propaganda about the history of the twentieth century. Have you done any independent reading about history at all? Have you heard of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? As you should remember, in 1939 the Nazis and the Soviets agreed to invade Poland together, with the Nazis taking seventy-two thousand square miles of Poland on one side, and the Soviets taking seventy-five thousand square miles on the other. I agree that the people of Russia suffered terribly in the war; but if the Russians had not agreed to join the Germans in aggression against Eastern Europe in 1939, Hitler would never have dared to invade France, and the Second World War would never have started at all.

Alex says that Litvinenko said:

" -- that Putin is a pedophile?"

American Observer replies:

Well, that is a heavy charge, but I am always learning new things, and I went to the internet and I found a document on the subject. The page shows Vladimir Putin kissing the stomach of a little boy that he has never met before, and it claims to offer an explanation for this.

You can see it at
http://www.litvinenkomurder.org/Putin_the_pedophile.htm

I want to thank you for mentioning this, Alex. I had never known that Putin had been accused of pedophilia, and without you I might never have known it. However, this accusation is so new to me that I have not had any time to study or reflect on it.

Can anybody tell me anything about this? After all, different cultures have different customs, regarding kissing and everything else. Some Italians still kiss strange women on the hand, and occasionally French men, even straight men, kiss other French men on the cheeks. Is it normal for Russian men to kiss other people's children on the stomach? If so, Vladimir Putin could easily disprove the charge of pedophilia. If it is not, however, we would need to find an explanation for Putin's belly-kissing. On the other hand, nobody can say that pedophilia never occurs in Russia; I am sure we all remember Fyodor Dostoyesky's novel 'The Possessed,' and what Stavrogin does to little Matryosha.

Now, here is another comment. I don't know whether Putin is a pedophile or not, and I would like somebody to help me to understand this; but, even if Putin is NOT a pedophile, this charge helps incriminate Putin for the murder of Litvinenko, because it explains why Putin would hate Litvinenko so much that Vladimir Putin would send hired killers to the United Kingdom to drop polonium in his tea.

I repeat, I have never heard anybody accuse Putin of pedophilia until Alex mentioned the charge, and I had to look it up. Does anyone here know anything about it? Is it normal for Russian men to kiss the stomach of other people's children?

Thank you, Bashir, for the article.
Another voice of reason and logic (for a change).
And don't worry, the US and A [sic] and their 51st state (UK) have no choice but to consider what Russia has to say.
And Russia no longer has to bend over at the whims of Americans and their European puppets. Thank you, Mr. Putin, for that!
I look forward to a multi-polar world where American influence diminishes every day!

"of Los Angeles" wrote:

I already said we cannot try the case here, especially as regards Putin's guilt. What is silly is that you regard any examination of alleged evidence or suppositions or motives as silly, especially in regard to Putin.

In America, even if we disagree or discount the political "crimes", most do not take it as silly. At most, like Cheney recently you discount as "witchhunt" but everybody is accountable at some point.

Was it Silly to think Nixon knew something about the Watergate breakin

Was it Silly to think Reagan knew something about what Colonel Oliver North was doing

Was it Silly to think Clintons may have known something about Whitewater misdeeds (As it turns out, nothing could be proved)

Was it Silly to charge Clinton - maybe the type of conduct it concerned - sexual relations - sounds silly , but the charge was lying and obstruction - the same that people are after Bush about.

No, it may or may not be proved, in Putin's Russia it will NEVER come up as long as he has any say in it, but it is NOT SILLY.

Clear enough!?

Not As Dumb As You Think responds:

I agree that is not silly to think, or even believe something is true without evidence. witness that I have already stated on more than one occasion that I don't really care what others believe. I do, however, think it is indeed silly to present speculation, wishful thinking and conspiracy theories as fact, as American Observer pathologically does. and quite frankly, you should also be concerned about the lack of intellectual honestly in American Observers posts. your apparant double standard in this regard is puzzling. Kindly direct your sense of fair play and chiding where it is properly belongs - to the person who can't seem to understand that just because he says something doesn't make it true - namely, American Observer.

Mr. Goth’s article is really interesting and in some sense ambiguous, it offers a reader a good opportunity for reflections. On the whole I suppose that Mr. Goth ideas are right but I’d like to bring into focus some disputable points of the present discussion. Firstly, Russia’s concessions to the West in the 90-th were caused not only by its aspirations to become integrated into the Western community (though it was a strong desire of the majority of Russians) but also by its weakness and political short-sightedness of the governing elite. People who were in power at that time and who were responsible for the foreign policy decision making were simply incompetent and corrupt. If Russia had maintained its national interests more firmly its Western partners would not have treated it in such provoking manner. I don’t want to say that the constant confrontation between Russia and the West will always exist. The sides should look for a compromise. The West should realize that partnership between states means dialogue but not the passive obedience of one country to another though the latter may be the world’s leader in economy and technology. Mutual respect is the basis of international stability. The Americans should stop imposing on other countries its values and its vision of the world order. It’s hard to disagree with Mr. Goth when he writes that the West shouldn’t treat Russia like Third World country but the problem can be complicated: the West, in particular America, has no right to dictate other countries what to do because they are sovereign and many of them can be proud of their ancient culture and history filled with the remarkable events. The voice of the so called Third World countries should sound stronger in the international concert. Our world is a home of so many nations and each of them is unique and doesn’t resemble one another. The world should be multi-polar but not American shaped.
Secondly, I think that it is very conceitedly from American Observer’s side to call former Soviet republics and provinces of Russian Empire, especially Ukraine and Georgia, “colonies”. In 1654 Pereyaslavskaya Rada (the congress of the representative of the Ukrainian people) made a decision to join the Russian state. One of its reasons was that the Ukrainians did their best to throw off the Polish yoke. As for Georgia the treaty of Georgievsk (1783) should be mentioned. According to it the Georgians voluntarily agreed to become a protectorate under the suzerainty of the Russian Empire because of the Turkish and Persian threat.
Thirdly, it is so cynical to draw parallels between Weimer and Hitler’s Germany and Russia. In WWII more than 26 million Soviet people died to liberate the world from nazism and fascism. The Soviet Union contributed more than anyone else to the victory over the powers which could call in question the future of humanity.

Here is some facts for you Ben-boy from US State Departments guy:
............................
"Discussions of the Russian media typically imply that state control is total, when in fact there are more private media in Russia today than at any time in its history.
In 1997 there were just over 21,000 registered periodicals, virtually no electronic media, and just under 100 television companies. More than half of all media were owned by the state. A decade later, there are more than 58,000 periodicals, 14,000 electronic media, and 5,500 broadcasting companies. The state's share in the newspaper and journal market in 2006 was estimated to be less than 10%, while its share in electronic media, which today reach 25 million people, is even smaller. Today it is not the Russian state but foreign companies that own shares in more than half of all Russian broadcasting companies.
Critics, however, have zeroed in on the one area of the media where the state's presence still predominates - national television. Through its control of seats on the board of the joint stock companies that control the media corporations that own particular stations, it is argued, the government exerts undue influence on national television channels. What does the evidence actually show?
Last month, Medialogia (www.medialogia.ru), Russia's leading private media research firm, released its fourth annual survey. It shows that in 2006 pro-government parties received 54.9% of all the air time devoted to major political parties, up from 45.4% in 2005. The survey also breaks down how often parties were discussed positively and negatively on seven national television channels.
Last year the pro-Putin United Russia Party was mentioned positively more than twice as often as all other parties combined. This large preponderance, however, is a bit misleading. United Russia may indeed mentioned far more often than any other party, but not always favorably. A direct comparison shows that positive reports about United Russia outnumbered negative ones 58% to 42%, a modest 16-point margin.
Medialogia's detailed statistics also demolish the myth that Putin dominates national television and allows no critical reporting. In 2006, for example, Putin garnered more than a third of total mentions among the top 10 most popular figures on national television, while his ratio of positive to negative reporting was just over 3:1.
Is this too high or too low? Russian television viewers seem to feel it is just about right. In 2005, two-thirds said they had seen no change in television coverage of Putin and that he was covered about the right amount. Moreover, by nearly 4-1, they said opposition parties can freely express their views on national television and in national newspapers. Interestingly, even 56% of Communist Party voters agreed.
These results will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the variety of media options available to most Russians. These include local television and radio stations, half of which are in private hands, the private Ren-TV network that reaches roughly 113 million people in the Commonwealth of Independent States through its 406 commercial stations, as well as cable and satellites channels that are available to about 20% of the population nationwide.
To sum up, under Putin, for the first time in modern Russian history, independent media have become profitable. The typical Russian media conglomerate today is a mixture of foreign investors, Russian banks and local governments. If a local project goes national, as in the case last year of St Petersburg's Fifth Channel, the shares owned by local governments are often bought out by private investors. Russia already has more private media outlets than any other European country, and as long as advertising revenues continue to rise 15% and more each year (87% annually on the Internet), privatization will continue its unstoppable advance."
.........................................
(Nick N Petro served as the US State Department's special assistant for policy on the Soviet Union under president George H W Bush, and now teaches international politics at the University of Rhode Island)

One other thing, to all those people quoting Putin's high approval ratings: He controls the media!

And where exactly do you get the truth from, Alex? I'd like to know, because i'm certain that its from a completely unbiased source. Especially the Russian Media. I hope you get it there, because they don't use any spin, only tell the whole truth and nothing but. And they aren't government controlled.

Has anybody heard of Litvinenko before he was murdered?
This spy turned traitor lived in Britain for some time on Beresovsky money trying to blackmail Russia. Writing some books but was never taken seriously, for quite simple reason really - because he was a nutcase - to his mind all terror acts in Russia were executed by KGB (maybe we will read about that) but that Putin is a pedophile? Come on! Litvinenko's hatred didn't know any bounds - as former spy he was used by MI5 to sqeeze out of him whatever was possible. But then he was spent like sqeezed lemon on your plate.
His death was brilliant try to sqeeze him a bit more. Wonderful end to career of a traitor - even in his death he managed to harm his people.
Putin really should have given him his bodyguards to protect him.
Litvinenko alive - no problems for Putin and Russia; Litvinenko dead - huge problem.
Do you see it, AO? These are facts.
Also why to use pollonium - dirtiest radioactive element, but not other thousands of more effective poisons that break in your body and don't leave any traces? Unless you want to leave a trace, of course.
Ben, other people don't cite newspapers here and present it as facts, like AO. British spin doctors learned that if something will be repeated many times it will become a fact.
It actually works, look at western public, which is not used to critical thinking and analisis.
Twisted knowledge of history, other cultures, poor education are wonderful conditions when manipulation of public opinion can flourish.
Ask Russians how to find the truth - they have that solid experience of Soviet times. Or maybe they are generally smarter?

I already said we cannot try the case here, especially as regards Putin's guilt. What is silly is that you regard any examination of alleged evidence or suppositions or motives as silly, especially in regard to Putin.

In America, even if we disagree or discount the political "crimes", most do not take it as silly. At most, like Cheney recently you discount as "witchhunt" but everybody is accountable at some point.

Was it Silly to think Nixon knew something about the Watergate breakin

Was it Silly to think Reagan knew something about what Colonel Oliver North was doing

Was it Silly to think Clintons may have known something about Whitewater misdeeds (As it turns out, nothing could be proved)

Was it Silly to charge Clinton - maybe the type of conduct it concerned - sexual relations - sounds silly , but the charge was lying and obstruction - the same that people are after Bush about.

No, it may or may not be proved, in Putin's Russia it will NEVER come up as long as he has any say in it, but it is NOT SILLY.

Clear enough!?

It isn't possible to factually prove that Putin is guilty, because he is blocking the investigation and trial of Lugovi. So, this is all speculation, but most reasonable people would understand why putin is stalling. If he wasn't guilty, why wouldn't he extradite Lugovi to the British for trial? And how can you account for the fact that there were traces of Polonium 210 found around London everywhere Lugovi went? Or that Lugovi just happened to have dinner with Litvinenko the night before he died? I'd love to hear you try to explain that.

"of Los Angeles" and "Ben (AO's 2nd screen name?)"

AO has no facts to support his claim that Putin is behind any killing. The fact that he completely misinterpreted my SIMPLE post clearly tells me that he is either incapable of reading, or chooses to misinterpret what I have said. and yes, i think that is just plain silly.

please give me the FACTUAL links between Putin and any of this, that proves his guilt. please do not include hearsay, baseless accusations, or site news articles quoting "reliable sources". and if your response boils down to "Putin is the Russian president, therefore, he's guilty", then i'll tell you in advance you are just being silly.

This is quite ridiculous, seeing as how solid of an argument that AO makes to back up his points, but then his opponents simply insult him or ask if he knows how to read in response. They never refute his statements. And his arguments are backed up by facts, Natalia, if you would read them. Everybody needs to stop apologizing for Russia's criminal behavior.

Tete a Tete says:

"Kyrgestan has applied to join Russian Federation -- "

American Observer replies,

Really? That would be like Cuba applying to join the United States. In reality, the regime of Kyrgestan has made this threat, because the regime of Kyrgestan believes that joining the Russian Federation would allow the regime to continue to rob the people without accountability, the way the Russian puppet state in Belarus does; but the opposition and the ordinary people of Kyrgestan reject the idea, so the idea's ass is now officially kicked. Sorry...

Tete:
Now who's being silly? My daddy's tougher than your cowboy daddy!!

Maybe the Democrats are right - let's cut and run from Middle East and Central Asia - if they stop hating Americans then,

Yeah, 1 billion Muslims and 2 billion Chinese may find your new $$ and oil tempting and you're 140 million and dropping like a rock! Good luck!

Our friends from Russia had some comments about the Russian 'investigation' into the murder of Litivenkgo. The Times Of London ran an article, which is very informative.

Quote:

January 13, 2007

Kremlin 'stalling tactic' hits poison case
Suspicions over 'irrelevant' demands Russia has asked for 100 interviews

Tony Halpin and Daniel McGrory

The Kremlin has unleashed a bureaucratic blitz on Scotland Yard as part of Russia’s investigation into the murder of the former spy Alexander Litvinenko.

Prosecutors in Moscow have asked British detectives to interview more than 100 people and carry out dozens of searches in a 110-page request for assistance. Alexander Zvyagintsev, the Russian deputy prosecutorgeneral, said that he had asked the Home Office for its full co-operation.

The scale of the Russian request has prompted suspicions that Moscow is seeking to stall the investigation by overwhelming Scotland Yard with largely irrelevant demands.

The Prosecutor-General’s Office in Moscow did not open an inquiry into Litvinenko’s death until December 7, two days after a team of British detectives arrived in Russia to interview potential witnesses.

Unquote

You can read the rest at:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/europe/article1292403.ece

Russia aready kicked out American military out of Central Asia. US lost its largest base in Uzbekistan and that country is now under Russian military protection.

Kyrgestan is now trying to evict last American base in Cenrtal Asia. Kyrgestan has applied to join Russian Federation and Russia has a rent free base in that country to make sure American behave.

Who is kicking whose ass.

Not as Dumb as you think - you are reduced to saying AO is silly. One thing this discussion is NOT and the presentation of facts and yes theories is NOT is silly. It is deadly serious and I admire AO's persistence and detail.

But we are not going to try the case here. What we can do is examine motives and consequences. And those motives and consequences affect
Russia's future and its present.

It is SILLY to think your defense of Putin does other than support the consolidation of Putinism, whatever that may mean more than, as they used to say, the cult of the individual.
______________________________________

All "of Los Angeles" up to now are me, Robert of Los Angeles using alter egos to reflect back the thoughts of Putin loves in strange and wonderful ways

Think again on what Eugene's investigator of the Chief Prosecutor's Office has to say:
"...and the opposition became so unpopular, that now it's shame and disgrace to speak about speech freedom. People more and more care about their financial position, rather than political rights."

Anybody think that's SILLY? Anybody think it's scary? Anyone?

"Because the 'constitution' of Russia has been written and rewritten to suit the Putin gang"

So now you are proposing to accomodate the Brown gang as well?

The entity you refer to as "Putin gang" is the government of my country, which I voted for, and which, in my opinion, works remarkably well. You are entitled to your own opinion, but please stop the insults.

"for example, that is why Putin had the constitution rewritten to replace direct election of governors with appointed govorners"

This proves exactly what? Yes, we change our constitution when parts of it do not work well. Putin, the president of Russian federation made the proposal and parliament approved it, in accordance with Russian laws.

I understand that it is much more difficult to change your constitution, but it is 300 years old, and in the beginning it was also changed quite often. By now it stabilised, while our didn't yet.

"For example, Russian law forbids the murder of Russian citizens, and the evidence against Andrei Lugovoy is overwhelming, but Putin has not choosen to have Andrei Lugovoy arrested"

Russian government have offered to prosecute Lugovoi in Russia. Unfortunately the British side chose not to pass the "overwhelming" evidence to Russian government. One wonders why. We cannot prosecute Lugovoi without evidence?

British have demanded to just give them one of our citisens, or else. It is good that Russian government behaves as if Russian citisenship means something. I am sure you would expect as much from yours.

ADAYT,

I have given you a list of questions, and you have not answered them. I can only conclude that you will not because you cannot.

Finally, our friend from Los Angeles hit the right note on extradition. The British have never refused to extradite genuine criminals, but the British are completely right to refuse to extradite Russian dissidents. Neither Stalin nor Putin nor any of the Russians on this board seem to understand the difference, and that is the tragedy of Russia.

AO:

now you make me smile. do you even know how to read? if so, read my post. your response is almost completely unrelated, or chooses to ignore what i have presented. i am not a Putinist (whatever the heck that is supposed to be), but i'm not dumb either. you again present no proof, and claim to know know more than anyone else. i at least admit when something i say is speculation. when you can understand the difference, perhaps we can continue that conversation.

for now, i'll just laugh at the complete silliness of your position.

As Dumb As You Think argues:

"I will offer another, plausable explaination for the sake of discussion, which should by no means be taken as my actual belief: Berizovsky could have set the whole thing up to frame Lugovoy, to discredit Russian intelligence, and bolster his position as a political refuge in Britain. Berizovsky has extensive contacts in all things Russian, both legal and extra-legal, has vast resources at his disposal, and has several good
motives to undertake such a complicated scheme. I'm not saying Berizovsky is responsible for this, but its at least as plausible as your scenario."

What sense does that make? Where would Berezovsky get the polonium in the first place? Ninety-seven percent of the polonium in the world is manufactured in the Russian Federation, and it is then joined to industrial products from which it is difficult to extract; and if you choose to question either of those facts, you are invited to back up your statements, as I have done. How would Berezovsky obtain millions of dollars of radioactive poison inside a police state like Putin's Russia? And -- most importantly of all -- why can't a KBG goon like Putin have his henchmen trace the purchase of polonium and show how it got to Berezovsky? If there were any hint of credible suspicion against Berezovsky, why isn't Putin using the vast resources of the Russian state to build case against him?

I am sure anyone with ordinary intelligence can show how Putin got the polonium to kill Litvinenko. While Borozovsky is a expatriate and a dissident, Putin and his gestapo are at the center of Russian society, and they can get anything they want and kill anyone who informs on them, the way they killed Anna Politskaya.

Secondly, you suggest that Berezovsky killed his own friend as part of such a plan to discredit Putin and the Russian Gestapo. Why in the name of Lenin would Berezovsky purchase such an expensive poison and kill such an unlikely target? Putin and his gestapo have already been accused of blowing up Russian apartment buildings and framing the Chechen rebels for the crime; why wouldn't Berezovsky buy ten thousand dollars worth of dynamite and blow up an orphanage, or something? Or just kill a few pretty young dissident women with a poison which is much cheaper? That would get a lot more television coverage and a lot more sympathy.

Of course, we now why Putin and the Russian Gestapo used polonium. After all, Russia manufactures ninety-seven percent of the world's polonium supply, so Putin and his gang have access to plenty of it, and it seems likely that Putin and his gang never realized that polonium would leave a trail everywhere that Putin's hired killer went.

You suggest that Berezovsky wanted to 'bolster his position as a political refuge in Britain." Well, Berezovsky's position as a political refuge has always been rock-solid, so why should Berezovsky need to bolster it? On the other hand, Putin has exactly the same motive as his Soviet predecessors to kill dissidents. I am sure we all remember that Putin is a KGB colonel, and he has been trained since youth to handle dissent through murder. Stalin murdered millions of people and even sent his killers to Mexico to murder Trotsky, and Putin is well-known to admire Stalin.

ADAYT, let me try to get you to see this in a fresh light. Do you know who the 'Creationists' are? The Creationists are a group of fundamentalist Christians who believe that the Earth was created in seven days, and not six billion years, and that Noah really did get eight hundred thousand species of beetles onto that boat; and when you show the Creationists bones which show that fish really did evolve into amphibians, the Creationists start shouting "You are just assuming that! You don't have any proof!" The Creationists demand eyewitnesses for everything, and if there are no eyewitnesses, then the Creationists insist that all 'opinions' are equal, no matter how strong the scientific and 'circumstantial' evidence is; and then, when you explain to the Creationists how unscientific their reasoning is, the Creationists insist that you are 'condescending' to them.

Well, Creationists and Putinists are very similar. They both ignore the evidence, and they both insist that they are victims of 'bias' or 'superiority' when other people rebuke them for it. The Creationists why about 'condescension' and the Putinists whine about 'colonialism', but the motives and the goals are the same -- to conceal the bankruptcy of their arguments behind a cloud of emotion.

Now, think. If you really doubt that the trail of polonium leads back to Putin, why don't you answer a simple question --

Why hasn't Putin already arrested Andrei Lugovoy and put him on trial? You say the proof is not conclusive enough to convict Andrei Lugovoy and Vladimir Putin; if so, do you seriously argue that the proof is not strong enough to arrest Andrei Lugovoy? What kind of proof do you need for a poisoning trial in Russia, anyway? Do you seriously argue that nobody in Russia can be convicted or even tried for poisoning unless there is an eyewitness or a confession? Andrei Lugovoy drank tea with Litvinenko the day before he died, and Andrei Lugovoy left a trail of a rare and fantastically expensive poison all over London, the same poison which killed Litvinenko. Have you ever heard of a poisoning case where the evidence was stronger, without eyewitnesses or a confession?

Andrey Subbotin argues:

"Why does that prove anything about Putin when it is against Russian law to extradite Lugovoi, and it is Putin's job to enforce the law?"

American Observer responds:

Because the 'constitution' of Russia has been written and rewritten to suit the Putin gang -- for example, that is why Putin had the constitution rewritten to replace direct election of governors with appointed govorners -- and because Putin chooses which laws he wants to enforce, and which laws he does not want to enforce. For example, Russian law forbids the murder of Russian citizens, and the evidence against Andrei Lugovoy is overwhelming, but Putin has not choosen to have Andrei Lugovoy arrested.

Again, the reason is obvious. If Andrei Lugovoy started to feel threatened, he might inform on his superiors, and that would lead all of the way back to Putin himself. If Putin were innocent, he would ensure that Andrei Lugovoy were prosecuted, in Russia or in Britain; and the fact that Putin has blocked any and all trials of Andrei Lugovoy proves Vladimir Putin's guilt.

Should be: You HAVE given us new INTELLIGENCE that CNN, FOX or Wikipedia can NOT provide.

Don't ignore the great truths that Eugene has shared from CIS Chief Prosecutors office. Any comments??

(All Putin lovers)
We surrender. You've convinced us ...
______________________________
You've convinced us ... that there is a concerted effort, quite good in fact, to have an internet presence on Western media.

You've convinced us ...that if, Eugene's rendering of Yulia (investigator of the Chief Prosecutor's Office, Moscow, Russian Federation) was a faithful translation and represents an actual government official, that many of our American thoughts of paranoia DO have justification:

If British prime-minister behaved in more reasonable...Moscow would make some concessions even this time because Russia values not only political but also economical relationships with the United Kingdom
(What's a policeman doing making political statement, and infers "justice" is subject to "economical relationship")

what doesn't allow us to thing about possibility of carrying fair court in London, although, one need to acknowledge that bringing court to a third country would suit Russia, however the Great Britain had sharply rejected such suggestions.
(Another political suggestion on the international stage by a policeman. Gee, I wonder why the British feel insulted that there are no fair courts in London. IRA and Islamists both have been set free, if there was insufficient evidence, for just a couple recent examples)

Why did the Great Britain reckon on the extradition of Lugovoi, when it itself never extradites anybody who seeks asylym on its land. Whether one is Berezovsky, or terrorists who arranged terroristic acts of 9/11.
(A third blatantly partisan statement by a policeman confusing political asylum which the West routinely grants with extradition for criminal acts. Or do they want Berezovsky back so they can "clear up" all the KGB / FSB corruption - not likely. Where does he get that the UK is holding out on any 9/11 terrorists?)

In the same time, the West, which states and panick more and more that Russia leaves the path of Democracy, that there's no opposition in the country, and all the power is in hands of president Putin and his team, the West itself pushes Russian political life in total stagnation.
(Finally engaging in the usual "victimology", the West creates the Problem by pointing out the Problem. Garbage. You HAD democracy - will YOU keep it?)

Russians, observing absurd demands of the Great Britain and their categorical nature, revolutions and instability in the former countries of CIS [perhaps USSR -- translator's note], and new ABM plan in Europe, have more and more confidence in the president and the government, which repeat that the West doesn't need strong Russia, enemies are around and there's no further need to make compromises. That's vicious circle
(This political ad for Our Glorious Leader, brought to you by Chief Inspector. This is all a bit more blatant than even DOJs Gonzalez' choice of prosecutors, dont you think?)

...and the opposition became so unpopular, that now it's shame and disgrace to speak about speech freedom. People more and more care about their financial position, rather than political rights.
(HONESTY is refreshing though. READ this again. Unpopular to speak about freedom of speech? That's almost funny. Shame and disgrace - coming from ...uhh ...conscience, no...maybe pressure from boss and maybe policeman like Inspector.
People CARE MORE about $ than Rights - if you can SELL that, Putin has it made.

THANK you very much Eugene. You HAVE given us new INTELLIGENCE that CNN, FOX or Wikipedia can provide. I love how blatantly honest your Inspector is.
God bless you in your stay in the US for your PHD, Good luck! on your return to the CIS!!!

AO-

Thank you for presenting a coherent case. Now we have some common ground upon which to look at this issue. While your analysis is plausable, based on the facts, it is nowhere close to reaching the level of "proof" upon which you could make accusations.

1)
AO writes:
somebody dropped the polonium into his food or drink, and that person is a the killer.

Not As Dumb As You Think responds:
this is an assumption, but one I won't argue about it

2)
AO writes:
so the list of possible killers is limited to the people who ate or drank with Litvinko in the two days before he started to show symptoms

Not As Dumb As You Think responds:
again an assumption, one that omits another wide range of possibilities - namely that Litvinenko's food could have been spiked by anyone who had access to the food before it was placed in front of Litvinenko

3)
AO writes:
Now, the polonium came from Russia several days before the murder -- the polonium traces on the airplane prove that.

Not As Dumb As You Think responds:
another assumption. That polonium traces were found on an airplane only proves that polonium had been on the airplane, or someone exposed to polonium had been on the airplane. it does not indicate whether the polonium boarded the plane in the UK, or in Russia. Moreover, it does not prove that this polonium is the same polonium that killed Litvinenko.

4)
AO writes:
Andrei Lugovoy flew on that plane. The polonium then got carried all over London, and there are traces of it in all of the places that were visited by Andrei Lugovoy. That proves that Andrei Lugovoy carried the polonium.

Not As Dumb As You Think responds:
Now i must disagree over your statement of "fact". Traces have been found in some of the places that Lugovoy visited while in London, but not in "all" of the places Lugovoy visited. this is crucial because the Russian investigators have been denied access to these sites by British investigators, and have suggested several other places where polonium should have appeared (such as taxis), for this senario to hold water, but again British investigators have either not found such traces, or have refused to look for them.

I will offer another, plausable explaination for the sake of discussion, which should by no means be taken as my actual belief: Berizovsky could have set the whole thing up to frame Lugovoy, to discredit Russian intelligence, and bolster his position as a political refuge in Britain. Berizovsky has extensive contacts in all things Russian, both legal and extra-legal, has vast resources at his disposal, and has several good motives to undertake such a complicated scheme. I'm not saying Berizovsky is responsible for this, but its at least as plausible as your scenario.

5)
AO writes:
Andrei Lugovoy drank tea with Litvinenko the day before Litvinenko became sick. Litvinenko then fled to Russia, and has refused to return to face questioning or trial; and Vladimir Putin has refused to extradite him, thus proving that Andrei Lugovoy and Vladimir Putin both have something to hide.

Not As Dumb As You Think responds:
This statement actually proves nothing. Lugovoy and Litvinenko had tea together, and Litvinenko refuses to return to the UK which has demonstrated an unwillingness to work with Russian investigators to establish mutually agreed facts, but rather, insists that the world blindly accept their findings, regardless of whether they may be politically motivated. This argument that has not been disproved because UK authorities refuse to allow Russian authorities access to conduct their own investigation.

6)
AO writes:
If that is not enough proof, my friends, then what would be enough proof? Do you have some alternative definition of proof which you want to share with us? If so, please put it on the board.

Not As Dumb As You Think responds:
so, let me summarize your position: circumstancial evidence (ie. traces of polonium found in various locations), along with international diplomacy (ie. Russia refusing to extridite one of its citizens to a country that has failed on more than 20 occasions to afford Russia the same courtesy), somehow equals "proof". in that case, I must say that, yes, I do have an alternate definition of proof:

"The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence."

You have failed to demonstated by fact that Lugovoy is anything more than a suspect. Moreover, your assertion that Putin somehow had something to do with this whole nasty affair remains nothing more than a wild assertion based wholey on your own anti-Russia bias, and a diplomatic position taken by Russia which arguably has much more to do with UK - Russia relations than it does the specifics of this particular event.

AO, would you like to try again? Your last post was approaching rational, and leads me to believe that you may yet be capable of impartiality.

"thus proving that Andrei Lugovoy and Vladimir Putin both have something to hide".

Why does that prove anything about Putin when it is against Russian law to extradite Lugovoi, and it is Putin's job to enforce the law?

As Dumb As You Think says:

"At this point, AO, i have to conclude that you have no facts, and are fundamentally incapable of understanding what facts are, and therefor it is useless to argue with you."

Natallia says:

"....tell me HOW can you prove that there was any killer firstly and if so who has hired them???"

American Observer replies,'

ADAYT, please calm down. Natalia, take a moment to think.

The British doctors say that Litvinenko was killed by polonium. Doctors agree that polonium only emits alpha radiation, the particle of which is too large and slow to penetrate skin or clothes. Therefore, Litvinkenko had to have eaten the polonium. Do you suggest that Litvinenko got the polonium himself and ate it willingly? If not, then somebody dropped the polonium into his food or drink, and that person is a the killer.

Now, polonium begins to make people sick very quickly, so the list of possible killers is limited to the people who ate or drank with Litvinko in the two days before he started to show symptoms. Furthermore, polonium emits enough radiation to stick to the people who carry it, and to stick to the places they visited.

Do you deny any of that? Polonium was discovered by Marie Curie a hundred years ago, and the mineral and its properties are well known. Or, do the Russians have some alternative science of physics where polonium behaves in a completely different manner?

Now, the polonium came from Russia several days before the murder -- the polonium traces on the airplane prove that. Andrei Lugovoy flew on that plane. The polonium then got carried all over London, and there are traces of it in all of the places that were visited by Andrei Lugovoy. That proves that Andrei Lugovoy carried the polonium. Andrei Lugovoy drank tea with Litvinenko the day before Litvinenko became sick. Litvinenko then fled to Russia, and has refused to return to face questioning or trial; and Vladimir Putin has refused to extradite him, thus proving that Andrei Lugovoy and Vladimir Putin both have something to hide.

If that is not enough proof, my friends, then what would be enough proof? Do you have some alternative definition of proof which you want to share with us? If so, please put it on the board.

I don't want to defend anyone and to accuse, but tell me HOW can you prove that there was any killer firstly and if so who has hired them???
I think another variant can take place.

American Observer:

Here are some facts, from Wikipedia:

At this point, AO, i have to conclude that you have no facts, and are fundamentally incapable of understanding what facts are, and therefor it is useless to argue with you.

if I have time later today, i'll make a "wikipedia" entry about you, complete with all the "facts" as i see them. gee, wouldn't THAT prove something useful!

face it. your posts sound as if you role-play Tom Clancy Novels and don't have a real clue what you are talking about. please present FACTS, not silly accusations and meaningless statements of fancy presented as fact.

Here are some facts, from Wikipedia:

"Sources of polonium

The use of polonium in the poisoning has been seen as proof of involvement of a state actor,[51] as more than microscopic amounts of polonium can only be produced in nuclear reactors.[52] Most polonium produced in Russia, however, is distributed by western commercial distributors.[35]

Reports now state that scientists of the UK's Atomic Weapons Establishment have confirmed the polonium was manufactured and the source is likely to originate from a Russian nuclear reactor.[35][13][19] This of course does not exclude the possibility that the polonium that killed Litvinenko was imported by a licensed commercial distributor, but no one—including the Russian government—has proposed that this is likely, particularly in regard to the radiation detected on the British Airways passenger jets travelling between Moscow and London.

It is said the FSB had access to radioactive material in order to trace Russian mafia money.[53]

[edit] Polonium-210 production

Most of the world's polonium-210 (210Po) is produced in Russia in Chernobyl-type RBMK reactors. About 100 grams (450,000 Ci) are produced by Russia annually. According to a claim by Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of Russia's state atomic energy agency, RosAtom, all of it goes to U.S. companies through a single authorized supplier.[35]

Polonium-210 is a synthetic element that has a half-life of 138 days as it gradually transforms into lead. This means that after four months approximately half the polonium has been transformed, and it drops to about one eighth of its original potency a year after it was first produced. It is thus virtually impossible that the polonium came from a pre-1991 Soviet-era source, and it is unlikely to have been in storage for more than a year.

[edit] Commercial products containing polonium

No credible nuclear authority has asserted that a commercial product is a likely source for the poisoning of Litvinenko. However, potentially lethal amounts of polonium are present in anti-static brushes sold to photographers.[54] Many of the devices are available by mail order. General Electric markets a static eliminator module with 500 microcuries (20 MBq), roughly 2.5 times the lethal dose of 210Po if 100%-ingested, for US$71.[55] If these were used to collect the amount of polonium likely used in the poisoning—and one could devise a method of separating the polonium from its protective casing—it would take 100 modules for US$7100. That such a thing could be done is extremely difficult according to the manufacturers and would be highly dangerous to anyone attempting to do so.

Tiny amounts of such radioisotopes are sometimes used in the laboratory and for teaching purposes — typically of the order of 4–40 kBq (0.1–1.0 μCi), in the form of sealed sources, with the Po deposited on a substrate or in a resin or polymer matrix—are often exempt from licencing by NRC and similar authorities as they are not considered hazardous. Small amounts of 210Po are available to the public in the United States by mail order from a company called United Nuclear as 'needle sources' for laboratory experimentation. It would require about 15,000 210Po of these sources at a total cost of about $1 million to obtain a toxic quantity of Polonium. They typically sell between 4 and 8 sources per year.[56][57]

According to some estimates,[58], the cost of the quantity of pure Polonium-210 used to kill Litvinenko would be around £20 million (US$ 39 million),[59] which would make it the most expensive murder in history[citation needed]. However, this estimation seems to be based on retail prices of commercially available demonstration radiation sources."

Unquote

American Observer adds:

I think the most important thought here is that extreme probability that Vladimir Putin and the Russian Gestapo did not realize that the British would be able to detect the Polonium inside the Litvinenko, but the British did; they also detected traces of Polonium in the hotel room where Putin's killer stayed, and in the airplane on which Puttin's hired killer traveled between Moscow and London.

The International Herald Tribune reprints an article from the New York Times, which reports:

"Litvinenko, who was 43-years-old and an outspoken critic of the government of President Vladimir Putin, died on Nov. 23 after an agonizing illness that caused his hair to fall out, his immune system to shut down and his organs to fail.

As he lay dying from what turned out to be radiation poisoning caused by the radioactive isotope polonium 210, Litvinenko accused Putin's government of being responsible. The Kremlin dismissed the notion as "nonsense."

But Alex Goldfarb, a friend of Litvinenko who is acting as a spokesman for his family, said the discovery of radiation on the jets pointed squarely at Moscow's involvement.

"We still believe this is a murder perpetrated by agents of Russia's intelligence services," Goldfarb said outside the coroner's court in St. Pancras, where an inquest into Litvinenko's death opened Thursday.

"If you look at the flight numbers BA have released, the first flight they are interested in was five days before the poisoning - the Moscow-Heathrow flight on Oct. 25," Goldfarb said. "This tells you that the police are looking for the ways of delivery of this material into London, and this reinforces the theory that the origin of this material that killed Alexander was in Moscow."

If that is the case - and it is by no means clear that it is - then it would follow that whoever brought the polonium into Britain was himself unknowingly contaminated with minute traces of it, enough to leave a trail that sensitive equipment could pick up later."

Unquote

You can read it at Radiation turns up at 12 sites in London
By Sarah Lyall and Steven Lee Myers / The New York Times
Published: November 30, 2006

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/30/news/spy.php

Any supporter of the Russian Empire will have to explain how those traces got there. As we know from other sources:

"KGB veteran turned businessman Andrei Lugovoy told Kommersant that he flew from London to Moscow on one of the "contaminated" aircraft on November 3, according to a report on the newspaper's web site."

CNN -- and other sources -- have reported on the trail of Polonium radiation that Putin's hired killers left everywhere they went.

Quote

"Lugovoi, a former security service agent but now a businessman, traveled to London three times in the month before Litvinenko's death and met him four times, Russian media reported.

Lugovoi and businessman Dmitry Kovtun told Russian media they went to London with a group of Moscow soccer fans and met Litvinenko briefly on November 1 to discuss business.

Later, they attended a football match between CSKA Moscow and Arsenal at the Emirates Stadium in north London, where polonium-210 was detected.

A trail of radiation was also detected at other locations in the city, prompting several buildings to be closed. Some British Airways flights were grounded over fears they might be contaminated. "

Unquote

You can read this article at

Spy death: Russia blocks extradition
POSTED: 7:24 p.m. EDT, May 22, 2007

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/22/uk.spy/index.html

Anyone who wants to try to defend Vladimir Putin will have to explain why his hired killers left a trail of polonium radiation everywhere they went.

"Ben:
It sure seems like most of the people who argue against American Observer, who defend everything Russian, don't present good facts"
that's right BUT American Observer don't give any facts also!
It is just personal opinion - he just think that someone do something - it isn't fact!

It sure seems like most of the people who argue against American Observer, who defend everything Russian, don't present good facts to back up why they are in disagreement with the American Observer. They simply make accusations and throw insults. American Observer is much better informed than anyone else on this board, including the author of this article.

Ukranian, the answer is simple - because they don't have any respect for any nation. They think that it's all about them - they dissolved USSR, they made revolution in Ukraine, etc.

Would you agree, that talking about Ukraine as Russian colony is very diminishing to Ukraine as I find it? Ukraine is older than Russia, as a matter of fact, Russia stems from Ukraine (Kievan Rus), not the other way around.
Ukraine and Russia might have some squabbles around some issues (hey, property has to be devided), but the two countries are so closely related by culture, language, history, religion - it's nuts to try to quarrel them.
There are some extremists groups and nuts politicians in both countries, but that always will be.
Remember, over thousand years history Ukranians and Russians were brothers in arms - they are not gonna break this tradition now or ever, certainly not because nuts British told them so.

"Alex:
BASHIR,

Thanks for the thoughtful commentary. Frankly, I was losing my faith in the Western press, especially after the one-sided coverage of the Litvinenko affair. The mere fact that Washington Post published your comment makes me respect them (and you, of course) much more.

Thanks!"

I do agree with Alex that Bashir Goth is one of the panalists that provokes debate and challenges all his readers even those of us who disagree with him sometimes.
As I said, before and I do not mind repeating, Bashiir has the benefit of being born, raised, and mastered the literature and geopolitics of Africa, Living in the Middle East over quarter of a century and being student of the Arab and Islamic history, culture, literature, and geopolitcs, and through his education and life long reading materered both the Western nations and ex-Soviet communist countries geopolitics, he always comes from well read well around perspective of the debate.
He have another advantage that many of us do not have; he does not have any master to please.
I do admire his postings. I do learn from him. I do respect him even at the few times I disagree with him.
In this case, UK current adminstration forgot that they are not Great British Empire Any more.
I have visited UK few times since 1996. London is one of the most backward capipitals in the world.
When I tried to use a public bath room at train station in London I was taken back to the jungles of Africa over thirty years ago.
Great Britian that is economically, technoligically, and educationally backward can not dictate to Russia which now is oil rich country and catching up with the west technologically.
It was wrong to demand extradition of one Russia's secret service members.
Those of us who have been reading many years about espoinage know that their many British and US secret agents in every country of the world.
Political assasination or secret agent killings are not Unique to Russia and it never have been unique to Russia and it will never be.

American Observer:

Dumb As You Think Argues:

why do you persist in presenting silly statements as if they were fact? (ie. that Putin ordered the poisoning of Litvinenko, the poisoning of Yushchenko, and the destruction of Estonia's computer network)."

American Observer replies,

Sir, if you have other suspects for those three crimes -- or any others -- please explain to us:

1) Who they are

Not As Dumb As You Think resonds:
for Litvinenko, the obvious suspect is Berezovsky, but several other wealthy individuals, or even non-Russian government entities could easily have been done this

2) Why they did it

Not As Dumb As You Think resonds:
Berezovsky could have had any number of reasons for eliminating a former business associate, especially one who may have been retained for covert purposes. Also, anyone who wanted to make the Russians look bad (ie. non-Russian government entities, or other former Russian oligarchs)

3) How they got the tools to do it

Not As Dumb As You Think resonds:
This is truly a silly question. For any of the potencial culprits mentioned above, who have billions of dollars at their disposal, obtaining this material would present little problem - a little money in the right hand goes a long way.

4) When they had the chance to do it

Not As Dumb As You Think resonds:
Obviously none of those listed above would have done the deed personally, but would have hired a third party to do the job.

Is that too much of me to ask? Of course it is too much. You will not answer those questions because you can't -- in all cases, the evidence points straight back to Putin.

Not As Dumb As You Think resonds:
No, AO, you are wrong. I just answered your questions, and with at least as much credibility as you have when you point fingers at Putin. the difference, however, is that I understand that plausability does not equal guilt, and therefore, I would never spout mindless accusations at someone without solid, incontravertable proof.

Dumb As You Think Argues:

"To assert that Putin has monolithic control of all things Russian is to attribute to him the powers of a God. "

American Observer replies,

I don't think Putin has the powers of a God -- I just think he has the powers of a czar; and I will be the first to admit that a lot of Russians seem to like czars -- this board is now full of them.

Not As Dumb As You Think resonds:
this last is an odd comment. is this AO resorting to name-calling because he really doesn't have anything substanative to contribute? now that would not surprise me because this board really is filled with people who have nothing to contribute other than name-calling.

Why does Bashir Goth presume that Ukrainian and Georgian people had nothing to do with the velvet revolutions in their own country? Why does he believe that we in the West either have either the power or right to concede the control of these significant nations to the Kremlin's control. Georgia might have a population of 4 million, but it's no Somalia. They can take care of themselves. I'm not even going to talk about Ukraine.

Sorry for misprint -- "Even don't hope that somebody here understands Russian." Russian, not Russia.

English translation of Yulia's statement (9:30 AM) follows:

---------

Yulia, investigator of the Chief Prosecutor's Office, Moscow, Russian Federation.

You know, I agree with many points of the author of the article, the suggestion to change the constitution is absurd in its nature, it had only provoked authorities for the snide and derisive reply to the Great Britain. Although, if the british prime-minister behaved in more reasonable, tempered and cool-headed way, perhaps, Moscow would make some concessions even this time, because Russia values not only political but also economical relationships with the United Kingdom. Besides, one shouldn't forget, that a person may be found guilty only due to the court statement, and in no other way. Somehow, in this case british authorities had firmly believed that Lugovoi is guilty, what doesn't allow us to thing about possibility of carrying fair court in London, although, one need to acknowledge that bringing court to a third country would suit Russia, however the Great Britain had sharply rejected such suggestions.
And after all it retains incomprehensible, why did the Great Britain reckon on the extradition of Lugovoi, when it itself never extradites anybody who seeks asylym on its land. Whether one is Berezovsky, or terrorists who arranged terroristic acts of 9/11. In the same time, the West, which states and panick more and more that Russia leaves the path of Democracy, that there's no opposition in the country, and all the power is in hands of president Putin and his team, the West itself pushes Russian political life in total stagnation. Russians, observing absurd demands of the Great Britain and their categorical nature, revolutions and instability in the former countries of CIS [perhaps USSR -- translator's note], and new ABM plan in Europe, have more and more confidence in the president and the government, which repeat that the West doesn't need strong Russia, enemies are around and there's no further need to make compromises. That's vicious circle. Living and working in Moscow, I can say precisely, that Marches of Dissenters attracted good if 300-400 people, and the opposition became so unpopular, that now it's shame and disgrace to speak about speech freedom. People more and more care about their financial position, rather than political rights.
As one knows, revolutions in Georgia and Ukraina haven't lead to positive results. One observes there crisis of the power and unability of new leaders to search for compromises. Such situation can't not to disturb Russian political elite, what, really leads to hardening of the regime.

Even don't hope, that somebody here understands Russia. And with regards to the author, Yu. M.

A+ to Russian Observer, Not as dumb as you think, Garak etc.

####

American Observer, no offense, but your wild conspiracy theories on Russia and your posting of inaccurate stuff en masse adds to the assertion that some Americans might be completely brainwashed and, again no offense, less intelligent. Just sayin'

... unless of course you are a Russian (or Chinese?) agent purposely doing this to build resentment and hatred against the U.S. and sympathy for Russia. If so, you're doing an excellent job.

http://winthrop77.blogspot.com

Ha-ha-ha! I rest my case.
Everybody stayed with his own opinion...
Good argument anyway.
In 20-30 years Russia will be either in China's camp or in Euro-American camp - there is no alternative for that.
Engagement of Russia is of vital interest to USA and its a question of survival to Europe.
Engage Russia! would be my advice to all those governments, screw the British - they live in the past with all their stupid traditions.

Natalia Foley, you are brilliant.

Dumb As You Think Argues:

"why do you persist in presenting silly statements as if they were fact? (ie. that Putin ordered the poisoning of Litvinenko, the poisoning of Yushchenko, and the destruction of Estonia's computer network)."

American Observer replies,

Sir, if you have other suspects for those three crimes -- or any others -- please explain to us:

1) Who they are

2) Why they did it

3) How they got the tools to do it

4) When they had the chance to do it

Is that too much of me to ask? Of course it is too much. You will not answer those questions because you can't -- in all cases, the evidence points straight back to Putin.

Dumb As You Think Argues:

"To assert that Putin has monolithic control of all things Russian is to attribute to him the powers of a God. "

American Observer replies,

I don't think Putin has the powers of a God -- I just think he has the powers of a czar; and I will be the first to admit that a lot of Russians seem to like czars -- this board is now full of them.

We're not as Dumb as You Think: posted the following:

"You throw up smokescreens that other "forces" are at work not Putin. If there is no "transparency" in government affairs and Putin is not a nefarious factor, why is he not positively moving towards that end, as that would make him a strong leader but in a democratic context? You describe a chaotic environment like Iraq, but we know that Putin has already consolidated control and continues to do so. It looks to us like he is no longer constrained by constitutional factors and is active to maintain arbitrary "justice" for his ends which I concede many in Russia believe coincide with the greater glory of the motherland."

"We're not", your post is a hodgepodge of assertions and faulty assumptions, drawn to illogical conclusions, and doesn't really address anything in particular. do you mean to make a point, and if so, what is it?

btw, I like your name. sounds familiar...

You throw up smokescreens that other "forces" are at work not Putin. If there is no "transparency" in government affairs and Putin is not a nefarious factor, why is he not positively moving towards that end, as that would make him a strong leader but in a democratic context? You describe a chaotic environment like Iraq, but we know that Putin has already consolidated control and continues to do so. It looks to us like he is no longer constrained by constitutional factors and is active to maintain arbitrary "justice" for his ends which I concede many in Russia believe coincide with the greater glory of the motherland.

to American Observer:

why do you persist in presenting silly statements as if they were fact? (ie. that Putin ordered the poisoning of Litvinenko, the poisoning of Yushchenko, and the destruction of Estonia's computer network). You throw up some pseudo-legalese about motive, means, and opportunity, as if that somehow equals guilt, while at the same time dismissing other equally (or perhaps even more) plausible suspects/ explanations.

Moreover, to assume that nothing can happen in Russia or involving Russians without Putin's overt or tacit approval, is, in my opinion, incredably naive. The murky depths of Russian politics and business run very deep, and in many different directions, and often at cross-purposes. To assert that Putin has monolithic control of all things Russian is to attribute to him the powers of a God. Is that really your position?

Again, I really don't care what it is you believe. I do care, however, when I continue to hear disinformation being passed off as fact.

Something that (European) Observer should know- Georgia and (Texas) have never been the '(US) colonies'. This statement is quite weird and abusive for all- (New Englanders), Georgians and (Texans). Dear (European) Observer why are you trying to discuss the other countries and relations between them without knowing the history? For instance, the present (Confederate capital) Washington DC, used to be (US) capital (until the South won the War Between the States), would be rather a weird thing for a colony. ... In our competitive world no one likes a strong rival therefore the old (Civil)War card has been played up to restrain (North and South's new) recovery. However this recovery will bring about greater stability in the world. After the collapse of the (North)the world has never been so unstable and unsafe (with the Kaiser and the Czar in charge of all Europe and Asia for a hundred years) (North) has been integrating into the (South) but, they are demonstrating it, not as a poor relative. Perhaps they can bring about an alternative, a second opinion as a premise (that Negroes make good slaves) for normal discussion of the world’s problems to find some optimal diplomatic solutions. If the discussion revolves around one opinion this is not quite possible.

Something that American Observer should know- (Sudetenland and Alsace-Lorraine) have never been the '(German) colonies'. This statement is quite weird and abusive for all. Dear American Observer why are you trying to discuss the other countries and relations between them without knowing the history? (Because we've been there done that)... In our competitive world no one likes a strong rival therefore the old (Great) War card has been played up to restrain Russia’s recovery. However this recovery will bring about greater stability in the world. After the collapse of (Germany and Italy) the world has never been so unstable and unsafe. It blinded the West and inflated the ambitions, the consequences we can see on daily basis, such as stalemate in (Ruhr), casualties in (Africa), tighter control of our private life from the governments- this is to name few… (Germany) has been integrating (back) into the West but, they are demonstrating it, not as a poor relative.

Thanks for clause! I read www.inopressa.ru and to me very much it is not pleasant, when abroad about us write badly and often and not the truth. Your clause directly as a ray of light in darkness. I was not too lazy to find the original of clause and to leave the gratitude. Once again thanks. I apologize for my English.

Something that American Observer should know- Georgia and Ukraine have never been the 'Russian colonies'. This statement is quite weird and abusive for all- Russians, Georgians and Ukrainians. Dear American Observer why are you trying to discuss the other countries and relations between them without knowing the history? For instance, the present Ukrainian capital, Kiev, used to be Russian capital for centuries, would be rather a weird thing for a colony. What you and the rest should understand is that it is not about diplomatic squabbles between Russia and the West. In our competitive world no one likes a strong rival therefore the old Cold War card has been played up to restrain Russia’s recovery. However this recovery will bring about greater stability in the world. After the collapse of the USSR the world has never been so unstable and unsafe since the Second World. Collapse of the USSR blinded the West and inflated the ambitions, the consequences we can see on daily basis, such as stalemate in Kosovo, casualties in Iraq, delayed or cancelled out of terror threat flights, tighter control of our private life from the governments- this is to name few… Russia has been integrating into the West but, they are demonstrating it, not as a poor relative. Perhaps they can bring about an alternative, a second opinion as a premise for normal discussion of the world’s problems to find some optimal diplomatic solutions. If the discussion revolves around one opinion this is not quite possible.

Corrected post 2 summary:

Garak sez: So what again, Since when am I beholden to Robinson (who is Robinson??? I'm lost)Nukes later. Too bad, don't like it, too bad if you don't like it. Get used to it.
Star War - bad no work Bush dumb or make Putin mad. Russia no pushover (though maybe Uzbeks are??) - NO whupping of Putin's behind. Putin was NOT impotent to stop us. Plenty potent (go to Viagra website for his latest endorsement )

Garak,

You have posted the same message three times. That is rude. Please stop it.

Also your messages were incoherent all three times as well. For example, I said that Russia pressured Uzbekistan, and then you say I am wrong -- because Russia also pressured Uzbekistan! Perhaps you should read more and think more before you do more posting.

Corrected post:

American Observer sez:

"That goodness you have refuted Eugene and Russian Observer. Those fellows say Iran wants nuclear energy only for electricity. I am glad you admit that Iran wants nuclear reactors to make nuclear weapons."

Garak sez: So what? Since when am I beholden to Robinson or anyone else? Your statement is a non sequitor. Like I said, Iran would be nuts not to want nukes. Even the Israelis admit this. And this does not mean they also want nuclear power for energy. You assume they only want nukes and have no real use for nukes. Iran knows its oil reserves will run out and is planning for that day. They may also be planning to have the nuclear option available in case someone else threatens them, but they still have a legit reason for wanting nuclear power for energy. Russia has every right to help Iran with peaceful nuclear power. As long as they don't take the next step and actively help Iran get nukes, too bad if you don't like it. Get used to it.

American Observer sez:

"The real reason is that Eastern Europe is closer to Iran than America is, so our bases in Eastern Europe can see the Iranian missiles faster and destroy them quicker than we could if our bases were in North America."

Garak sez:

First, you assume Star Wars works. It don't. It ain't even close. Second, you have no evidence Iran even wants to be able to threaten Europe. So why base Star Wars in Eastern Europe? Could be that Bush is dumb enough to think it works. Could also be that Bush wants to draw them into a military alliance with the US. Using Star Wars as a lure could be what so infuriates Putin.

American Obsever sez:

Actually, you need to do more reading. We lost our bases in Uzbekistan partly because the Russians and the Chinese pressured the Uzbek government to remove them, but also because we protested the Uzbek government's murder of protesters, and we demanded an independent investigation."

Garak sez:

Right you are. We're out in part because of Russia. Even though, as you claim, we could have whupped Putin's behind. That's the point you made, that Russia was impotent to stop us. But then you admit they did.

Corrected post Summary:

Garak sez that American Observer sez that Russian observer sez Iran wants nukes for electricity but Garak sez nukes as bombs but Garak really sez: So what? Illogical. So American Observer sez: that Russia sez Uzbeks should then Kyrgyzstan wouldn't so Putin sez but Bush told Rice to sez. And Rice sez - Sez your own self.

Garak says:

"Many of the commercial hacking attacks have been traced to Russia. You totally ignore the possibility that some self-righteous Russian nationalists did this on their own."

American Observer replies,

There are several reasons why I know that is nonsense. The first is that the 'sources in the Russian government' snicker whenever they talk about the attack -- go read any of the independent accounts. Secondly, because nobody in Russia would have dared to attack a neighboring nation without tacit approval from Putin. If your 'nationalists' had done that to a neighboring nation without authorization, Putin and the Russian Gestapo would have quickly and easily hunted them down. Instead, Putin encourages and tolerates this kind of criminal behavior just as he encourages and tolerates criminal behavior throughout Russian society, as long as the right bribes are paid and the gangsters give their allegiance to the regime.

Tell me, Garak, have you heard about Putin or the Russian Gestapo arresting anyone for the attack on Estonia? Have you heard about Putin or the Russian Gestapo doing anything against hackers at all? No, you have not, and neither have I. That is because the hackers were all Putin's employees.

Garak says:

"First you say the Russians are giving Iran everything they need to proliferate. Then you state that the Russians have NOT given Iran the crucial technology of enrichment. If Russia extracts the the cores and keeps the enriched fuel, no nukes."

American Observer replies,

Garak, you know nothing about physics, and you seem to know little or nothing about the English language. The Russian HAVE given the technology of enrichment to the Iranians -- that is exactly what a heavy-water reactor is. However, the Russians say the Iranians should give the enriched fuel back to the Russians for extraction. However, the Russians have done nothing whatsoever to force the Iranians to do this, so the Russians are leaving the enriched fuel in Iranian hands. For example, the Russians joined the negotiations and 'insisted' that the Iranians give the enriched fuel back. The Iranians said no, so how did the Russians respond? The Russia turned around and began shipping uranium to Iran so the Iranians could enrich it! Thus, the Russians had a golden chance to shut down the Iranian fuel cycle at the beginning, and the Russians refused. The Iranians will go on enriching fuel, and the Iranians will keep the fuel, and the Iranians will extract it.

The reason for this is equally obvious. The Russians are only pretending to be trying to stop the Iranians because the Europeans insist on it, while in reality the Russians are giving the Iranians everything they need to create the materials they need for nuclear bombs. If Iran has nuclear weapons, that is more danger for America and for Europe, and the world will be more 'multi-polar.'

Corrected post:

American Observer sez:

"That goodness you have refuted Eugene and Russian Observer. Those fellows say Iran wants nuclear energy only for electricity. I am glad you admit that Iran wants nuclear reactors to make nuclear weapons."

Garak sez: So what? Like I said, Iran would be nuts not to want nukes. Even the Israelis admit this. And this does not mean they also want nuclear power for energy. You assume they only want nukes. Illogical.

American Observer sez:

"The real reason is that Eastern Europe is closer to Iran than America is, so our bases in Eastern Europe can see the Iranian missiles faster and destroy them quicker than we could if our bases were in North America."

Garak sez:

First, you assume Star Wars works. It don't. It ain't even close. Second, you have no evidence Iran even wants to be able to threaten Europe. So why base Star Wars in Eastern Europe? Could be that Bush is dumb enough to think it works. Could also be that Bush wants to draw them into a military alliance with the US.

American Obsever sez:

Actually, you need to do more reading. We lost our bases in Uzbekistan partly because the Russians and the Chinese pressured the Uzbek government to remove them, but also because we protested the Uzbek government's murder of protesters, and we demanded an independent investigation.

Garak sez:

Wrong, Russia also pressured the Uzbeks. You can read more at http://www.cfr.org/publication/8440/. See also http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/06/ap_kyrgyzstanbase_070602/

Above responding to latest Eugene post

From my own experience, it is very difficult to get alternative points of view on some problem from mass-media. Of course, I am talking about serious global problems.
(What are you smoking??? I can get 10 different views from Taliban to skinhead in 10 minutes on the Internet. But you're right that mass media is "homogenized" - but FOX and CNN are not the same. There are many radio shows with a 100 different views - who owns, controls that?)

I don’t want to say that government “controls” mass-media. I would prefer to use the word “effectively influences”. And it is evident (at least for me) that critical governmental decisions are actively “advertised”, effectively promoted and finally supported by mass-media.
(I suppose you could say we sold the Iraq War, but it is quite clear Bush's "advertising" thru mass media since has been a bust. Only the pompousness of Kerry and childishness of the Democratic left has kept the current "brand" in power.

So, again, I don’t know how this everything works “inside” of the industry but opinions of majority newspapers, magazines, TV and radio shows are often the same and match “official” points of view.
(What are you talking about??? Yeah, I suppose no one, even NPR and PBS which are PUBLIC but leftist goes around being "anti" American or for Osama but that's about it)

And this is very strange
(Well actually it's not strange, the rest of the world does this "media control" much better than we do except for the difficulty of keeping Western mass media and internet out)

Which I think is your problem. Everywhere is this tidal wave of CNN. Putin can't do a Hitler or Stalin mind control as well in this day and age.

Corrected post:

American Observer sez:

"That goodness you have refuted Eugene and Russian Observer. Those fellows say Iran wants nuclear energy only for electricity. I am glad you admit that Iran wants nuclear reactors to make nuclear weapons."

Garak sez: So what? Like I said, Iran would be nuts not to want nukes. Even the Israelis admit this. And this does not mean they also want nuclear power for energy. You assume they only want nukes. Illogical.

American Observer sez:

"The real reason is that Eastern Europe is closer to Iran than America is, so our bases in Eastern Europe can see the Iranian missiles faster and destroy them quicker than we could if our bases were in North America."

Garak sez:

First, you assume Star Wars works. It don't. It ain't even close. Second, you have no evidence Iran even wants to be able to threaten Europe. So why base Star Wars in Eastern Europe? Could be that Bush is dumb enough to think it works. Could also be that Bush wants to draw them into a military alliance with the US.

American Obsever sez:

Actually, you need to do more reading. We lost our bases in Uzbekistan partly because the Russians and the Chinese pressured the Uzbek government to remove them, but also because we protested the Uzbek government's murder of protesters, and we demanded an independent investigation.

Garak sez:

Wrong, Russia also pressured the Uzbeks. You can read more at http://www.cfr.org/publication/8440/. See also http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/06/ap_kyrgyzstanbase_070602/

American Observer sez:

"That goodness you have refuted Eugene and Russian Observer. Those fellows say Iran wants nuclear energy only for electricity. I am glad you admit that Iran wants nuclear reactors to make nuclear weapons."

Garak sez: So what? Like I said, Iran would be nuts not to want nukes. Even the Israelis admit this. And this does not mean they also want nuclear power for energy. You assume they only want nukes. Illogical.

American Observer sez:

"The real reason is that Eastern Europe is closer to Iran than America is, so our bases in Eastern Europe can see the Iranian missiles faster and destroy them quicker than we could if our bases were in North America."

Garak sez:

First, you assume Star Wars works. It don't. It ain't even close. Second, you have no evidence Iran even wants to be able to threaten Europe. So why base Star Wars in Eastern Europe? Could be that Bush is dumb enough to think it works. Could also be that Bush wants to draw them into a military alliance with the US.

American Obsever sez:

Actually, you need to do more reading. We lost our bases in Uzbekistan partly because the Russians and the Chinese pressured the Uzbek government to remove them, but also because we protested the Uzbek government's murder of protesters, and we demanded an independent investigation. You can read more at http://www.cfr.org/publication/8440/. See also http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/06/ap_kyrgyzstanbase_070602/

American Observer sez:

"That goodness you have refuted Eugene and Russian Observer. Those fellows say Iran wants nuclear energy only for electricity. I am glad you admit that Iran wants nuclear reactors to make nuclear weapons."

Garak sez: So what? Like I said, Iran would be nuts not to want nukes. Even the Israelis admit this. And this does not mean they also want nuclear power for energy. You assume they only want nukes. Illogical.

American Observer sez:

"The real reason is that Eastern Europe is closer to Iran than America is, so our bases in Eastern Europe can see the Iranian missiles faster and destroy them quicker than we could if our bases were in North America."

Garak sez:

First, you assume Star Wars works. It don't. It ain't even close. Second, you have no evidence Iran even wants to be able to threaten Europe. So why base Star Wars in Eastern Europe? Could be that Bush is dumb enough to think it works. Could also be that Bush wants to draw them into a military alliance with the US.

American Obsever sez:

Actually, you need to do more reading. We lost our bases in Uzbekistan partly because the Russians and the Chinese pressured the Uzbek government to remove them, but also because we protested the Uzbek government's murder of protesters, and we demanded an independent investigation. You can read more at http://www.cfr.org/publication/8440/. See also http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/06/ap_kyrgyzstanbase_070602/

American Observer sez:

"American Observer replies:

Really? Again, Vladmir Putin and the Russian Gestapo were the only people with the motive, means, and opportunity to attack Estonia's computer network. Or, are you going to claim it was some mysterious 'rich dudes' from outer space again?"

American Observer, where have you been the past 5 or so years? Your ignorance is incredible! Almost on par with your self-righteousness. Many of the commercial hacking attacks have been traced to Russia. You totally ignore the possibility that some self-righteous Russian nationalists did this on their own. FYI, hackers, including Russian hackers, have already hijacked tens of thousands of computers around the world. All they would have to have done is command them to institute a DOS (Denial of Service) attack against a designated website. It's clear you don't know squat about hacking, so how about keeping your ignorant mouth shut? If you're as smart as you claim to be, try subscribing to 2600 magazine. Or are you busy communing with space aliens?

"Eugene says:

"The technologies to get energy and uranium for nuclear weapon are much different. You don’t know what you are talking about."

American Observer says,

"...Iran spends billions of dollars buying a heavy-water reactor from the Russians, and the Russians say they are against nuclear proliferation, while continuing to give the Iranians everything they need to proliferate."

Then you say

"I know far better than you do. I know that light water reactors allow neutrons to pass through the fluid which surrounds the core and exhaust themselves in the shielding, while heavy water reactors bounce the neutrons back into the uranium, thus destabilizing the nuclei and making the fissile materials more volatile. The Iranian reactors are heavy-water reactors. That is why the cores are extracted and the fissile materials are removed; and that is why the Russians are claiming to want the Iranians to send the cores to Russia for the extraction, and that is why the Iranians are refusing, insisting that the Iranians should keep the cores and extract the enriched fuel themselves. The enriched fuel, of course, is ideal for making nuclear bombs.

Eugene, I actually know a lot of physics -- far, far more than you -- but I am not going to type out five thousand words to teach you, and I doubt you would read them if I did. If you doubt what I say, go back and look at the details of the negotiations. Why do you think those negotiations contain words like 'enrichment' and 'extraction' and 'fuel cycle?' If you have an alternative understanding of those words, I hope you will share it with us here."

First you say the Russians are giving Iran everything they need to proliferate. Then you state that the Russians have NOT given Iran the crucial technology of enrichment. If Russia extracts the the cores and keeps the enriched fuel, no nukes.

Oops, a contradiction. No enrichment, no nukes. This is a crucial step in the process. You claim to know a lot about physics. Seems that's not quite true. But you sure blow hard. I'll give you that.

The US should set an example for Russia (and the rest of the world)on how civilized nations deal one another by

1) Extradite the American soldier (Mario Lozano) - accused of murder in connection to the shooting death of Italian office Calipari in Baghdad, to stand trial in Italy.

2) Extradite all the CIA agents bing indicted by the German, Italian courts on charges of kidnapping. Surely the european justice system will give them a fair hearing.

What's good for the goose must be good for the gander

Garak says:

"Star Wars has never worked, has never had a successful realistic test."

American Observer replies,

If a missile shield is so powerless, why is Putin whining so desperately to stop it? The truth is exactly what I explained, slowly and at length. Our missile shield will never be enough to stop the thousands of nuclear weapons of the Russian empire, but our missile shield will be enough to stop the whatever small handful of nuclear missiles that Iran can launch.

Garak says,

"Iran wants nukes to defend itself against Bush, the neocons, and Israel."

American Observer says,

That goodness you have refuted Eugene and Russian Observer. Those fellows say Iran wants nuclear energy only for electricity. I am glad you admit that Iran wants nuclear reactors to make nuclear weapons.

Garak says,

"So tell us, what is the real reason Bush wants to base Star Wars in Eastern Europe?"

American Observer says,

The real reason is that Eastern Europe is closer to Iran than America is, so our bases in Eastern Europe can see the Iranian missiles faster and destroy them quicker than we could if our bases were in North America.

Garak says,

"FYI, the Russians kicked us out of our bases in the former USSR Central Asian Republics. "

American Observer says,

Actually, you need to do more reading. We lost our bases in Uzbekistan partly because the Russians and the Chinese pressured the Uzbek government to remove them, but also because we protested the Uzbek government's murder of protesters, and we demanded an independent investigation. You can read more at

Central Asia: What Does Closure Of U.S. Military Base In Uzbekistan Mean?

By Gulnoza Saidazimova

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/08/e9dbb7ad-49f4-44e5-87c5-1e0916f24517.html

Nonetheless, our American base is still very much present in Kyrgyzstan . Some sources say the Russians tolerate this -- but you and I know better, don't we? You can read more at http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav082306aa.shtml .

American Observer:

Sorry, I thought that you are an official person. I would prefer not to argue with you here. Our points of view are much different and this discussion will change nothing.

It is much more interesting to think about Robert's question. I don't know the exact answer but I have a personal opinion. Probably you don’t agree with this opinion but I will try to explain it.

Now the most of the media industry in the U.S is controlled by 5 or 6 big companies. You can find some details here: http://www.corporations.org/media/. From my own experience, it is very difficult to get alternative points of view on some problem from mass-media. Of course, I am talking about serious global problems. I don’t want to say that government “controls” mass-media. I would prefer to use the word “effectively influences”. And it is evident (at least for me) that critical governmental decisions are actively “advertised”, effectively promoted and finally supported by mass-media. So, again, I don’t know how this everything works “inside” of the industry but opinions of majority newspapers, magazines, TV and radio shows are often the same and match “official” pointы of view. And this is very strange.

I can provide you many examples when you see only one side of a problem and don’t see the other size. Sorry, I don’t have time to type everything. The situation with Britain or with Iraq would be a good example. Even more interesting situation is now with Iran.

should read:

Star Wars did work - it felled the great oaks of the Soviet Union economically. But if it's going to make Putin cry, well alright, let's not.

We are so scared that others know so much about the horrors the US has committed. WE will go away until we learn the right knowledge as taught by the masters.
________________________________________
Star Wars did work - it felled the great oaks of the Soviet Union. But if it's going to make Putin, well alright, let's not.

P.S., when we're asked to leave bases, we leave bases (Phillipines)

American Observer: Let me respond to some of your obvious errors and omissions. You make so many of them that I don't have the time to respond to all of them; so here are just a few:

You state "Vladimir Putin personally ordered [Litvennko's] murder." And just how do you know this? Any facts to back up this assertion? You do know what a fact is, I hope.

You state "Bashir, if you know nothing about science or technology, can you ask for help from someone who does?" American Observer, if YOU know nothing about science or technology, YOU ask for help from someone who does. Star Wars has never worked, has never had a successful realistic test. Bush removed Star Wars from the jurisdiction of the Pentagon's office for ensuring the honesty and integrity of weapons tests for a reason: it couldn't pass an honest test. BTW, Bush also removed Star Wars from the jurisdiction of the Pentagon's office for controlling cost overruns. You lay into Bashir. You should lay into yourself as well.

You talk about Iran attacking Europe with missles carrying nukes. That is inane. There is no evidence that Iran would attack Europe with nukes. Iran wants nukes to defend itself against Bush, the neocons, and Israel. Iran would have been crazy to not ramp up its nuke program after we invaded Iraq. So tell us, what is the real reason Bush wants to base Star Wars in Eastern Europe?

You state "...if the Russians had tried to stop us from sending those forces [into Afghanistan], we would have kicked Russia's ass so hard that Vladimir Putin would still be crying." FYI, the Russians kicked us out of our bases in the former USSR Central Asian Republics. Did we kick Russia's youknowhat? Nope, Bush folded up his tent and went quietly into the night. No more bases. Russia wins and we lose.

It's clear you don't know what you're talking about. So how about going away until you learn something.

What truth about “Putin's regime” do you know?
(That he has "termed out". Happened to Blair, will happen to Bush. Question is, will it happen to Putin.)

About 80% (!) of citizens of Russia support Putin’s politics. (100% supported Saddam, what's the problem here?)

You just feel safe ...that you can say whatever you want and Mr. Putin won’t file a lawsuit? (Yeah, the question is DO YOU feel safe you can say WHATEVER. Lawsuit, yeah, that's one option, has it been popular in Russian history?? I think I remember Peter the Great suing his uncle for the throne. And October "verdict" granting justice to Lenin.)

According to Russian statistics the export of drugs through Afghanistan’s’ borders increased three times (Yeah, Russian statistics should be pretty accurate since it is your FSB / Mafia that does drug transportation / distribution in the region)

Eugene said,

"As far as I understood, you are a representative of Washington Post -- "

American Observer replies,

Eugene, I am a private citizen and I am using this website the same way that you are. Today, you and I are here as equals.

Eugene said,

"How do you know that “Vladimir Putin sent his assassins...”?

American Observer replies,

Because getting polonium is very difficult and only a handful of people can do it; because one of Putin's agents ate with Litvinenko the day before he began dying; because Litvinenko himself was certain that Vladimir Putin was responsible; because Putin has ordered a long list of other attacks and murders, including the crimes I have listed above; because only Vladimir Putin and the Russian gestapo have the motive, means and opportunity to do it; and because Vladimir Putin's employees have refused to allow the British free access to witnesses, and because Putin has refused to allow the British to extradite the killer. Like I said above, Eugene, Russian imperialists have failed to cannot offer even a ghost of an argument to exculpate Putin.

Eugene says:

"You forget that Bin-Laden is a former CIA agent."

American Observer replies,

That is a silly word game. Osama Bin-Laden has hated America since the day he was born. If Osama Bin-Laden cooperated with America and Saudia Arabia in Afghanistan, it was only because Islamic fundamentalists and supporters of democracy both wanted to drive the Soviet Empire out of Afghanistan, not because Bin-Laden was 'a CIA agent.' As soon as the Russian colonialists had left Afghanistan, Bin-Laden turned to attacking America.

Eugene, you need to think harder. You should remember that Joseph Stalin also worked with America -- during the Second World War; and if you think Osama Bin-Laden 'is a former CIA agent,' you could with equal justice argue that Joseph Stalin 'was an American agent,' for the same reason.

Eugene says:

"Russia has never had colonies."

American Observer replies,

Russia has been been one of the biggest and the most brutal empires in the world for centuries. Twenty years ago the Russian empire still included some two dozen colonies, including Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan. Today the Russian Empire still rules foreign colonies like Chechenya and Tatarstan and Tuvala, and many Russians want to get their claws on Ukraine again.

Eugene said:

"I can tell you even more: Ukraine and Georgia were the richest Soviet countries -- "

American Observer replies,

Actually, the richest Soviet colony was Hungary, but that was because Hungary's brave stand in 1956 convinced the Russians that they ought to let the Hungarians make their own economic modifications. Later on the Poles made a similar stand and got similar concessions, and that is why Hungary and Poland were the best poised to enter the world economy after the fall of the Soviet Empire.

Eugene says:

"The technologies to get energy and uranium for nuclear weapon are much different. You don’t know what you are talking about."

American Observer says,

I know far better than you do. I know that light water reactors allow neutrons to pass through the fluid which surrounds the core and exhaust themselves in the shielding, while heavy water reactors bounce the neutrons back into the uranium, thus destabilizing the nuclei and making the fissile materials more volatile. The Iranian reactors are heavy-water reactors. That is why the cores are extracted and the fissile materials are removed; and that is why the Russians are claiming to want the Iranians to send the cores to Russia for the extraction, and that is why the Iranians are refusing, insisting that the Iranians should keep the cores and extract the enriched fuel themselves. The enriched fuel, of course, is ideal for making nuclear bombs.

Eugene, I actually know a lot of physics -- far, far more than you -- but I am not going to type out five thousand words to teach you, and I doubt you would read them if I did. If you doubt what I say, go back and look at the details of the negotiations. Why do you think those negotiations contain words like 'enrichment' and 'extraction' and 'fuel cycle?' If you have an alternative understanding of those words, I hope you will share it with us here.

Eugene:
You haven't answered the question that obviously comes up when you say "American mass-media is a tool of propaganda", because it doesn't take much INTELLIGENCE to understand that the US government does not own it or order it around. So WHO is controlling, really controlling (i.e. not the puppets elected - bet ya it rhymes with Bluish and Lionist)
_____________________
Uhh, by the way none of us posting in response here are employees of Washington Post nor other media, I would guess, major or minor, other than our own blogs. I assume the panelists are paid, probably by each piece, which indicates the widely varying quality.

"don't even want to waste..." in the last paragraph.
Sorry for some typos; I am a little busy now.

American Observer says:

"Okay, Eugene, you are insulting us, and we register the insult. Nonetheless, the Washington Post and its website are part of the media, and you have our attention."

First, I would recommend you to read your own comments. They could be much more adequate and polite. As far as I understood, you are a representative of Washington Post; you have to be neutral and not to behave as russophobe.

Here is just a couple of your comments:

American Observer: July 29, 2007 9:00 PM

“The British have not attacked Russia. Instead, Vladimir Putin sent his assassins to the United Kingdom to murder a brave Russian who spoke the truth to Putin's regime; if the British had failed to demand the extradition of the murderer, then the British would have failed their responsibilities as a sovereign nation.”

One more: “Alexander Litvinenko died because Vladimir Putin personally ordered his murder…”

I am just curious... Do you have proof? How do you know that “Vladimir Putin sent his assassins...”?
Have you read this in other newspapers or Mr. Putin told you this? Or this is EVIDENT for YOU? What truth about “Putin's regime” do you know? About 80% (!) of citizens of Russia support Putin’s politics. Mr. Bush can DREAM about this rating... Or you just feel safe and believe that you can say whatever you want and Mr. Putin won’t file a lawsuit?

American Observer: July 29, 2007 8:23 PM

“America sent soldiers to Central Asia because the Afghan government allowed the Queda to use their territory...”

You forget that Bin-Laden is a former CIA agent. Do you know who has trained him? By the way, according to Russian statistics the export of drugs through Afghanistan’s’ borders increased three times... Oh, I also forgot to say that I’ve heard about something similar about Iraq: Saddam supports Al-Queda... And I know, of course, that oil in Iraq is not important...

“Georgia and Ukraine used to be colonies of Russia, just as Somalia used to be a colony of Italy”

Russia has never had colonies. That’s why I am saying that some “intelligence” is required. I can tell you even more: Ukraine and Georgia were the richest Soviet countries; my grand-mother lived in Ukraine. I don’t want to discuss it with you, it’s useless.

“If Iran does manage to make a few dozen nuclear warheads and put them on a few dozen missiles...”

Do you know anything about laws of physics?

“And have you forgotten that Russia is now selling Iran the nuclear reactors it needs to build nuclear weapons?”

The technologies to get energy and uranium for nuclear weapon are much different. You don’t know what you are talking about. Fake argument again...

I don't even waste my time commenting your other arguments. I've seen these statements on TV and newspapers. This is an example how wrong or even fake statements achieve human minds. And after that I hear similar words from many other people (even in this discussion).

We like you too. Not looking forward to a new Cold War! But if we can question Bush, please question what Putin is doing. Russia deserves peace and prosperity but not another round of European and Asian hegemony.

Russian Observer Two,

I am sorry -- I don't normally criticize other people's English, as long as I understand what they are saying; but in this case I have no idea what you are saying. Perhaps you should try again...

Oops! I am not the first Russian Observe here. I,m Russian Observe-2.

Russian Observe to American Observe:

I am Russian.Live in Russia .I support Putin.I like Russia.
And i want to say to You straight here just now :
I like America.I like Americans.I like You.

Special thanks to the author.It`s really an article, not bored usual propaganda.

Well if you have "intelligence" maybe you don't need to share the flow of "information", it comes from the essence of the universe.

The question that always arises is WHO controls media when you say "American mass-media is a tool of propaganda", because it doesn't take much knowledge to understand that government does not own it or order it around.

So WHO is controlling, really controlling (i.e. not the puppets elected - bet ya it rhymes with Bluish and Lionist)

Eugene says:

"I am doing my PhD in the United States and I see that even people with good education (MBAs, PhDs) don't have, what I call, "intelligence", that is an ability to know something about everything."

American Observer replies:

Okay, Eugene, you are insulting us, and we register the insult. Nonetheless, the Washington Post and its website are part of the media, and you have our attention. If there is some great secret we ought to learn, would you share it it with us here? Or are you just here to prove your superior 'intelligence' by insulting us and leaving?

From my point of view, most of Americans (not all but many; especially younger generation) don't know anything about Russia besides vodka-bears-Siberia-snow. I am doing my PhD in the United States and I see that even people with good education (MBAs, PhDs) don't have, what I call, "intelligence", that is an ability to know something about everything. These people get information from American mass-media and don't use other sources of information. They don't even think about information they get; they just believe... That's why they are so easily manipulated (Iraq is a good example) and believe to many stupid things that are often published about Russia (and not only about Russia). I don't see any ways to change this situation: American mass-media is a tool of propaganda and it won't work differently in the nearest future. Although the “reality” is much different...

Russian Observer says:

"Well I will quote one nice book - "Not guilty until proven otherwise".

American Observer replies,

But of course! And as long as Putin keeps his hired killer safe in Russia, the British will never be able to accumulate enough evidence. How cunning of Putin, in a Stalinist sort of way.

Russian Observer says:

"And polonium is not such good evidence. With enough money you can get almost anything in Russia. And some rich dude in UK has that much money."

American Observer replies,

Yes, but why? If there are five 'dudes' in Russia with enough money and five 'dudes' in Britain with enough money, why would those 'dudes' want to kill Litivenko? And why did Litivenko accuse Putin before his death, and not these nameless 'dudes?' Criminal proof requires that the prosecutor show motive, means, and opportunity, and Vladimr Putin and his Russian gestapo were the only people with the motive, means, and opportunity to kill Litivenko.

Russian Observer says:

"And how nice that the main witness was executed by USA puppet government after mock trial."

American Observer replies,

America did NOT execute Saddam because we claimed he had weapons of mass destruction; instead, the Iraqis executed Saddam because Saddam murdered the entire male population of a village after one male in the village tried to kill Saddam. And furthermore, America did not 'urge' the Iraqis to execute Saddam; instead, the Iraqis would have killed him far sooner without us. If you doubt that, go to Iraq and ask the Iraqis what they think.

Russian Observer says:

"Ukraine was as much colony of Russia as California is a colony of USA"

American Observer replies,

No, Ukraine was a colony of Russia the way Mexico was a colony of Spain; and just as the Spanish murdered vast numbers of Mexicans to ensure their rule, the Russians murdered more than seven million Ukrainians during the nineteen thirties. That is why Ukraine never can and never will return to Russia.

Russian Observer claims:

"Britain has the same thing about not extraditing people..."

American Observer replies,

That is nonsense -- the United Kingdom extradites people every day. For instance, the killer of Martin Luther King fled to Britain and was extradited back to America. The British insist that people extradited from Britain cannot be executed or tortured, and the British insist on evidence; but the suspects are still kept in British prisons until the extradition process is completed. Thus, there is no similarity with Putin's insistence that his gestapo should be able to kill people in other countries and then escape safely to the Russian Federation.

Russian Observer claims:

"The Russians keep an army in Moldova, against the wishes of the Moldovan people and government.
----Yeah in Russian enclave. On UN mandate. "

American Observer replies:

My friend, the moment I read that I went to google.com to find out if I had woken up in a alternate universe, or something like that. Fortunately, I was still on Planet Earth.

Russian Observer, you are sadly misinformed. The United Nations has never given Russia any permission to be in Moldova, and Russia's presence there is nothing more than international aggression.

Russian Observer claims:

"The government of Estonia, a former Soviet colony, moves a Soviet statue. Putin's government throws up a flimsy disguise and tries to break the computer network of that country.
----OR SO THEY CLAIM. NO FACTS TO PROVE IT ARE GIVEN."

American Observer replies:

Really? Again, Vladmir Putin and the Russian Gestapo were the only people with the motive, means, and opportunity to attack Estonia's computer network. Or, are you going to claim it was some mysterious 'rich dudes' from outer space again?

Russian Observer claims:

"Strangely enough Milosovich the former leader of Yugoslavia did died too without being proven guilty and in prison."

American Observer replies:

There is nothing strange about that. Milosovic died in prison because he deserved do die in prison, and he died of old age before his trial was complete because Milosovic deliberately stalled the proceedings for five years.

Russian Observer claims:

"Hey man don't be sour just because your country sucks at cheap nuclear energy. Nuclear energy IS cheaper than fossil burning."

American Observer replies:

That is so wrong that I could write an entire volume in reply. No American has ever died in the production of nuclear electricity. Your country, on the other hand, has killed thousands of its own citizens while producing nuclear electricity, at Chernobyl and elsewhere. At the same time, nuclear electricity is only competitive with electricity from oil if you have to import the oil at world prices. If you can pump your own oil at a tenth of the world price, as the Iranians can, then building nuclear reactors means wasting billions of dollars -- unless you are actually using the reactors to build nuclear weapons, as the Iranians are doing.

Regarding Putin's attempt to murder the president of Ukraine, Russian Observer says:

"HAHAHA. Yeah and don't forget that he ordered the assasination of Kenedy. "

America Observer replies,

Actually, John F. Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, and Robert F. Kennedy was killed by an Arab terrorist named Sirhan Sirhan. Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned during dinner by the head of the Ukrainian KGB using dioxin supplied by Vladmir Putin and the Russian Gestapo. If you want to claim the contrary, you will have to supply an alternate suspect, and you will have to offer the motive, means, and opportunity for that suspect, and we both know you cannot offer anything more than lots of capital letters.

Like I said, Russian Observer, you really ought to do a little reading....

1) Regarding litvinenko. Some people here make quotes of other people that quote third people. And all think the fact that Putin personally executed the traitor. Well I will quote one nice book - "Not guilty until proven otherwise". And in such case this must be something more than some speculation. And polonium is not such good evidence. With enough money you can get almost anything in Russia. And some rich dude in UK has that much money.
2) Iraq - what what the reason it was invaded again? oh yeah WMD. Did someone find them? And how nice that the main witness was executed by USA puppet government after mock trial. Oh and as crowning the USA intelligence admitted that it has known that Hussein had no ties with al quede. Bummer. (Strangely enough Milosovich the former leader of Yugoslavia did died too without being proven guilty and in prison.)
3) Georgia - we could remove our peacekeeping forces from there BUT you should first find out why they are there in the first place. In the beginning of 90 georgia started genocide company against abhasia and osetia enclaves and when they kicked its ass GEORGIA demanded from UN that we put our forces there. Now when they restored they military with the help of USA they want rematch. Well tough. Since its Official peacekeeping force under mandate of UN BOTH sides of conflict must want the removal.
4) Georgia and Ukraine used to be colonies of Russia. well may be georgia. used to be. Ukraine was as much colony of Russia as California is a colony of USA
5) "It was not easy for Russia to lose its traditional friends and arms markets in North Korea, Iran and Iraq ..."
6)AO: If the Russians are so good with condoms, GB, why is their HIV rate so much higher than ours?
Drugs you bloody git DRUGS. wasn't much of a problem during communism but now thanks to democracy....
7)AO: That is certainly what Vladimir Putin feels about the British, isn't it? Putin thinks it is outrageous for the British to try to extradite a Russian criminal for crimes that the Russian committed on British soil.
No. Putin is outraged that some USA lapdog demands to change our constitution because they don't like it. (for example Britain has the same thing about not extraditing people)
8)Oh that was my favourite.
The government of Estonia, a former Soviet colony, moves a Soviet statue. Putin's government throws up a flimsy disguise and tries to break the computer network of that country.
----OR SO THEY CLAIM. NO FACTS TO PROVE IT ARE GIVEN.

Vladimir Putin sends his soldiers to plant a Russian flag on the North Pole, and then a few years later claims the entire North Pole -- the North Pole itself -- as Russian territory.
----HOW THE HELL A SCIENCE EXPEDITION BECAME SOLDIERS? AND We don't claim the WHOLE north pole. Read about the purpose of expedition before putting your 'misinformation'

The leaders of Ukraine assert their independence. Vladimir Putin sends his killers to try and poison the leading candidate, and almost succeeds in killing him.
-----HAHAHA. Yeah and don't forget that he ordered the assasination of Kenedy. Man someone has too much paranoia. Visit the shrink man maybe there ARE some Russians to get you.

Iran declares that it has enough oil to sell to the world, but Iran does NOT have enough oil refineries to make enough gasoline to run the automobiles of its own people. Therefore, Iran does NOT buy an oil refinery from Russia. Instead, Iran spends billions of dollars buying a heavy-water reactor from the Russians, and the Russians say they are against nuclear proliferation, while continuing to give the Iranians everything they need to proliferate.
---- Hey man don't be sour just because your country sucks at cheap nuclear energy. Nuclear energy IS cheaper than fossil burning.

The Russians keep an army in Moldova, against the wishes of the Moldovan people and government.
----Yeah in Russian enclave. On UN mandate. Btw did you get your mandate to keep your forces in Iraq. Oh yeah you don't need it since you have cowboy as president.

The Russians support separatists in Georgia, against the wishes of the Georgian government.
---- Well duh. They have bad economy. The new 'democratically elected' government cant do a thing about it, but hey they can have external enemy whom they can blame for all they problem. And have a nice little victorious war(where did I seen this lin the last 5 years-???). Too bad the UN peacekeeping force hinders them.

The Russians threaten to use their veto to block the independence of Kosovo.
---- I wont even comment on that one. I hope you understand how RIDICULOUS this sounds. We can threaten AND veto as much as we want if this is against OUR interests. Thats the whole point of the veto.

There -- that is seven 'conspiracy theories.' If anyone here doubts even one of them, go to google.com and do a little reading -- it will do you good.
---- I did my reading and you didn't. I bet you are one of those

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCoVaeYHzWA

(for Natalia with love)
I want to thank you the writer for his intelligent analyses of the situation. It is understandable that most of the audience cannot appreciate the article - they are brian washed. The truth is - (GERMANY) does not need you, guys. (GERMANY) is governed by a very wise(FUHRER) at the moment so not by errogant silly (CRIPPLE) thus .... (GERMANY)is acting smart. If you (BRITISH AND FRENCH) will continue attacking (GERMAN) interests in Europe - (GERMANS)simply will sell all their gaz to (JAPAN or use it on Jews) Believe me (JAPAN AND THE GREATER ASIAN CO-PROSPERITY SPHERE)will buy EVERYTHING since ...(IT) wants to be the second world economy and they NEED all energy they can buy. Then... Europe will be yelling at (GERMANY) in total cold and dark. (THE LIGHTS ARE GOING OUT, ALL OVER EUROPE...HUH) In addition, (GERMAN)army is perfectly modernized during the past 10 years while (BRITISH)army has no money for any moderniation what so ever. And today it is (BRITISH AND AMERICAN)army that has outdated weapons not (GERMAN) so ... Europeans really should learn how to respect their powerful and dangerous neighbor a little bit better.
Regarding (SUDETENLAND AND POLE-LAND) - so what? It is actually (GERMAN) territory and was claimed by (GERMANY) long ago. Why you are not offended by (THE BRITISH EMPIRE) claiming any territory in the world where is oil? It is not errogant, right? Well, think again.

(I actually AM NOT comparing Russia to Nazi Germany, or especially Putin to Hitler, that's at least quite premature, but you're making it deliciously EASY to mimic the various Putin defenders with the Nazi apologists like Lindbergh and others.

The Soviet Union was a defeated foe less than 20 years ago by the diligent application of foreign policy by the West for 40 years. Russia has re-invented itself in strangely reminiscent nationalist manner. How many times do WE have to save the world before we get some credit, no whine "what have you done for us lately?"??

Back to the real issue, Transparency of institutions is what the US and UK has and Russia doesn't. What is it about democratic and judicial infrastructure that you don't understand?

American Observer, Russia was not troubled by American troops in Afghanistan, because as you said America had an overwhelming reason in doing so. But Russia was worried by the deployment of airbases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, in former Soviet states. US is expelled from Uzbekistan by now, which happened under the Russian influence as you may realize. The terms of the airbase in Kyrgyzstan are being reconsidered at the moment, but I believe it will also wrap it up before long. Russia is weak, you are right on that one. But if Americans get too close to its borders, then Russia gets nervious and may get provoked to do something unpleasant.

I want to thank you the writer for his intelligent analyses of the situation. It is understandable that most of the audience cannot appreciate the article - they are brian washed. The truth is - Russia does not need you, guys. Russia is governed by a very wise president at the moment so not by errogant silly uneducated cowboy, thus .... Russia is acting smart. If you Europeans will continue attacking Russian interests in Europe - Russians simply will sell all their gaz to China. Believe me China will buy EVERYTHING since by 2050 China wants to be the second world economy and they NEED all energy they can buy. Then... Europe will be yelling at Russian in total cold and dark. In addition, Russian army is perfectly modernized during the past 10 years while American army has no money for any moderniation what so ever. And today it is American army that has outdated weapons not Russian, so ... Europeans really should learn how to respect their powerful and dangerous neighbor a little bit better. Regarding North Pole - so what? It is actually Russian territory and was claimed by Russia long ago. Why you are not offended by Americans claiming any territory in the world where is oil? It is not errogant, right? Well, think again.

I want to thank you the writer for his intelligent analyses of the situation. It is understandable that most of the audience cannot appreciate the article - they are brian washed. The truth is - Russia does not need you, guys. Russia is governed by a very wise president at the moment so not by errogant silly uneducated cowboy, thus .... Russia is acting smart. If you Europeans will continue attacking Russian interests in Europe - Russians simply will sell all their gaz to China. Believe me China will buy EVERYTHING since by 2050 China wants to be the second world economy and they NEED all energy they can buy. Then... Europe will be yelling at Russian in total cold and dark. In addition, Russian army is perfectly modernized during the past 10 years while American army has no money for any moderniation what so ever. And today it is American army that has outdated weapons not Russian, so ... Europeans really should learn how to respect their powerful and dangerous neighbor a little bit better. Regarding North Poll - so what? It is actually Russian territory and was claimed by Russia long ago. Why you are not offended by Americans claiming any territory in the world where is oil? It is not errogant, right? Well, think again.

Alex said:

"Regarding Litvinenko murder: who benefited from his death? Who benefited from the death of useless spent schizophrenical spy and who lost the most? Once you figure this out you find the answer."

American Observer responds,

Alex, who EXPECTED to benefit from the murder of Litvinenko? Putin. Who EXPECTED to benefit from the poisoning of Viktor A. Yushchenko? Putin. Who EXPECTED to benefit from the murder of Anna Politkovskaya? Putin. Who EXPECTED to benefit from the shooting of Paul Joyal in Maryland? Putin. The answer in all cases is Vladimir Putin. Yes, the public outcry has frightened Vladimir Putin and his supporters, but that was only because the West has indulged Putin for so long.

Sorry, the server stripped out those links after I posted them. However, you can read the New York Times article, Liberal Leader From Ukraine Was Poisoned, at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/international/europe/12ukraine.html?ex=1260507600&en=399c5977d2ff2958&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland and the Eurasia Daily Monitor article, Details emerge of second Russian attempt to assassinate Yushchenko, at http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/2005/030505.shtml .

Realistic Observer, the proof is in the pudding. The Russians have not withdrawn from Georgia or Moldova because the people of Georgia and Moldova are too weak to drive out the Russian colonialists, and because the Bush administration does not consider it in the interests of American or the Bush administration to help them. (I disagree, but I have always been an idealist.) By the same token, the attacks of September 11, 2001, gave America an overwhelming reason to keep soldiers in Central Asia, whether the Russians like it or not. The Russians never 'permitted' America to send soldiers to Afghanistan or to any other country in Central Asia. Instead, we put soldiers there because the Russians were too weak to stop us.

Most of the supporters of the Putin regime seem to have done very little reading over the last few years. If you are interested in making up for lost time, here is a good article from the New York Times on the poisoning of the leader of Ukraine, Viktor A. Yushchenko.

Quote:

Liberal Leader From Ukraine Was Poisoned
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL,
International Herald Tribune

Published: December 12, 2004

LONDON, Dec. 11 - Tests done at a hospital in Vienna confirmed that Viktor A. Yushchenko, the Ukrainian opposition candidate, had been poisoned with dioxin, doctors there said Saturday, providing an explanation for a broad array of painful and disfiguring conditions that plagued him during the last three months of the presidential campaign.

....

He fell ill after having dinner on Sept. 5 with the head of Ukraine's successor to the K.G.B., Gen. Ihor P. Smeshko.

General Smeshko has acknowledged meeting Mr. Yushchenko but dismissed the notion that he might have been involved in poisoning him, as many of Mr. Yushchenko's supporters say they suspect. Mr. Yushchenko's wife, a Ukrainian-American, said this week that when she kissed him after he returned from the dinner, she smelled some kind of medicine on this breath, which she now believed to be the poison.

In the earlier years of the cold war, the K.G.B. and the Eastern European intelligence services used poison against some political enemies.

In a famous case, a Bulgarian dissident, Georgi I. Markov, was killed with poison in 1978 by the Bulgarian secret service, apparently to silence his broadcasts on the British Broadcasting Corporation. At a London bus stop, an agent using a spring-loaded umbrella injected into Mr. Markov's leg a platinum pellet that contained a dose of ricin. He died after three days of intense fever and vomiting.

Unquote

You can read the rest at Liberal Leader From Ukraine Was Poisoned.

The Eurasia Daily Monitor also has an article which looks at other attempts on Viktor A. Yushchenko's life.

Quote:

ANALYSIS

Details emerge of second Russian attempt to assassinate Yushchenko

by Taras Kuzio
Eurasia Daily Monitor

On the eve of Viktor Yushchenko's inauguration as Ukraine's third president Ukraine's relations with Russia will undoubtedly emerge as one of the most difficult issues. The Economist (December 29, 2004) advised Mr. Yushchenko that, "he needs to kiss and make up with Russia and Vladimir Putin, who backed Mr. Yanukovych and has thus been humiliated by his defeat."

This though, will be far easier said than done. Russia is reportedly behind two assassination attempts on Mr. Yushchenko's life, one through poisoning and a second with a bomb. Mr. Yushchenko alluded to the bomb threat when he said, "Those who wanted to blow myself up did not undertake it because they came too close and could have blown themselves up" (Ukrainska Pravda, December 16, 2004).

Unquote.

You can read the rest at Details emerge of second Russian attempt to assassinate Yushchenko.

To American Observer

It is not that easy to kick Russia's ass no matter what you believe. I am afraid America will break both its legs and all its toes with the consequence of not being able to kick anybody's ass for some time if it happens to attempt such a bold act.

Regarding the Ukrainian people's glorious pursuit of democracy, I am afraid I have to frustrate you. The current government has very low approval ratings. If new elections were held today, the pro-Russian leader would get the majority of votes.

By the way, are you aware that Putin's "regime" is genuinely supported by 75% of population? Do you not think it is pretty democratic?

Spasibo. Ponimaet ;)

It would be good if all elefant size countries such as USA, Russia, Germany, China, India go down. Instead them there normal size countries should be developed with about 10 to 30 million population. All of these countries would consolidate themselves until they crack down from their overweight at the expense of other smaller nations and countries. There should be accepted an international law that could regulate the size and population of countries. If it is more by size and population than it is required it should be divided. USA, Russia, China and India might be divided on 20-30 countries. Such law would be similar antimonopoly laws of these days. Otherwise these elefants impose their own law on all over the world. When such days come there.

Знаете, во многом согласна с автором статьи, предложение изменить конституцию- абсурдно по своей природе, оно только спровацировало власть на ехидный и насмешливый ответ Великобритании. хотя, если бы британский премьер-министр вел себя более разумно, сдержано и хладнокровно, возможно, Москва пошла бы и в этот раз на уступки, поскольку для России важны не только политические, но и экономические отношения с Соедниненным Королевством.Кроме того, не стоит забывать, что человек может быть признан виновным только по приговору суда и никак иначе. Почему то в этом случае британские власти твердо уверовали что Луговой виновен, что не позволяет нам думать о возможности проведения справедливого суда над ним в Лондоне, хотя надо признать что судебное заседание в третьей стране устроило бы Россию, однако Великобритания резко отвергла подобные предложения.
И вообщем то остается непонятно , почему Великобритания, рассчитывала на выдачу Литвиненко, когда сама никогда не выдает никого, кто ищет убежища на ее территории. Будь то Березовский, или террористы готовившие терракты 11 сентября. В тоже время Запад, все больше утверждающий и паникующий , что Россия уходит с пути демократии , а в стране нет оппозиции, вся власть находится в руках президента Путина и его команды, сам при этом толкает российскую политическую жизнь в тотальный застой. русские, видя абсурдные требования Великобритании и их ультимативный характер, революции и нестабильность в бывших странах снг ,и новый план ПРО в европе, все больше доверяют президенту и правительству, которые вторят, что Западу не нужна сильная Россия, вокруг враги и поэтому идти на компромиссы больше не нужно. круг замыкается. Живя и работая в Москве, могу вам точно сказать, что на марши несогласных от силы пришло 300-400 человек, а оппозиция стала настолько непопулярна, что теперь стыд и позор говорить о свободе слова. люди все больше тянутся к материальному благополучию , а не политическим правам.
Революции в Грузии и Украине , как известно , не привели к положительному результату. Наблюдается кризис власти и неспособность новых руководителей искать компромиссы. подобная ситуация не может не беспокоить российскую политическую элиту, что , в действительности , ведет к ужесточению режима

даже не надеюсь, что кто либо здесь понимает по русски.И с уважением к автору, Ю.М,

I think that the Government should listen to this article

The west cannot change attitude towards russia as west knows only own interest ans at this moment russia emergence threating the intrest of russia in middle east,central asia and china.
so do not worry about the treatment of west but pray that they shouldnot start another cold war.

When you have the morons who got us into Iraq what did you expect.Intelligent foreign policy.Lest anyone forget Russia has armed missles that could destroy us in 45 minutes.Russia has enormous reserves of oil and natural gas.I think we could give them the same respect we give a totalitarian state like Saudi Arabia.Maybe if the Bush family can find a way to get into an oil deal with Russia things would change.Oh yeah the elder Bush was at the last meeting of his son and Putin.I wonder if oil deals came up?

Albert Einshtein once said, that scientific ideas do not triumph because you have managed to convince your opponents, but because the opponents will eventually die and new generation of people will grow with understanding of new ideas. Something like that, but pretty grim anyway.
My point is that nothing can change people with Cold War mentality and mind full of russophobic paranoia (you know, "soldiers planting the flag on North Pole", as a matter of fact, those were scientists) and racism ( "Arabic/Slavic/Chinese axes of evil" - well, you are all in it together, brothers, even Chechs and Poles, despite the heavy American asss leaking, are here too).

Regarding Litvinenko murder: who benefited from his death? Who benefited from the death of useless spent schizophrenical spy and who lost the most? Once you figure this out you find the answer.

All bad attitudes shown by US in recent years related to resources of others. Can US/UN show any weapons developed by Iraq that is a threat to the world?? is there any justice to hang Saddam Hussain?? The Al Qaeda is a cloning of US policy against then russian rule in afganistan only.
No dame body can think of kicking the ass of an Ruusian. remember it.
Moreover, no british should try to amend russian constitution rather to change their attitudes.
If US tests missile/Nuclear test, others nation aslo can.

(Romio)

All bad aatitudes shown by US in recent years related to resources. Can US/UN show any weapons developed by Iraq that is a treat to the world?? is there any justice to hang Saddam Hussain?? The Al Qaeda is cloning of US policy against then russian rule in afganistan only.
No dame body can think of kicking the ass of an Ruusian. remember it.
Moreover, on british should try to amend russian constitution rather to change their attitudes.
If US tests missile/Nuclear test, others nation aslo can.

(Romio)

Himmler:
Fortunately, there are fewer and fewer of them, in pockets (in Warsaw and bombed out London). The majority of the world (Tojo, Franco, Gandhi!!) recognizes that the (UK) is the major villain in today's world and they don't buy the lies perpetrated by (Germany's) enemies.
__________________
Lindbergh:

As an American, I see (Germany) as the only hope for checking the neo-fascist (British) Empire (Pot - kettle time, yeah!!)

Hopefully France and (Russia), two other countries that I see leaning against the (United Kingdom) and toward (Germany), will help balance the US as well.
________________________

Yep, that's Charles, flying high. Now say a few words about the threat of Jewish media and Zionism, will ya?

There's really no point in trying to argue with the brainwashed likes of American Observer and Charles Lindbergh who have bought all the western propoganda hook, line, and sinker.

Fortunately, there are fewer and fewer of them, in pockets in the US, UK, and Eastern Europe. The majority of the world recognizes that the US is the major villain in today's world and they don't buy the lies perpetrated by Russia's enemies.

As an American, I see Russia as the only hope for checking the neo-fascist American Empire. Hopefully France and Germany, two other countries that I see leaning against the US and toward Russia, will help balance the US as well.

http://winthrop77.blogspot.com

American Observer:

Thank you for the list of conspiracy theories! although they are simplistic and fairly incoherent at best, they do demonstrate your willingness to accept on faith pretty much anything that is anti-Russian, which is really all that is necessary for a conspiracy theorist. But to address your points:

1) American Observer writes: "Putin's government throws up a flimsy disguise and tries to break the computer network of that country."

I'm not even sure what you are trying to say here...

2) Canada and Denmark have also claimed the North Pole, so again, what is your point?

3) American Observer writes: "The leaders of Ukraine assert their independence. Vladimir Putin sends his killers to try and poison the leading candidate, and almost succeeds in killing him."

This is simply raving fancy presented as fact, and has place in any serious discussion.

4) American Observer writes: "Iran declares that it has enough oil to sell to the world, but Iran does NOT have enough oil refineries to make enough gasoline to run the automobiles of its own people. Therefore, Iran does NOT buy an oil refinery from Russia. Instead, Iran spends billions of dollars buying a heavy-water reactor from the Russians, and the Russians say they are against nuclear proliferation, while continuing to give the Iranians everything they need to proliferate."

What on earth is this supposed to mean? could you restate this in simple non-conspiracy English so I can at least understand what you are trying to prove?

5) Moldova 6) Georgia 7) Kosevo

I could argue with the way you present your case on each of these, but the simple response is that Russia is protecting its own strategic interests, which was one of the main points of the original article. The fact that Russia is no longer following the lead of the the US or Western Europe, but rather, is charting its own future, is the real issue at hand.

Yankee and Not as Dumb as you think - who is calling who naive - to be a knee jerk apologist for the KGB.

American Observer
Great to have a Kerry guy on the side of the angels on this. As the Brits would say, Any port in the storm, what?
As a neocon idiot, I'm going down with the ship, but I certainly understand your dissatisfaction with the mess of the past 7 years. But you see things for what they are, and though you probably want to cut our losses especially on Iraq, you can see it's going to get even more complicated from here on in - in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, etc, etc.

One more shot at Colleen, the new Russian agit-prop queen.

Not to mention it's behavior at home where we have domestic spying (uhh to stop another 9/11)
, corporate control of the media (yeah, Dan Rather was a GOP tool), a two-party system that guarantees the status quo (instead of one-party guaranteeing revolution??), and the erosion of all freedoms that we once cherished. (Cue the violins) The freedom to protest? Ask that to the 5/1/07 protesters in Los Angeles, anti-GOP protesters in NY in '04 (the protests as a whole went peacefully, violence at the end was instigated by presence of what used to known as Communist front groups and believe it or not in LA, Danza Azteca/MeCHA Aztec radical liberation groups (and look up connection with Juan Manuel Alvarez, the "suicide" Metrolink killer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc1XAQc8hS8&eurl= ) I know, just what we need here, another reference to weird conspiracies!!

BASHIR,

Thanks for the thoughtful commentary. Frankly, I was losing my faith in the Western press, especially after the one-sided coverage of the Litvinenko affair. The mere fact that Washington Post published your comment makes me respect them (and you, of course) much more.

Thanks!

It is pathetic are the knee jerk apologists for Putin's Russia. I thought us conservatives were the react-ionary, but no!!

Colleen
You mislead Litvinenko's record
(All of these from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko, I certainly don't take wikipedia as a final word but it shows the misrepresentation and discounting of substantive corrobating evidence instead of just ravings of an embittered washed-up agent that you portray.

" With regard to July 2005 bombings in London, Litvinenko said that "all the bloodiest terrorists of the world" were connected to FSB-KGB, including Carlos "The Jackal" Ramírez, Yassir Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Abdullah Öcalan, Wadie Haddad of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, George Hawi who led the Communist Party of Lebanon, and Ezekias Papaioannou from Cyprus" Perhaps a little off since it was new generation radical Islamists versus these "old school" collectivist terror-mongers, yet all true that Putin as KGB man would have many contacts in his Rolodex.

This is what he said about a 9/11 connection, is it farfetched that an "arrest" is really not always an arrest in Asia?? Come on.
"In a July 2005 interview with the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita, Litvinenko alleged that Ayman al-Zawahiri was trained for half of a year by the FSB in Dagestan in 1998.[33][34] According to FSB spokesman Sergei Ignatchenko, Ayman al-Zawahiri was arrested by Russian authorities in Dagestan in December 1996 and released in May 1997"

Didn't read anything about Russia and the Mohammed cartoons, but more serious is the allegations on Armenian assasinations, whether Chechens were framed in the apartment bombings, the taped confessions of several agents (all nutjobs??!) of KGB/FSB involvement in assasination and organized crime.

And what of this inadvertent admission of motive if not guilt " In January 2007, Polish newspaper Dziennik revealed that a picture of Litvinenko was used as a shooting target by the Russian special forces unit Vityaz. The targets were photographed by chance when the chairman of the Russian Duma's upper house Sergei Mironov visited the centre and met its head Sergei Lysiuk 7 November 7 2006" Was this just a "sick joke" a few days after the fact of his poisoning?? Good God, you think so, I think not!! Further research (click on the picture of targets) by the newspaper show that there are training videos "The video was a "promo package" taken "two days after [...] 23rd of October 2002".

Anyhow, one thing's for certain. The agitprop gang is back in the "new world order" of Arab / Slavic / Chinese axis.
Did Berezovsky betray his employee for the greater good or his own selfish motives? Possible, but Litvinenko's friend Alex Goldfarb would also have to be in on it or was Litvinenko the ultimate Chechen suicide terrorist, knowingly killing himself to implicate Putin. Certainly Putin's response does not clear up anything "It is a pity that tragic events like death have been used for political provocations. Those who did it [concocted the note] are not God, and Mr. Litvinenko is unfortunately not Lazarus"

Not As Dumb As You Think said:

"I shudder to think what other "conspiracy theories" you present as fact."

American Observer replies,

Go ahead and start shuddering. Here are some more conspiracy theories:

The government of Estonia, a former Soviet colony, moves a Soviet statue. Putin's government throws up a flimsy disguise and tries to break the computer network of that country.

Vladimir Putin sends his soldiers to plant a Russian flag on the North Pole, and then a few years later claims the entire North Pole -- the North Pole itself -- as Russian territory.

The leaders of Ukraine assert their independence. Vladimir Putin sends his killers to try and poison the leading candidate, and almost succeeds in killing him.

Iran declares that it has enough oil to sell to the world, but Iran does NOT have enough oil refineries to make enough gasoline to run the automobiles of its own people. Therefore, Iran does NOT buy an oil refinery from Russia. Instead, Iran spends billions of dollars buying a heavy-water reactor from the Russians, and the Russians say they are against nuclear proliferation, while continuing to give the Iranians everything they need to proliferate.

The Russians keep an army in Moldova, against the wishes of the Moldovan people and government.

The Russians support separatists in Georgia, against the wishes of the Georgian government.

The Russians threaten to use their veto to block the independence of Kosovo.

There -- that is seven 'conspiracy theories.' If anyone here doubts even one of them, go to google.com and do a little reading -- it will do you good.

'Yankee' said:

"American Observer, it's people like yourself that have brought infamy to our country. Your kind, the neocon kind, are fools and very naive about foreign affairs."

American Observer replies:

Little Heart, I am not a 'neocon' -- instead, I voted for Bill Clinton, twice, I voted for Al Gore, and I voted for John Kerry. Nonetheless, I never take ideological positions, and I look at every matter on its own merit.

The facts in this case are clear. As I have said before, Alexander Litvinenko himself accused Vladimir Putin of ordering his murder, and if Putin had been innocent, then Putin would have jumped at the chance to allow the British to interview witnesses, and Putin would have jumped at the chance to extradite suspects to the United Kingdom, because that would have proven Putin's innocence. Instead, Putin has stonewalled the British investigation, and you would have to be an idiot or an ideologue not to recognize that as an admission of guilt.

Alex said:

"No wonder it's not easy to work with people like you - obnoxious, arrogant assss that thinks he owns this world."

American Observer replies:

That is certainly what Vladimir Putin feels about the British, isn't it? Putin thinks it is outrageous for the British to try to extradite a Russian criminal for crimes that the Russian committed on British soil. If only the British would be more cooperative -- then it would easy for the Russians to kill whoever they want, wherever they want.

Please, people from other countries other than the US, American Observer is NOT representative of the average American. He and his kind have screwed up the West worse than any foreign power could do. American Observer, it's people like yourself that have brought infamy to our country. Your kind, the neocon kind, are fools and very naive about foreign affairs.

American Observer:

when you begin your list of "failures of logic" with something as ludicrous, unsubstantiated and outright paranoid as the following:

"Alexander Litvinenko died because Vladimir Putin personally ordered his murder, and if the Russians permitted the British to extradite the killer, the killer would implicate his superiors, and the British would then ask for the extradition of those superiors, until finally the British had a list of witnesses who could prove Putin's guilt."

I can only say I'm glad you decided to go to bed, because it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion when the someone who pulls fancies out of thin air and presents them as fact. I shudder to think what other "conspiracy theories" you present as fact.

Personally, I don't mind if you believe whatever it is you want to you believe, but to malign someone else's position when you have nothing to back up your own words, is the equivalent of schoolyard name calling, and really has no place in any serious discussion.

Good Night, Observer.

American Observer, why don't you just go to sleep, as you said.
2 secs reading into your comments, and I have realised that you know sh..t about anything.
The guy said "allowed to Central Asia", you are talking about Afganistan...., then you are threatening ("we would have kicked Russia's ass..)...then you tell lie ("Russia didn't cooperate with British investigators, when in fact they worked in Russia and did not complain - all complains were from dirty politicians and newpapers hungry for sensation).
No wonder it's not easy to work with people like you - obnoxious, arrogant assss that thinks he owns this world.

To Arnold:

According to your analysis then the U.S. would be a 3rd world country for waging illegal wars for oil (btw Pavel, Afganistan is planned transit route for Turkmeni gas) and basically backstabbing the United Nation, international law, and treaties (Geneva Convention, ABM, Kyoto, anti-land mine).

Not to mention it's behavior at home where we have domestic spying, corporate control of the media, a two-party system that guarantees the status quo, and the erosion of all freedoms that we once cherished. The freedom to protest? Ask that to the 5/1/07 protesters in Los Angeles, anti-GOP protesters in NY in '04, etc.

Of Ukraine Russia simply asked MARKET prices for gas in conformity with liberal economic and all that mumbo jumbo. If you want to talk about blackmail go straight to IMF/World Bank loan arrangements and Shell's PSA agreements in Nigeria.

http://winthrop77.blogspot.com

To the misinformed, the former KGB guy who was poisoned in London was a complete nutjob who said that Russia was behind 9/11 AND the 7/7 London bombings AND the Danish cartoons that offended the Muslims. Everyone knew he was a complete nutjob.

The only ones with a motive to kill him where Russia's enemies - Berezovsky, et. al. - who planned for a tidal wave of anti-Russia press to follow the incident, something that has happened but not as much as they probably wanted.

http://winthrop77.blogspot.com

You gotta wonder what universe they live in that don't understand what happened in the 20th century and the lessons to be drawn. Ohh, not universe but univers-ity is their problem, not mediocrity but media-ocrity. I'm NOT saying that Russia is Nazi Germany, but at the very least Russia is Russia, and Putin is playing at being a proper czar - protect the Orthodox Byzantine (Serbia against Kosovo), play politics with the Levant and Palestine, protect the south from Islamic hordes (sometimes by selling arms to them to use against other enemies), and seek impunity for arbitary treatment of intellectuals and journalists.

Charles, I like your pointed satire -- well said. I am just concerned that some of your targets might be too slow to get it...

(Apologies to Mike) .
The problem is that no one ever before and now understands (GERMAN RACE) soul and spirit. These people will achieve everything they set goals to (TO THEIR FINAL SOLUTION). They have the most educated country and they still producing more graduates every year then any other country in Europe. The ...millions of (GERMAN) people will be on top of the world in no time...Colonial British need to wake up and get their own house in order before pointing to others (IN THE SUDETENLAND). British can’t get over that in (MODERN 30'S) world they are no power, just (A FADING EMPIRE) with many problems

Mike says:

"Colonial British need to wake up and get their own house in order before pointing to others. "

American Observer replies,

Mike, you seem to be confused. The British have not attacked Russia. Instead, Vladimir Putin sent his assassins to the United Kingdom to murder a brave Russian who spoke the truth to Putin's regime; if the British had failed to demand the extradition of the murderer, then the British would have failed their responsibilities as a sovereign nation. There is nothing 'colonial' about Britain's position; on the other hand, Putin actually believes he has the right to murder people on the soil of other nations, and Putin's attitude is Russian colonialism of the most arrogant kind.

I agree with this article. In general the author is correct.
The problem is that no one ever before and now understands Russian people soul and spirit.
These people will achieve everything they set goals to. They have the most educated country and they still producing more graduates every year then any other country in Europe. The 140 millions of Russian people will be on top of the world in no time.
Don’t forget who sent a first man in Space…first Space station and so….
Colonial British need to wake up and get their own house in order before pointing to others. British can’t get over that in today world they are no power, just another country with many problems

To American Observer - Right on!!!

GB wrote:

"yes and how about the fence thats being built by U.S To BLOCK of Mexico is that friendly and responsible?

America Observer replies:

GB, we are building that fence to keep foreigners from entering our country without proper visas. If you think that is peculiar on our part, why don't you try entering Vladimir Putin's Russia without a proper visa, and I guarantee that Vladimir Putin will show you something much harsher than 'la migra...'

GB writes:

"....and Russia actually has educated people that know how to use condoms unlike the other countries."

American Observer replies:

If the Russians are so good with condoms, GB, why is their HIV rate so much higher than ours?

Bashir, I have read your 'essay' twice, and I conclude for a second time that you have failed to make even one accurate or intelligent statement. I could probably ten or twenty pages on your failures of logic, but I have to go to bed, so I will only respond to some of the most obvious errors.

For example, you say:

""Common sense says that Britain could have received more cooperation from Russia on the Alexander Litvinenko case if they had opted for soft diplomacy, friendly persuasion and mutual respect instead of resorting to media hype, diplomatic spectacles and unnecessary provocation."

Bashir, that is childish nonsense. Russia has refused to cooperate with the British on the murder of Alexander Litvinenko for the same reason that Al Capone refused to cooperate with Eliot Ness on the crime problem in Chicago. Alexander Litvinenko died because Vladimir Putin personally ordered his murder, and if the Russians permitted the British to extradite the killer, the killer would implicate his superiors, and the British would then ask for the extradition of those superiors, until finally the British had a list of witnesses who could prove Putin's guilt. That is why the Russians refused to extradite any witnesses to the United Kingdom, and the that refusal is a transparent admission of guilt. If the British asked on their bended knees and sent Kate Moss over with a bouquet of flowers, the Russians would still say no.

Furthermore, Bashir, you claim that Russia:

"....allowed the U.S. to deploy forces to its borders to fight terrorism in Afghanistan, although the real objective was to gain access to the Central Asian countries' oil."

Actually, Russia did not allow any such thing. America sent soldiers to Central Asia because the Afghan government allowed the Queda to use their territory as a springboard from which to murder three thousand people in the middle of our biggest city in the middle of the day, and if the Russians had tried to stop us from sending those forces, we would have kicked Russia's ass so hard that Vladimir Putin would still be crying.

Bashir, you also say:

"Russia also didn't show more than a whimper when the West began converting countries like Ukraine, Georgia and others against Russia under the pretext of spreading democracy, without giving much thought to the long-term impact that the instability in these countries could have on the security of Russia and the whole region."

Excuse me, Bashir? What on earth does the word 'converting' mean in this context? Georgia and Ukraine used to be colonies of Russia, just as Somalia used to be a colony of Italy and the United Kingdom. The people of Georgia and Ukraine converted their own countries to independence and the people of Georgia and Ukraine converted their own countries to democracy, and they are very proud of the conversion and they no interest in being 'converted' back. The people of Georgia and Ukraine are eager to get as far from Russia as they can, and they consider Russia to be the source of instability in their region and in their nation. Tell me, Bashir -- if you think colonialism is a source of 'stability', do you think your own country of Somalia should be given back to the Italian empire, in the name of 'stability?'

Furthermore, Bashir, you said:

" the America went for the jugular by announcing their much-hyped missile defense system, with the intelligence-insulting justification of protecting the U.S. and Europe from missiles coming from the technologically handicapped countries of the Middle East ..."

Bashir, if you know nothing about science or technology, can you ask for help from someone who does? The Russian Federation still has thousands of nuclear warheads which can be delivered by missiles and by airplanes and from submarines, and the missile shield we are proposing cannot stop more than a few dozen warheads. The missile shield we are proposing will be useless against Russia's missiles -- using it would be like trying to catch an entire hailstorm in our bare hands. However, if Iran does manage to make a few dozen nuclear warheads and put them on a few dozen missiles, then the nuclear shield we are proposing will be ideal for stopping the Iranian nuclear threat. That is why we are building it, Bashir, and if my explanation is too complicated for you, then just go ask someone you trust.

Bashir, you also said:

"It was not easy for Russia to lose its traditional friends and arms markets in North Korea, Iran and Iraq ..."

Oh, really? Bashir, have you forgotten that North Korea has no money with which to purchase weapons -- none at all? And have you forgotten that Russia is now selling Iran the nuclear reactors it needs to build nuclear weapons? Obviously Russia has sacrificed nothing at all...

Readers beware!

Regarding US involvement in Afghanistan, Goth writes "although the real objective was to gain access to the Central Asian countries' oil." However, the fact is this country has no oil resources to speak of. His other accusations against the US and interpretations of Russian foreign policy are equally baseless. The UK presented no request for Russia to change its constitution. Parts of Georgia are currently occupied by Russian troops, while Ukraine had its natural gas supplies all but cut in the dead of winter. Is this no more than a "whimper" from the Russian side?

What about the first sentence of the article? What "question" is being answered? Does the Washington Post actually pay Goth to write this?

Arnold seems to not place in context the fact the U.S. is not a First Rate Nation. "irresponsible and obnoxious, and outside the community of nations where rule of law reigns," quote pertaining to Russia which shoe size fit the current administration here in the States. Bashir Goth's insight is worth something. Surely a bit more crafted than your mental design.

"Since the end of the (GREAT WAR) Cold War, (GERMANY) Russia has tried to ingratiate itself with the West, sometimes at the expense of its own pride ... It went along with the West in dismantling (RUHR ARMAMENT FACTORIES) Yugoslavia. ...allowed the (West) U.S. to deploy forces to its borders to fight (COMMUNISM IN THE 20s) terrorism ... (GERMANY) Russia also didn't show more than a whimper when the West (ANGLO FRENCH EMPIRES) began converting (???) countries like (POLAND, HUNGARY, CZECHOSLOVAKIA) Ukraine, Georgia and others against (GERMANY)Russia under the pretext of spreading democracy... It is time for the West to realize that the (GERMANY) Russia of today is not the (GERMANY) Russia of (THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC)Boris Yeltsin's scarecrow, but a real military power with a vast economic wealth at its behest. Treating (NAZI GERMANY) Russia, therefore, with a bit of (LIEBENSRAUM) respect and equality will not only be good for West- (GERMANY)Russia relations but for the (NUCLEAR THREAT!)security and (ENERGY BLACKMAIL) prosperity of the whole world. (This is Charles Lindbergh signing off, saying I was not paid for the foregoing message of peace and justice for Europe)

"its behaviour toward its neighbours completely irresponsible and obnoxious"
yes and how about the fence thats being built by U.S To BLOCK of Mexico is that friendly and responsible?

Is it also responsible when someone declare war on another nation without any reason at all but some idiot gaved false information?

"This is a very silly article. Why should we take seriously a boorish and thuggish country when it is only 140 million people"
Russia is still inside the top 10 Most populated country and Russia actually has educated people that know how to use condoms unlike the other countries.

We in the west need Russia more than they need us. The mentality in the west has been dumbed down since the dissolvement of the Soviet Union. Yes, Gorbachev did a horrible thing to the west-removed themselves as an enemy. Since then we have started eating our own. Stop and Think!

Russia IS a third world country, its behaviour toward its neighbours completely irresponsible and obnoxious, and outside the community of nations where rule of law reigns. Instead we see polonium 215 attacks that endanger thousands of British subjects, attacks on the computer systems of EU members and in general, behaviour appropriate to thugs and recidivists.

This is a very silly article. Why should we take seriously a boorish and thuggish country when it is only 140 million people, when we have to worry about a U.S. with 300 million, and China and India with 1.3 billion each? Why even publish something like this article?

Agree