AlienRadar

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...d=1438&lang=en

"Unprecedented levels of activity of the Russian military confirm Moscow’s serious concern with the situation around Iraq. Russian Minister of Defense Sergey Ivanov supported the proposal by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to terminate all preparatory work for ratification of the US-Russian strategic arms reduction treaty. Ivanov denounced the flights of US spy planes near Russian borders and on March 24 Ivanov traveled to the Sarov federal nuclear center (Arzamas-16) to review currently work on the development of new types of nuclear weapons. Commenting on the reasons for his trip to the nuclear center Ivanov said that the current international security system is “literally ripping along the seams.”

Possible meanings:
-Russians will offer to help out in post-war Iraq
-Russians will step in if the US decides to go after Iran next.
-Russians figure pictures on CNN of Russian navy,missile silos and remembering that these guys have enough weapons to destroy the world 1000 times over might give US hawks pause about expanding the war.
-Putin up for re-election soon.Yank bashing and sabre-rattling may score big with Yank-hating voters.
-We are all doomed.

MACSPECTRUM

The Russian bear has awoken from its slumber.

AlienRadar

On a more refreshing note... http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...d=1425&lang=en

MacNutt

The former Red Army is a wasted nub of it's former glorious self. Morale is at an all time low and their gear is now even more out of date than it was when the Soviet Union collapsed a decade ago. Many of the officers aren't being paid...and the regular foot soldiers and pilots are forced to find second jobs to make ends meet.

The US...on the other hand...has not exactly been sitting still while the former Soviet forces rusted away. These days, any sort of contest between them would be NO contest. None at all. The Russians know this. Boy, do they know this.

Not only that....

Russia currently exists largely on loan guarantees and grants from the west. Mostly from the US.

Consequently, any sort of "adventurous activity" by Putin would be instantaneously devastating to the Russian people. What little they have gained would be gone in a thrice...and they would be back to lining up for stale cucumbers. Like they were before the collapse of communism.

And keep in mind that much of the former Soviet war machine's military might is now spread among the countries that they held in their grasp. Places like the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Poland et al, are very much onside with the US. THEY now have a lot of the ships, planes and tanks that used to be a large part of the Red Army. And THEY...more even than the Russian people...are totally committed to not letting Russian leaders get the upper hand again. Ever.

If there were any problem with their former masters, they would be the very first to step in and smack them down. Big time.

And I'll bet there are a few grudges they'd like to settle, as well.

No...Putin and his crew are just trying to cover their complicity in Saddams weapons programs. As is France. these guys...or people in their countries..have been selling illegal gear to Saddam for a long time now. They have also been helping with tactics during the early days of this particular military action. Advising the Iraqis, in the vain hope that the US can be stopped before a total collapse of the current dictatorship can happen.

Because...once it does...there will be a lot of difficult questions that they won't be able to answer without squirming around a bit.

That set of events could cause governments to fall, large companies to go out of business, and perhaps even change the face of the UN. Or even replace it with something more effective. Something that would work.

All of the above is about to happen. It should be quite a ride.

Stay tuned.

MACSPECTRUM

macnutt mused:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...and perhaps even change the face of the UN. Or even replace it with something more effective. Something that would work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The face of the UN is changing. It has become the face of the American eagle.

"You're with us or you're against us."

1. move the UN to the isle of Whyte (sp?) and declare it autonomous international territory
2. any member not paid in full after past due notice of 30 days, loses it vote and does not regain its vote unitl 120 days after account is brought up to date
3. UN military to be composed of coalition of member states under direct control of the UN
4. all offices are swept for "listening devices"
5. member UN countries in good standing give each other preferred trading status and all trade agreements must be honoured at the risk of voting priveleges
6. only the UN can declare war

I have not worked out the logistics of a security council, but I would not allow any one country a veto vote

I have only been working on this for 3 min. so give me some more time to come up with other concrete suggestions

MacNutt

Okay macspectrum...then here's a suggestion for you to ponder while you're reorganising the UN...

How about a NEW UN? One that is only made up ONLY of countries where the actual people of those same countries have a say in their government? No dictatorships or absoloute monarchies, or "Presidents-for-life" thank-you.

Only totally free countries. No exceptions.

That way we'd have a better picture of what those countries really want to do when faced with major world events. One mans ideas...or the feelings of the whole land?

Which one is reality...and which one is a farce?

Want safety from aggression? Open and free trade? Good relations with the richest and most prosperous Nations on earth? An equal say in what the NEW UN does? Where it directs resources? Who to lend money to or bestow aid upon?Whether it makes war or peace?

Want a totally equal say in what direction the vast majority of the world's leading Nations are heading? Want a voice...or want to stand on the sidelines?


Fine. Then hold free and fair elections. Let the people speak for themselves. Let THEM decide.

Once you are a self-determining Nation where every single one of your citizens is guaranteed a voice, and a vote in regularly scheduled elections...then you will be welcomed into the NEW UN.

No one else need apply.

MacDoc

Macnutt democracy is a long process and requires a level of wealth and education that is simply lacking in many emerging economies.
You place too much faith in the process itself - it needs traditions that build up over time and has to come from within with help from other SOVEREIGN nations who respect the sovereignty of ALL nation states.
You profess freedom - that cuts both ways. You believe in the individual having certain rights which the underlying basis for democratic government.
The same applies to sovereign nation states - you may not like it but they are members in equal standing and have the right to determine their own destinies.
In a democracy if a person attacks another then he gives up his self determining rights and the state steps in.
In the world it's the same with nations and the UN steps in .
Government and courts aren't perfect neither is the UN buts it's all we have.
We don't let cops do as they wish without civilian oversight.

Just remember there IS a good reason why the US and it's cultural is so hated and feared in many parts of the world...and disliked in many others.

You gain respect by respecting others and their differences. The US has squandered a lot of political capital by showing disrespect for other nations and cultures.

There needs to be a check on the unilateral projection of US power.....that's what the bigger issue is and it will come to the fore once the main fighting is over.

Lots to read
http://www.ceip.org/files/publicatio...ottaway-FP.asp
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006D87C.htm
http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/enb/enb_home.ASP

__________________
Spring Cleaning Sale email for flyer..sweet prices across the board • Many Retina's, Airs, new iMacs all on sale - great • OWC at par Trades welcome

MACSPECTRUM

macnutt proposed:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> How about a NEW UN? One that is only made up ONLY of countries where the actual people of those same countries have a say in their government? No dictatorships or absoloute monarchies, or "Presidents-for-life" thank-you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, but Canada has to get rid of the Queen as head of state, same for other Commonwealth countries.
UN to oversee voting in "democratic" countries so that leaders are not elected to power by a vote of their politically appointed supreme court justices, 5-4.

Oh, and make sure we get rid of Monaco too.
Doesn't Denmak have a monarchy?

Perhaps time for a global "charter of rights and freedoms" that all countries must abide by to be members of this new UN.

Deal?

MACSPECTRUM

one quick factoid to munch on;
the Bush admin. applied for $75 Billion for the current operations in the war on Iraq.

$50 Billion would have cured world hunger.

Which would have been the better example of democracy in action?

Which would have saved more lives? which action would have help to liberate countries from within by their own people. after all people who are fed now have time to turn their attention to "organizing" instead of scratching out an existence to feed themselves

MacNutt

Okay macspectrum..who caused most of the world hunger? Does it exist in free Nations? If not...then WHY not? Please explain.

Ten years ago the countries of Eastern Europe used to hover on the edge of starvation. Now they are pretty well-fed. What changed? Please explain.

Ten years ago the people of Russia were lined up for hours to buy a few sparse scraps of food from whatever government-run shop was open. They would even line up whenever they SAW a lineup...just to get whatever was available. These days, they have a lot of problems, but food lineups and near starvation are not a part of it. What changed? Please explain.

Ten years ago the people of Zimbabwe were largely well-fed. Now they are starving. What changed? Please explain.

Cuba and North Korea are on the brink of starvation (the latter IS starving, the former is almost there). Both of those countries have enough arable land to feed themselves, a very well educated population, and an industrial base that should provide the sort of prosperity that we currently enjoy.

What change could you make in those two countries that would solve the basic problem of "not enough food"?

Would you recommend more of the same...or a radical change from a failed system? Please explain.

And why are all of the free democracies largely free of this basic problem? And pretty much immune to famine and the variations of weather?

(I recall when, in the early eighties, the Soviet government was still blaming crop failures and food shortages on "damage to the fields from World War Two". FORTY YEARS LATER! When all of the other (free) countries of Europe had recovered, and were basking in wealth and an abundance of food. What a crock!)

So...I just have to ask....

50 billion to "cure world hunger" or 70 billion to remove Saddam. What, exactly, would you be "curing" when you spent that 50 billion?

Would that 50 billion just buy food for some of these poor humans for a year...or would it actually solve the problem and let them stand on their own two feet afterwards? Forevermore...without some dictator screwing up the works and distorting the economy however he pleases?

Think about it.

The dictator certainly doesn't care...he's ALWAYS got enough to eat. He doesn't give a flying f*ck about the people he rules over. As long as he gets what he wants, he's happy. Screw the rest. It doesn't matter. THEY don't matter.

And when that same dictator sends one of his minions to represent his country at the UN, do you suppose that the will of his people even enters into the question when the votes are cast? Do you suppose he even CARES? If so..why? Please explain.

And macspectrum...I think that you have, yet again, managed to misread things with regards to my proposal of "no absoloute monarchs" in the NEW UN.

You say that Canada would be eliminated from membership in the NEW UN because we have a Queen.

In what way is our Queen an "Absoloute Monarch"??!? Does she have any real say in the way that our country is Governed? Is she, somehow, an "absolute monarch"? If so, please explain.

Now.....I can see how having a long-term ruler with sweeping powers and no real scheduled election dates as being a serious detriment to admission in the NEW UN. That is a problem that I expect ALL Canadians to resolve in fairly short order. We really need to address this. It is not indicative of a true democracy, after all.

It's something LIKE one...and we all do get a choice in our government, at some point.

But we're not quite there, when all is said and done. Canada is a near-democracy. We have a vote and a voice...for one single day out of every five years. The rest of the time we are pretty much powerless. No voice. No recourse. No way to really affect the government that a regional minority of us elected so many years ago.

Same goes for Denmark. Certainly for Monaco. And for several other countries.

Close to democracy. Very close. But no cigar.

The NEW UN would not be made up of countries who do not have total democracy. Close is not good enough. It would only get you "probation", or "potential member" status.

Want to join the club? As a voting member? Fine, become a real democracy. Let every one of your people vote in regularly scheduled elections without any coercion or repurcussions. Let them have their say...no matter what their background or religion or whatever. At a regular date. And let the whole world observe this process, up close and personal.

No exceptions.

THEN we'd have a real, and very effective UN. One that represents the thoughts and wishes of EVERY person in EVERY Nation that was a member.

And THAT might actually work, for a change.

A real force for peace and prosperity in the world. A valid group who were all on the same page.

What a difference THAT would be!