Article

2004-06-13 Caucasus

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2004-06-13 12:00:00 AM|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I was talking to a Russian emigre the other day at work and he said that Chechens basically live to kill others they feel have slighted them.

He cited his own brother-in-law who is Chechen, lives here in the US, and works to and dreams of going back someday to kill some idiot there that he feels done his family wrong somehow.

My Russian friend's English isn't great but he definitely thinks Chechnya is an insane asylum.

God help us all if the Isamo-nazis take over. They'll have an endless supply of suicide bombers to attack the West.

Posted by JDB 2004-06-13 3:29:34 AM|| 2004-06-13 3:29:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I say give the Russians all the old Soviet/Russian munitions we find in Iraq, with the proviso that they have to use it on Chechens.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-06-13 3:50:56 AM|| 2004-06-13 3:50:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Replace "Chechens" with "Jews" in the posts above, replace "modern Russia" with "30s Germany".

Do the chechens sacrifice and eat Christian children btw?

Hurray for genocide and stuff.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 10:47:50 AM|| 2004-06-13 10:47:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Come on Aris, that was uncalled for.

Posted by Evert V. in NL 2004-06-13 10:49:48 AM|| [http://srv.fotopages.com/?o=935389&t=2] 2004-06-13 10:49:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Evert> People here don't seem to care whether the Chechens in questions are right or wrong, or whether there are some Chechens that are good and some that are bad. They care only about the fact that they are Muslims.

That boy mentioned in the article, did he say anything about wanting to drive the infidels from Chechenya or impose Sharia law or follow the law of the prophet or anything Islamofascistic like that?

No, he said he wants vengeance against the tyrannical government that burst into his house and murdered his father. Quite reasonable IMO.

So, no, I don't find the parallel uncalled for at all.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 11:06:22 AM|| 2004-06-13 11:06:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I would feel sympathy for the Chechens if they hadn't been joined by the Islamofascist movement. As long as they intend to set up another mini-Saudi/Iran terrorist state, I say Fuck em

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-13 11:19:43 AM|| 2004-06-13 11:19:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 agreed, fuck all muslims.
and when they wise up and get tame, don't be fooled, it's just a hudna, keep up the killing

Posted by Dcreeper 2004-06-13 11:30:02 AM|| 2004-06-13 11:30:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Frank> That's a bit like someone saying "I'd feel sympathy for Americans at 9/11 were it not that evil Americans also have sympathy for them" or perhaps "I'd feel bad for the murders of innocent Jews were it not that imperialistic Jews also feel bad about it"

It's the genocidal logic. Kill them all as it will also hurt the bad apples among them.

Evert> Do you still think it was uncalled for, after Dcreeper's comments? Heil mein fuhrer. Chechens, the Jews of today, their lives mattering less than other people's because of their faith.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 11:59:59 AM|| 2004-06-13 11:59:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 their lives mattering less than other people's because of their faith.

Perhaps because their faith explicitly specifies that non-muslims are to be killed nobody is willing to cut them any slack.

There's plenty of similar stuff buried in the Torah and the Bible as well, but it's not the main stream subject of sermons these days, unlike the state / hook-waving-mullah controlled mosques throughout the world.

Posted by Laurence of the Rats 2004-06-13 12:58:42 PM|| [http://www.punictreachery.com/] 2004-06-13 12:58:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 straw man, Aris - If they intend to set up a state that uses terror against their neighbors and ultimately against my country I do not weep at the Cherchen Jihadis dying - hopefully slowly and painfully. Like the US, I can be a good friend....like the US, you wouldn't want me as an enemy

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-13 1:26:03 PM|| 2004-06-13 1:26:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Frank> I won't weep for the Chechen islamofascists either.

I will weep for the Chechen secular democrats however -- the ones who btw, supported the US in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 1:28:21 PM|| 2004-06-13 1:28:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 I read Robert Pelton Young's book, with one section devoted to Chechnya. It is an exceedingly dangerous place, especially for freelancers. Muslim extremists keep the pot boiling, ambushing Russian troops, many of whom are low motivation draftees. When the Russians get boomed, they hit back with a heavy hand. Precision strikes and munitions are not part of the vocabulary. The just plain joes and jane Chechens seem to try to stay out of the way, so there is not alot of cooperation in IDing terrorists that come ones way. I see no hope in Chechnya until the source of funding that keeps the Chechnya pot a-boiling is dried up.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-06-13 1:54:05 PM|| 2004-06-13 1:54:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Aris, I'm no fan of what the Russians have done in Chechnya (if for no other reason than that it's ineffective, as can be seen from the fact that the war is still ongoing), but I think you have to concede at the absolute least that a sizeable chunk of the Chechen "rebels" (i.e. those led by Basayev) have definitely drank their Islamist Kool Aid. Read the interview with Amir Ramzan - they want to set up their own little empire in the Caucasus, which is precisely why Basayev and Khattab invaded Dagestan in 1999 and started this damned war to begin with. Since then, they and the various thugs under their command have fought with no concern whatsoever for human life. Remember all those bombings in Grozny that were killing 50-100 civilians a pop? Who do you think those civilians were? Fellow Chechens in many case.

You once asked why we Western warhawks like Putin so much, at least on this issue. The answer is because the difference between the Chechen Killer Korps under Basayev and al-Qaeda under Binny is basically one of semantics. That's why there were Chechen at Mazar-e-Sharif or Kunduz and why they're now hanging out in northern Pakistan. Similarly, it's the same reason why the late Abu Walid was kin to 3 of the 9/11 hijackers. Nor is this a problem just for Americans, either - it's Basayev's jackboots who are now supervising the training of the next generation of al-Qaeda's Euromob contingent and as soon as they get through larval stage they will come back to Europe to perpetrate terrorist attacks - just as the French, Spanish, and Italian governments have apparently discovered.

Posted by Dan Darling 2004-06-13 2:11:52 PM|| [http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2004-06-13 2:11:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Dan> Basayev's an Islamofascist terrorist, yes.

But he's not the end-all-be-all of the Chechen side of the war.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 2:29:25 PM|| 2004-06-13 2:29:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 I agree. The question then becomes just how separated the only other major rebel leader Maskhadov is from Basayev. For a long time, I was more than willing to buy into the notion that Maskhadov represented the sane Chechen side in the struggle, but when he declared (unless he's since retracted?) that he was setting up his little Supreme Islamic Emirate in the Caucasus he's not an individual that I'm too terribly inclined to trust. Kadyrov (the late Elder and the Younger) are both basically gangsters, Zakayev is likewise a nut, so where exactly does that leave us as far as Chechen leaders are concerned? I guess that's part of my problem on this one.

Posted by Dan Darling 2004-06-13 2:42:47 PM|| [http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2004-06-13 2:42:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 aris - instead of wasting energy badgering us simple americans about chechnya and russia you should be convincing your euro brothers to get some balls and stand up to the bear...in the long run this will be a european problem...20 years from now the world will be based around three poles of power and if the euros do not stand up that european pole will originate in moscow..

the EU needs to get it's collective head out of it's ass.. we will not rush to save them again...so they had better stop whinning about kyoto and american unitlaterlism and do something for thier own security.. they have killed nato and the un..you will be own your own.

but you are right we have no sympathy for muslims and i really do not think this will change.

Posted by Dan 2004-06-13 4:07:44 PM|| 2004-06-13 4:07:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Unfortunately, I think Dan is right: even a President Kerry (PTUI!) would not rush in to save Europe if somehow Europe were to be threatened in the near future. NATO won't work, the UN won't matter, and Euro defense forces, individually and collectively, are in a sad state.

Posted by Steve White 2004-06-13 4:28:02 PM|| 2004-06-13 4:28:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Why else do you think I'd been so furious at UK when it vetoed all plans for a common defense pact in the European constitution, even one that wouldn't be binding towards UK at all?

Because NATO won't work, and the UN won't matter, and currently the Euro defense forces, individually and collectively, are in a sad state.

But back then, I was the only one ranting here with my anger towards the UK for that "red line" of its -- those that replied to me atleast were seeing a European defense pact only as a threat against the USA and NATO, not as something that would actually help DEFEND Europe.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 4:44:08 PM|| 2004-06-13 4:44:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Dan Darling> "that he was setting up his Supreme Islamic Emirate in the Caucasus"

I hadn't heard that -- the constitution in the Chechen government's site atleast still describes a secular democratic government with separation between state and religion. And the word Islam isn't mentioned once.

But I'll look into that.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 4:48:43 PM|| 2004-06-13 4:48:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Why else do you think I'd been so furious at UK when it vetoed all plans for a common defense pact in the European constitution, even one that wouldn't be binding towards UK at all?

Yeah, it's the UK's fault!

They spend more per capita on defense than any other nation in Europe, but it's their fault Europe doesn't have a defense policy or defense forces.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-13 5:04:48 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-06-13 5:04:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 I don't care how ignorant you are. Once again I'm offering a plain fact: Most EU countries wanted a defense policy, Denmark didn't want one and thus chose to opt out but not hinder the other nations, UK didn't want one AND THUS FORBID THE OTHER NATIONS FROM GOING AHEAD WITH IT.

Because it would interfere with NATO or some such crap.

Look it up you idiot.

They spend more per capita on defense than any other nation in Europe

I was about to say that *Greece* spends more per capita on defense than any other nation in Europe, but this page:

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_cap&int=40

told me that Greece comes third, right behind France and Norway.

UK is fourth.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 5:12:19 PM|| 2004-06-13 5:12:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Sometimes, Aris, you're dumb as shit. You're furious at the UK (that'd be continental furious I take it - all bark, no bite - a joke) because the UK actually takes its defence seriously, and doesn't want to get tied to an attempt by our European neighbours to spend even less on defence, and at the same time distance themselves further from the only power that can protect them at all - the US. Moronic anti-Americanism and its compliment, fantasy pan-Europeanism, are the reason NATO, as you say, won't work.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-06-13 5:21:13 PM|| 2004-06-13 5:21:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Ah, here we go: Greece is first in military expenditures in the EU, when counted as a percentage of GDP.

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_gdp&int=40

United Kingdom is even further down in this listing.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 5:21:34 PM|| 2004-06-13 5:21:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Because it would interfere with NATO or some such crap.

Not crap, Aris. It would interfere with NATO.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-06-13 5:23:19 PM|| 2004-06-13 5:23:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Bulldog> Oh, I see: Europe must deal with its own defense because NATO won't work, and NATO won't work because Europe wants to deal with its own defense.

You know you lie when you say it's about UK not wanting to get "tied" to a defense pact. It wouldn't have been tied, the same way that Denmark wouldn't be tied. THEY COULD HAVE CHOSEN TO OPT OUT. Britain could have chosen to deal with it same as it dealt with the EURO, meaning NOT GET INVOLVED BUT NOT STOP THE OTHER NATIONS EITHER.

So stop with your deceptions, you can't have it both ways. Before World War II, France and UK made a pact to defend Poland. Nowadays UK PREVENTS France and all the rest of the nations to make a pact to defend each other in the case of military aggression.

Why? My own guess is that UK is acting like a traitorous backstabbing saboteur that WANTS the Europe Union to be powerless to defend its member states in the face of military aggression. It's the simplest theory that fits all the known FACTS.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 5:28:14 PM|| 2004-06-13 5:28:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Not crap, Aris. It would interfere with NATO.

Really? How so? The simple article in the constitution that'd say that countries could sign onto an agreement to defend each other in the case of military agression -- how would it interfere with NATO? Unless it was a NATO member state itself that was doing the agressing?

I mean, if NATO-member Turkey invaded EU-member Greece or Cyprus, yeah that'd *definitely* interfere with NATO. And it'd be a good thing too. But how would it interfere with NATO otherwise? Put it plainly for me.

Remember -- we are not talking about parallel command structures or whatever. We are talking about a simple article of mutual support that the UK nonetheless opposed even when it wouldn't be binding to it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 5:31:29 PM|| 2004-06-13 5:31:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 My mistake; I was confused by the UK having the only European military worth spit. I should have realized that piss-ant nations can spend a lot of cash, in proportion, without getting much more than a glorified police force.

Nowadays UK PREVENTS France and all the rest of the nations to make a pact to defend each other in the case of military aggression.

Yeah. Sure. It's those damned Brits.

That EU sure looks like a good idea, doesn't it?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-13 5:32:55 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-06-13 5:32:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 And the simplest explanation for your conclusion? Paranoia. Paranoid Anglophobia?

You know as well as I do a European defence force would require the UK's membership to be of any significance. Britain doesn't think a European defence for would be in any way superior to NATO, that's why we object to it.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-06-13 5:35:27 PM|| 2004-06-13 5:35:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 (that'd be continental furious I take it - all bark, no bite - a joke)

Yeah, civilised people don't shoot British officers stationed in Greece when furious at the UK, if that's what you mean. And I'm a civilised person.

How exactly would you have wanted my fury's "bite" to be expressed? My bark is all I have morally available.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 5:36:27 PM|| 2004-06-13 5:36:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 "Greece is first in military expenditures in the EU, when counted as a percentage of GDP."
Too bad the GDP of Greece is only $27.57, leaving the armed forces $12.84.

Gee, for someone who was *"never going to post on RB again"*, Akris Catshit, you sure are prolific and back to arguing unsuccessfully with good, honest RBers over nothing again, too, which is supposedly why you left the other 2-3 times.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-13 5:40:28 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-13 5:40:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Bulldog> Try and dance around the issue, kiddo, but you keep on trying to ignore the simple fact -- the simple statement of the possibility of a mutual support in the case of attack and UK OPPOSED IT.

No need for a parallel structure.
No need for a single defense force.
No need for UK itself to be bound at all. Nothing that would affect UK itself.

And UK opposed it. Because it knew it wouldn't have itself any use for such a treaty, because no country could militarily attack UK unless it first passed through the entirety of Europe. It would only help to make the border nations feel more secure. Countries like Poland, the Baltics, Greece, Cyprus. Such a pact would deal with the threat of a reemerging Russia or a backsliding Turkey.

And UK opposed it. UK opposed it even though it didn't even need to be a part of it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 5:43:57 PM|| 2004-06-13 5:43:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Jen> Only left once, not "2-3 times".

Regretted it as I discovered I couldn't stop myself from replying to rampant idiocy.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 5:45:29 PM|| 2004-06-13 5:45:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Yeah, civilised people don't shoot British officers stationed in Greece when furious at the UK, if that's what you mean. And I'm a civilised person.

And WTF is that supposed to mean? Are you trying to present the actions of Greek murderers as evidence that Greeks can have 'bite'? Scum sucks - it does't bite.

How exactly would you have wanted my fury's "bite" to be expressed? My bark is all I have morally available.

Try not to take things so personally. That'd be a start. Spouting off about your fury at the big, bad, United Kingdom because it pissed on your parade comes across as a bit pathetic.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-06-13 5:48:36 PM|| 2004-06-13 5:48:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 "WTF is that supposed to mean?"

What the fuck was the "all bark no bite" supposed to mean? I saw it as you only seeing strength in feelings when accompanied by violence and murder. Or did it have no meaning at all?

"Spouting off about your fury"

Oh, so it was all about choosing the expression "furious" rather than the expression "mightily pissed off by golly" that got you annoyed? It was merely a lexical dispute?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 5:55:31 PM|| 2004-06-13 5:55:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 I didn't dodge the issue, Aris - such treaties outwith NATO were/are at best redundant. They only serve to diminish the defensive capabilities of Europe by marginalising the US. The US is, to all intents and purposes, Europe's defence guarantor. Got it?

Because it knew it wouldn't have itself any use for such a treaty, because no country could militarily attack UK unless it first passed through the entirety of Europe.

Falklands?

Posted by Bulldog 2004-06-13 5:57:13 PM|| 2004-06-13 5:57:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 I can't see countries like Poland, with a relatively minuscule defense budget, being a part of both NATO and a European defense force. They would have to choose between the US as an ally, and Europe. Considering the substantial anti-American sentiment in Poland, for example, perhaps the latter choice would be better for them.

Posted by Rafael 2004-06-13 5:58:50 PM|| 2004-06-13 5:58:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Bulldog, Thank the Lord that the "special relationship" is better and closer than ever!
I still get goosebumps and cry when I hear Baroness Thatcher's eulogy to President Reagan.
And it was such an honor to us and Reagan that she, the Blairs and Prince Charles came to Reagan's funeral.
Baroness Thatcher may be out of power, but her legacy, like Reagan's, will live forever, and like that other larger-than-life PM in wartime Winston Churchill, she is a colussus in the Free world.
What makes Britain great? God's will and his blessings like Margaret Thatcher (and I suspect the Queen is a pretty great lady, too).
God Save the Queen and the British PM!
And your squaddies are doing a great job in Iraq, too.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-13 5:59:54 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-13 5:59:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Poland is anti-American? Didn't realise that, are you sure about that Rafael?

I suppose if Poland had to choose between NATO and an EU force they'd have to weigh up how both alliances have worked in the past.

Let's see the report cards;
NATO; Kept the peace in Europe for nearly 50 years, resisted the expansion efforts of a highly-militaristic, totalitarian, nuclear-armed foe. Over these 40+ years, vast numbers of American soldiers were stationed at forward bases in Europe to deliberately act as a 'tripwire' that would trigger US intervention in any future war. The US also put it's own cities at risk of nuclear annihilation to protect the cities in Western Europe.

European efforts. Bosnia, Let's stop there shall we?

Cue Aris with the well worn mantra that there's no EU force because the UK won't let the Europeans have one.

Posted by Tony (UK) 2004-06-13 6:12:45 PM|| 2004-06-13 6:12:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Aris - you blame the US and UK for the failure of EU common defense force - what a load of crap. The US has every right to block the EU defense force as it stands. Due to the fact that it would take away from NATO (which as it stands today is still an organization). We are obligated to contribute a certain percantage as are the European members. If the euros were really serious they would either totally disolve NATO (Which the pussie's will not - it is the only institution which keeps America committed to Europe. And they know they need us more than we need them) or put up the monies for NATO and a common EU defense force. But that would entail guns over butter and with the current welfare state of most european countries, politically this is impossible. Not too mention the national/culture instincts which will not allow this (just look at the franco-german brigade). Europe is trully in a sorry state - culturally, politically and militarily. So stop blamming others and take a hard look at your own expendintures (especially Greece - who doens't even want to pay what's needed on the olympics). In this regard your no better than a third world country.

Posted by Dan 2004-06-13 6:14:40 PM|| 2004-06-13 6:14:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 The US is, to all intents and purposes, Europe's defence guarantor. Got it?

Let me quote what some other people have said in this thread:

the EU needs to get it's collective head out of it's ass.. we will not rush to save them again...so they had better stop whinning about kyoto and american unitlaterlism and do something for their own security..

"even a President Kerry (PTUI!) would not rush in to save Europe if somehow Europe were to be threatened in the near future."

So, what is it Bulldog? Can we depend on the USA to save us, in which case I can urge my fellow Greeks to simply abolish our army, we have no need of it? Or can't we so depend on it?

NATO can be ended at a mere word by a US president. He can say the word and NATO's gone. I'd rather not put all my eggs in such a fragile basket. I'd rather put my eggs in several baskets one of which is knit with economical, political and diplomatic ties and whose survival many more people desire and want than the survival of NATO.

Falklands?

Ah, yes, forgot about that. But quite unlikely to occur again.

Rafael> The defense force is a *different* though related issue to the one we're discussing of the simple mutual defense pact, which wouldn't need Poland to offer forces except in the case of an actual attack on a member state.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 6:15:05 PM|| 2004-06-13 6:15:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Tony, Dan> You STILL fail to understand the difference between a simple mutual defense article that says "we will rush to your aid if you are attacked" and a standing defense force that wouldn't actually remove any forces from anywhere.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 6:17:29 PM|| 2004-06-13 6:17:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 Reorder the last post's sentences to say:

You STILL fail to understand the difference between a simple mutual defense article that says "we will rush to your aid if you are attacked" that wouldn't actually remove any forces from anywhere, and a standing defense force.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 6:19:09 PM|| 2004-06-13 6:19:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Jeebus! I thought we were arguin' politix?

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-13 6:21:27 PM|| 2004-06-13 6:21:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Krapsaris, you have *got* to stop drinking a bottle of ouzo and then going out in the midday Greek sun!

NATO is not going to be ended at the "mere word" of an American president!
No American president would speak this "word."
NATO is our baby.
I don't know if the U.S. would defend Greece (I personally wouldn't count on it), but I'd put my money on America way before I would anyone else.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-13 6:21:32 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-13 6:21:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 oops! Tongue-in-cheek! :-)~ lol

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-13 6:22:14 PM|| 2004-06-13 6:22:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 Jen - I think the special relationship is still very much in tact, despite all the popular nonsense that's happened in relation to Iraq. Long may it last! Of course it's an honour to be a such close friend and ally of the US, but it's also frustrating to see so much ignorance and hostility towards the US from other countries, particularly European ones, which have no excuse for such sentiment.

Aris, perhaps your semantics let you down months ago when you wrote something along the lines of: 'I hate, hate, hate the UK.' You meant 'I have occasional cause to feel somewhat upset by, have occasional cause to feel somewhat upset by, have occasional cause to feel somewhat upset by the UK', I suppose?. You've expressed your hatred for the UK enough times now for people to appreciate that your choice of words is fully intentional. Ironic for someone who claims to reject 'nationalism' regarding his own country, don't you think? If you demand I find the link to that quote, I'll do it tomorrow - I'm off now...

Posted by Bulldog 2004-06-13 6:23:49 PM|| 2004-06-13 6:23:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 Raises his adult-beverage to mr Darling.

Brilliant as usual Sir.

Posted by Evert V. in NL 2004-06-13 6:26:01 PM|| [http://srv.fotopages.com/?o=935389&t=2] 2004-06-13 6:26:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 Falklands?

Ah, yes, forgot about that. But quite unlikely to occur again.

BINGO!!!

There's a difference between words and deeds. Teeth, and gums. Myriad treaties, and troopships. All the agreements in Brussels couldn't save Europe's butt from a mosquito bite.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-06-13 6:30:36 PM|| 2004-06-13 6:30:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Poland is anti-American? Didn't realise that, are you sure about that Rafael?

Same situation as in Spain, roughly. About 50% want Polish troops out of Iraq. The current government appears to be unpopular, though perhaps in the same way that Blair is unpopular in the UK: domestic issues play the major role, but Iraq is not far behind.

Poland is also virulently anti-semitic. And of course, that automatically means they are anti-American (by association).

Posted by Rafael 2004-06-13 6:32:24 PM|| 2004-06-13 6:32:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 "perhaps your semantics let you down months ago when you wrote something along the lines of: 'I hate, hate, hate the UK.'"

Well, I pretty much totally despise the role UK's playing in European politics, yeah. The way many people here despise France, except France didn't actually *manage* to prevent USA from doing anything it wanted to do, so the rest of you are hating France on principle, while I'm hating UK on specifics: the UK has managed to prevent lots and lots of things that the rest of the EU has wanted to do.

So I see myself as much more justified.

USA is doing more good in the world than evil, but I'm not at all certain I could say the same about the UK. Not when it wants to let all the smaller eastern nations fully and completely dependant on NATO for their defense.

All the agreements in Brussels couldn't save Europe's butt from a mosquito bite.

All of NATO didn't manage to prevent Cyprus from being divided. But it entered the EU and it also became reunified again.

And had it had some security insurances from UN (which Russia vetoed) or from a EU defense pact (which as I said, UK prevents them to existing) the reunification might have succeeded.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 6:41:27 PM|| 2004-06-13 6:41:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 "almost became reunified again", not "also"

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 6:43:32 PM|| 2004-06-13 6:43:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 There's no dealing with you, Krapsaris, because you're a pro-Turk Greek.
In fact, you take the contrarian position on every issue.
NO U.N. anything could guarantee shit as you should know only too well by now.
They are irrelevant, as President Bush said in October of 2002.

Once again, you've hijacked another Rb thread and about issues that have nothing to do with the subject of the news story.
Congratulations.

Rafael, I wouldn't count Poland out yet--some of them haven't forgotten about being Soviet (and before that Nazi) slaves.
I happened to have seen Lech Welesa paying his respects to President Reagan and there is a stronger element in Poland that is pro-U.S. and pro-Freedom than there is anti-war and certainly larger than the anti-Semites.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-13 6:53:15 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-13 6:53:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Aris - i do understand what a mutual defense pact is. the US does and will committ to it's agreements (as long as they are active- which i do not give NATO more than 10 years)..we have defended europe for 50 years (remember that soviet bear?? or those Greek commies Truman helped you with...short memory??)..the EU needs to understand what it means, thier response after 9-11 invoking article V was pathetic and all showboating. what have they done? they did not go to afganistan until the talibs were gone and still have been pussie's in thier actions there..bickering and holding up mutual action..The Euro's want the cake and the ice-cream. American politics (especially if we are attacked on our homeland again and a continued pathetic EU response) will not tolerate this one-way relationship for decades to come.

Aris you did not read my post - the EU does not have the will to create a true defense force. like i said put up the monies...which is not happening and will not. either dissolve NATO or put up the money for NATO obligations and a true EU defense force with all the capabilities of an army with global reach (so you do not have to depend on us stupid Americans). Which would mean cutting social programs at home - back to the point of political will.

Jen - I would not be so confident about a US and NATO. NATO is on it's last breath....The euro's have effectively killed it..20 years from now there will be no NATO. Unless the EU changes drastically and actually stands side by side with us agaisnt our common enemies. If NATO is soley for European defense it is dead from an American perspective. It will just take a few years for this to sink into our collective concience.

Posted by Dan 2004-06-13 6:57:59 PM|| 2004-06-13 6:57:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 the EU does not have the will to create a true defense force. like i said put up the monies...

Dan, you silly. The EU has far more important priorities, such as implimenting Kyoto, so it can wreck their industrial base before they can spend money on militar...

Oh wait...

That won't work, will it?

With an industrial based wrecked by Kyoto, Eurostan won't be able to make its own military hardware. They will be defenseless. Sorta like what Isamists want.

Sooo, the idea is to blame the UK for the lack of a modern military force, and not the priorities that are actually killing the concept of mutual defense of Eurostan, right, Aris?

Posted by badanov 2004-06-13 7:06:12 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-13 7:06:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 because you're a pro-Turk Greek.

Is that when I spoke about the threat that a backsliding Turkey would pose to Greece and Cyprus? Or when I said that Turkey is not yet ready for the EU?

No, dearie. I'm simply a pro-truth Greek.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 7:08:28 PM|| 2004-06-13 7:08:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 Badanov, you have admitted yourself a troll. Why should I allow you to bait me again? There's no federal taxation in the Eurozone -- UK opposes it even if wouldn't affect UK itself. There's no defense pact -- UK opposes it even if it wouldn't affect UK itself.

Those are facts. Your claims that EU wouldn't have the political will to honour such a pact are just your self-serving non-disprovable hypotheses -- but I've offered you facts instead. Blair's UK has opposed these things.

So the one thing we know for certain is that Blair's *UK* doesn't have the will for such a pact.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 7:14:31 PM|| 2004-06-13 7:14:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 Dan, agreed on NATO.
We've just spent a week lookling back on the fall of the USSR as effected by Reagan, the Great Liberator, which NATO was designed to protect Europe from, so now that the Iron Curtain has fallen, we need to reformulate our European forces and alliances.
And we're redeploying our forces in Germany, so we should deal with NATO.
A new pan-Europe defense force based on the "New Europe" would be more appropriate to the 21st Century.
I imagine we're waiting to see how these EU elections and that EU constitution work out (or don't work out, as will be the case).

"Pro-truth Greek," Krapsaris? You wouldn't know the truth if if bit what I susect is your large, swarthy and pimply Greek ass.
(Ewwwwww. Just grossed myself out!)

Posted by Jen 2004-06-13 7:17:01 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-13 7:17:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 Aris Crapulous, badanov is anything but a troll.

And the UK doesn't want to surrender their many sovereign rights to the EU (Union of Soviet Socialist European Slaves)!
Britain has nothing to gain and eveything to lose by submitting to full enslavement under the EU.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-13 7:21:51 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-13 7:21:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 Jen> Britain has nothing to gain and eveything to lose by submitting to full enslavement under the EU.

I don't want them to submit to anything. I want them to leave the EU and so escape the "enslavement" we want to impose them, etc, etc.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 7:26:57 PM|| 2004-06-13 7:26:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 just what does britian have to gain? besides trade? i would love to hear from our UK friends who post here? comming from a greek it does not hold water for me....

Bandov - now that is funny but true. i am for one am glad we never signed on to kyoto....our economy will never be dictated by a UN gonverning council - at least as long as i can vote!

Posted by Dan 2004-06-13 7:50:49 PM|| 2004-06-13 7:50:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 Aris:

In case you're curious, here is the article in question that describes Maskhadov and his shift from secular democrat to Islamonut. More on that here and here.

Posted by Dan Darling 2004-06-13 7:52:43 PM|| [http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2004-06-13 7:52:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#62
So I see myself as much more justified.

Hypocrite.

See? I knew your hypocrisy would rear its ugly head soon enough.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-13 7:59:04 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-06-13 7:59:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 Robert> I wonder if we have different definitions for what "hypocrisy" is. I thought that hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another, or attacking other people for doing the things you do yourself.

What's *your* definition? Because I've yet to make it fit with anything I did.

Dan Darling> Thanks for the links. Those were before I had discovered Rantburg, and so I hadn't seen those newsitems.

Does sound strange to me. I knew that Maskhadov tolerated Basayev, but I saw it as a marriage of convenience (and desparation) given how all the press releases I've seen coming from his (rebel) government seemed to cultivate a secular democratic profile, which among other things supported the USA against Iraq: http://www.chechnya-mfa.info/more_press.php

As a very minor sidepoint the last link you offered about "using martyrs" doesn't seem necessarily advocation of Islamic terrorism however -- the Japanese Kamikazi pilots weren't terrorists either. It's the target that matters (civilian or military) in determining whether an action is terrorist or not, not whether the attacker booms himself.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 8:15:44 PM|| 2004-06-13 8:15:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 Dan,
Apart from a mountain of regulations from Brussels, not much.

Oh, some people have bought cheap houses in France and Spain.

The UK Independance party has made major strides in the EU elections that we've just had. The UKIP wants us out of the EU and got 18% of the vote (9/11 regions declared). The Tories got 28% of the vote, and they're not too keen on Europe either. That's 46% of the people in this country wanting either nothing to do with Europe or a lot less to do with Europe. You may well get your wish Aris, and it's my fondest desire to give it to you. Then you can fund your ineffectual EU defence force - but you'll need to get rid of the social charter and the 35 hour week (Ok, France will have to do that) and a whole host of other things that bleed the Eurocoffers dry.

We'll just take back our 17.5% VAT (Eurotax) back, get rid of 250,000 EU-inspired regulations and start to motor ahead again. And we'll *still* sell loads of things to Europe, because under WTO rules, the EU won't be able to stop us.

Posted by Tony (UK) 2004-06-13 8:18:42 PM|| 2004-06-13 8:18:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 Tony> You keep on speaking about defense forces, when I'm talking about defense pacts.

Is that intentional on your part?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-13 8:42:23 PM|| 2004-06-13 8:42:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 No, not intentional. The fact remains though, that a defence pact that doesn't include NATO (a tried and tested alliance) would be superfluous.

Rather than create a new defence pact, why not spend more money on countries existing defence forces (and hence the existing pact, ie NATO) and work to change the NATO charter to allow more leeway in how the force is used to address European issues?

Posted by Tony (UK) 2004-06-13 8:53:59 PM|| 2004-06-13 8:53:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 Ah, here we go: Greece is first in military expenditures in the EU, when counted as a percentage of GDP...United Kingdom is even further down in this listing.

That's a bit misleading, Aris. According to World Bank:

Germany 1,984,095 million
United Kingdom 1,566,283 million
France 1,431,278 million
Greece 132,284 million

According to the www.nationmaster.com site you referred to, the United Kingdom spent about 2.3 percent of its GDP on defence, or 31.7 billion, Greece spent about 4.4 percent, or 6.12 billion.

The UK's spending is still five times greater than that of Greece. I didn't look up Germany and France's percentage due to time constraints.

Posted by Pappy 2004-06-13 10:27:04 PM|| 2004-06-13 10:27:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 Pappy> It's not misleading, hopefully everyone knows that UK and France have each more than 5 times the population of Greece. And Germany has more than 8 times the population of Greece.

Per Capita and as percentage of GDP I said, per capita and as percentage of GDP I meant. Using *those* criteria, more is being spent on military by Greece than by the UK, unlike what Robert Crawford claimed who simply guessed (wrongly) UK to be spending more per capita.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-14 8:49:19 AM|| 2004-06-14 8:49:19 AM|| Front Page Top

18:07 Anonymous5892
18:15 Bulldog
12:41 ex-lib
12:40 Anonymous4617
12:13 Ptah
08:49 Aris Katsaris
06:29 Howard UK
05:38 Bulldog
05:22 Howard UK
05:20 Bulldog
05:19 Bulldog
05:19 Howard UK
03:56 Bulldog
00:17 GK
00:16 Zenster
23:51 Zenster
23:39 Zenster
23:27 A Jackson
23:26 Zenster
23:24 Phil Fraering
23:12 Phil Fraering
23:09 B
23:09 jackal
23:03 Fred