Publius Pundit

« Previous · Home · Next »

Six Strikes and Russia is Out of the G-8?

Filed under: Russia

Prague Watchdog reports that Russia has now been convicted for the sixth time in just this year alone for gross human rights violations in Chechnya by the European Court for Human Rights, including numerous acts of state-sponsored murder.

SIX times in ONE YEAR? Whatever happened to the good old "three strikes and you're out"? Russia has far more cases pending before the ECHR than any other nation and, outrageously, is currently taking steps to limit ECHR access by Russians rather than actually changing its behavior justifying the prosecutions.

How is it possible that this barbaric nation holds a veto on the U.N. Security Council and a seat on the G-8 team of elite democracies? How can anyone even think of investing money in this uncivilized dictatorship or of attending the Olympic games there -- right in the very region where all these breathtaking state-sponsored murders are taking place? Speaking of the Olympics, it seems that American IOC voters are the ones that gave Russia the 2014 games, a final outrage by the failed Bush administration that will live in infamy but which, at least, totally refutes any claimed anti-Russian bias in the United States.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Comments


RTLM says:

Kim Zigfeld,
So the US should thrash in anger. Destroy with extreme malice all who despise us. Display clearly the same traits that the failed states that challenge us exercise with regularity. To prove the point of the ancient philosopher who said the last act of a dying super state was to make war at random. Or just boycott another Olympics and shatter the dreams of a new generation of young athletes.

Or don't.

The price of victory is patience. And the answer to barbarism is resilience, pressure and time.


Michael O'Rourke says:

I think the successful Bush administration is doing just fine with the matter.


armchair pessimist says:

Chechnya? Who in hell cares about Chechnya? There's nobody there but terrorists who get their just desserts. Besides, the Russians have every right to crush rebellion, just as we had back in 1861-65. We should all be grateful that the world wasn't such a busybody back then, otherwise General Sherman's March through Georgia might have gotten the USA into a heap of trouble.

I have a bone to pick with Russia over its arming of islamic terrorist Iran, over its use of energy to threaten and intimidate its neighbors, and over its penchant for killing citizens of foreigh states in highly dangerous ways.

The other issues are none of our beeswax.



La Russophobe says:

ARMCHAIR:

That's exactly what lots of people said about the world trade center during 9/11, you know.

If fighting for your freedom from a country that oppresses makes you a terrorist, then George Washington was one. I don't think he was.

Are the little children in Chechnya really terrorists? Like these for instance:

http://www.wfp.org/img/newsroom/Ingushetia/310-2002/643_childrens_0032--Chechny.jpg


Roberto Iza says:

I keep coming back to look at the girl-flag of
Lebanon.


La Russophobe says:

ROBERTO:

Yeah, she's the stuff that dreams are made of.


Aris Katsaris says:

armchair pessimist, if your words were sarcasm, then it's difficult detecting it since there are so many villainous genocidal bastards that actually believe the words you wrote.

We should all be grateful that the world wasn't such a busybody back then,

The world was a "busybody" back then as well. European powers were wavering in favour of recognizing Southern independence (and the reason they did not was Lincoln's declaration of emancipation which switched the moral character of the war in favour of the North.

Were it not for the issue of the slavery I'd be all in favour of Southron independence too.

So, NO, the right to "crush rebellion" is not absolute, unless the rebels are building their new nation on the backs of slaves. If you really think otherwise then you've learned all the wrong lessons from history.


armchair pessimist says:

Aris,

Vilianous genocidal bastards. Well, I'm not sure I qualify for membership in their ranks, but doubtless your definition is broader than mine.

Am I correct that you are in one of the Baltic nations? If so, your doctine that a people and a region can detach itself from the larger nation at will (oh, yes, provided they don't own slaves) is understandable. Silly, mischeivious, but understandable. If Russia hasn't the right to take back Chechnya (as you seem to be saying), a nation that would like to exist, how much less right it has to take back ones that already do exist, such as, perhaps, yours.

But large nations, such as mine, also have their sore points, and Chechnya isn't a purely theorectical subject to us either. It may happen, and pretty soon, that a majority of the population in parts of our Southwest decides it no longer wishes to be part of the USA. I would expect and demand that our government act without delay or pity, hang the ringleaders, break the will of the followers, and if it meant doing a Grozny on Los Angeles or Dallas, so be it. We've done such before.

A variety of motives, some commercial, some spiteful, did incline the European nations towards the South, but an even stronger reason restained them: the North was winning. An honorable exception was, I believe, Russia which was sympathetic to the Union all along. Another reason I have no interest in piling on Russia over Chechnya.

LaR,

"lots of people" say lots of things, and let them. If they can't tell the difference between the attack of a pack of rabid animals and the actions of a legimate and rightful government, recognized as such by all other governments, to assert its sovereignity over its own territory, then "lots of people" need corrective vision for their brains.

And I wish I had a buck everytime I heard George Washington's name invoked to legitimize some homicidal thuggish liberation movement. Hell, I'd take a nickel and still be wealthy.




Aris Katsaris says:

Am I correct that you are in one of the Baltic nations?

No, you're not.

If so, your doctine that a people and a region can detach itself from the larger nation at will

That's not my doctrine. I certainly consider it an open possibility though, in those cases where personal freedom is much more likely to thrive in independence instead of in union, and when a neighboring imperialism isn't the instigator of said "independence movement".

E.g. I've been against Serb Bosnian and Kosovar independendence both, because those were neighbouring imperialisms (Serbian and Albanian respectively), not true independence movements. Likewise opposed to Abkhazia, Southern Ossetia and Transnistrian (cases of Russian imperialism).

All these were nothing but repeats of Sudetenland.

Chechnya however was a case of a true independence movement.

If Russia hasn't the right to take back Chechnya (as you seem to be saying), a nation that would like to exist, how much less right it has to take back ones that already do exist, such as, perhaps, yours.

My nation is Greece. And though the leaderships of all major political parties of Greece are currently subservient to the Kremlin, there's been no call for open annexation as yet, so your attempt at psychoanalyzing me is something of a failure.

and if it meant doing a Grozny on Los Angeles or Dallas, so be it. We've done such before.

People advocating "Groznies" is the sort of people I call evil genocidal bastards. But probably your definition of evil genocidal bastards is much more limited than mine.


Aris Katsaris says:

and the actions of a legimate and rightful government,

LOL!!! This coming from the person that supports the policies of Vladimir "We'll bomb our own apartment to justify the war in Chechnya" Putin.

And I wish I had a buck everytime I heard George Washington's name invoked

LaR used one name to indicate that *not* all liberation movements are wrongful ones. That's proper use of logic. If you say "All Things of Tupe A is Wrong" then showing you a a Thing of Type A that is Right, disproves your argument.

You on the other hand used the example of Civil War to justify all violent oppression of liberation movements. That's a textbook logical fallacy. Saying "This Thing of Type B is Right" in no way proves that All Things of Type B are right.

Learn logic. Learn to use it properly. Please.


armchair pessimist says:

Tell you what. I'll learn logic if you learn manners. My task will be the easier of the two.

But to return to the topic, who is going to evict Russia from the G-8?

Europe? You mentioned that your government is subservient to the Kremlin; is it about oil and gas? No logician, as you've pointed out, I'll jump to the conclusion that practically speaking "the West" no longer exists; it's been Finlandized.

So these threats and blusters against Russia are kind of pathetic. They got you by the b@lls.

As for my country, the US, the sooner we and the Russians wake up to our common enemies and our mutual interests, the better. Right now both are hell bent on blowing this opportunity. (LaR, love your site but hope you'll understand why I;m not buying)

It would require much give and take on both sides. One of the things I'm happy to give is the right to do what they think best inside their own borders. Americans, don't like meddling outsiders either.

Now, whacking their jounalists, leveling their rebellious cities, giving themselvesa KGB Czar, these are bad, bad things, but needn't and shouldn't get in the way of a wise and profitable liaison between our nations.

Now if that makes me a VGB (if I may shorten your boilerplate), too effing bad.


Roberto Iza says:

So many of us are in love with the Lebanese girl. I dream of kissing the cedars on the Lebanese flags on her lovely cheeks.
Thank you for understanding, RP.


Post a comment


(will not be published)



Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)




TrackBack

TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/299