Lash wrote:
Fanatics, particularly fanatical leftists, don't have a clue as to the reality of what's going on in Iraq. But, don't concern yourself. They won't be in charge of anything any time soon.
Are you talking about the "reality" that Brandon and McG speak of?
Please tell me they're right, and that the situation is getting better.
You always seem have the best sources for this kind of thing.
candidone1 wrote:Lash wrote:Its hilarious that you think you can get away with such a broad statement.
And, as Democracy breaks out all over the ME, the Dems are the ones with bags over their heads. It is a shame that their party puts them at opposition with Democracy, freedom, and success.
You've derailed the debate Lash, but I greatly respect your opinions irrespective of mine.
Explain to me how the Dems are against democracy, freedom and success...without discussing the contempt the left has for the right, and vice-versa.
Do the Dems wish to impose non-democratic rule in the US, infringe upon the freedoms of individuals, or somehow harness individual or group success?...or is this a statement simply opposing the left's opposition to the Bush administration's version of force fed democracy, Patriot Act-esque "freedoms",....and their, uhhhh, successes...where??
I thought I was following the natural progression of this thread. If you don't think it belongs here per your derailing comment, I won't pursue it here.
One of us should start a thread on this subject, though.
Lash wrote:candidone1 wrote:Lash wrote:Its hilarious that you think you can get away with such a broad statement.
And, as Democracy breaks out all over the ME, the Dems are the ones with bags over their heads. It is a shame that their party puts them at opposition with Democracy, freedom, and success.
You've derailed the debate Lash, but I greatly respect your opinions irrespective of mine.
Explain to me how the Dems are against democracy, freedom and success...without discussing the contempt the left has for the right, and vice-versa.
Do the Dems wish to impose non-democratic rule in the US, infringe upon the freedoms of individuals, or somehow harness individual or group success?...or is this a statement simply opposing the left's opposition to the Bush administration's version of force fed democracy, Patriot Act-esque "freedoms",....and their, uhhhh, successes...where??
I thought I was following the natural progression of this thread. If you don't think it belongs here per your derailing comment, I won't pursue it here.
One of us should start a thread on this subject, though.
I wouldn't ask for further comment if I didn't mean it.
A derailed thread is not the end of the world, nor an A2K first.
Very well. It's 2AM.
Tomorrow evening.
12:30am for me.
Good night. I needed an "out".
Re: Iraqi Insurgents spike in April '05
Setanta wrote:candidone1 wrote:As the month of April 2005 came to a close, it was reported that the insurgency in Iraq reached a new peak. With violence neither decreasing nor stabilizing, what do you make of the insurgents?
Is there even a glimmer of admiration for these individuals who are sacrificing themselves on an hourly basis to resist an occupation they deem so patently wrong, or are they just written off by the masses as lunatics impeding the process of the inevitable?
I believe that the insurgency currently depends upon Sunnis, many or most of whom are likely to have been Ba'atists with a stake in Hussein's government, and depends upon foreign recruits. So many right-wing ranters went on and on at the beginning of this war about it being better to fight "the terrorists" there than here. But that was self-fulfilling prophecy. Absent the war, those people were not welcome in Hussein's Iraq--espeically not Bin Laden, who, as a Wahabbi, was a member of despised and persecuted religious lunatic fringe in a resolutely secular state. However, the insurgency has created an opportunity for those who wish to kill Americans to get a shot at it. The Kurds have no stake in an insurgency. The Shi'ites, in the main, have no stake in an insurgency (with the caveat that opportunists from minority Shi'ite sects are not above using such violence as a tool of self-promotion). The odds are very good that those members of the Sunni Arab population who were from marginalized minority tribes would like to have a part in governing Iraq, which can only come about when the insurgency is brought under some kind of control. Certainly the Kurds (who are a blend of Sunni, Shi'ite, Christian and Animist--the latter being observed more in the breach--they are mainly Sunni) have nothing to gain and much to lose from an unstable Iraq. The Shi'ites have the most to gain from a stable Iraq, and the most to lose from a successful toppling of the government by insurgents.
I doubt that the Iraqis "write off" the insurgents as lunatics. Being native speakers of Arabic, they recognize the foreigners immediately--they know better than we can ever hope to the extent to which their nation has been infiltrated. They also understand the political equation of Iraq, a tortured and complex equation. Americans, and particularly fanatical right-wing Americans, are largely clueless about factors which must be combined to produce a stable government there. The Iraqis are all to well aware of the complexity of the issues, and the degree of difficulty in acheiving stability and peace. Certainly many of those participating in the insurgency are truly unhinged, and truly terrorists. However, a great many are simply venal, brutal and murderous thugs on the make, hoping to seize the main chance in the chaos which is Iraq today.
This makes a lot of logical sense, thanks Setanta.
Unfortunately it is sad because now it seems the Islamic fighters will always(however to phrase it) have a stake in always making Iraq a failure and the Ba'atists will always have a reason to fight with them. Unless they are given more position and power than they currently have. I can't see the Shiite's doing that and personally I don't blame them. But even without the Ba'atists, the foreign fighters will still always fight to make the new Iraq a failure. (I would think)I think it is matter of pride or something now.
I would like to point out that both the fighters, and the Iraqi police are "Islamic." The Shi'ites are Islamic--Islam has many sects, just as does christianity. And just as history had demonstrated a willingness on the part of christians to slaughter one another, so Muslims will slaughter one another. The right in America will claim that Muslims hate us because we stand for freedom and democracy. However, the rest of the world does not necessarily see it that way. It is not entirely certain that the Shrub and company are out to establish freedom and democracy. Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rummy are all founding members of the Project for a New American Century, and one of the stated goals of that organization is to establish military bases in southwest Asia. Iraq is in southwest Asia. Very likely, yes, fanatics will continue to attack. They are more likely doing this, however, because of hatred for the Americans, and will very likely continue to do so if we establish military bases in Iraq. There is a great divide between American perceptions of our role there, and the intentions of the PNAC. I doubt that most Americans think that we intend to stay there, but if the PNAC agenda is implemented, we would have permanent military bases in the region. If that becomes a reality, you can bet your bottom dollar that extremists will be drawn there like flies. I hate to think of it, but i really rather doubt that peace and democracy are about to suddenly break out in the Middle East. That would be a good thing, but i consider the contention that this is the case to be wishful thinking.
I misspoke referring to the fighters as Islamic as though everyone else is not Islamic.
Otherwise I understand what you are saying and I agree.
Have you read about the protest in Afghanistan? It seems that some thought it would be good idea to put the Koran on toilet seats and now there is a big protest about it. Also they are concerned because it seems that we are never getting out Afghanistan.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4998238,00.html
Haven't you people figured out what a bad situation this is yet? Iraq is on the brink of a civil war, seriously.
Look at it this way.
The people of Iraq need to have confidence in their gov't in order to make the place work.
This cannot happen as long as the gov't supports the Occupation, which a vast majority of Iraqis of all sects are against.
But the gov't can't ask the Americans to leave, because the simple fact is that they wouldn't last a week without our protection. I don't know if you've kept up with what's happening in Iraq these days, but the place is a nightmare; we control the Green Zone and some military bases, but that's about it.
The 150k soldiers and policemen of Iraq are, shall we say, of questionable loyalty. Many of them desert or defect to the side of the insurgents. While I admire the actions of those who stick it out, it would be folly to rely upon these people to secure Iraq from the terrorists.
SO, the gov't is inbetween a rock and a hard place. They can't ask us to leave. They can't get legitimacy while we stay, in the minds of the people. And the insurgency grows stronger and stronger with every month that passes.
It must be frustrating as hell for the US troops, because they just can't get a stand-up fight with these guys. Even when we attacked Fallujah, and the border attacks they are running right now (did you know that major combat is STILL going on in Iraq?) the enemy just melts away into a populace that supports them to a certain degree.
The situation has the potential to spike into a civil war at any time. The death toll over the last two weeks is something like 700 people dead, worse than it has been in a loooooong time.
And if Civil war does happen, expect the whole region to blow up; after all, the Iranians aren't going to just sit around and watch the Shiite's get kicked around in Iraq; and the Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptians aren't just going to sit around and watch the Sunnis get massacred. Imagine.
Cycloptichorn
Quote:Candidone asked:
Explain to me how the Dems are against democracy, freedom and success...without discussing the contempt the left has for the right, and vice-versa.
You made the mistake of re-stating my words incorrectly. I said:
It is a shame that their party puts them at opposition with Democracy, freedom, and success.
Quote:Candidone said:
Do the Dems wish to impose non-democratic rule in the US, infringe upon the freedoms of individuals, or somehow harness individual or group success?...or is this a statement simply opposing the left's opposition to the Bush administration's version of force fed democracy, Patriot Act-esque "freedoms",....and their, uhhhh, successes...where??
Progress in Iraq. Rather than supporting it, the Democrats--most-- try to downplay the significance of the historic elections, and prefer to trot out the bad news and ignore the positive. Bush aided Georgia, and the Ukraine, which have held historic elections. Democrats: Nothin.
Sharon has practically given away his first born, under the guidance and counsel of George Bush. Democrats: Nothin.
Lebanon has thrown Syria out, and the Bush administration's actions and rhetoric are largely responsible. Democrats: Nothin.
Saudi has had historic elections largely due to the foreign policy genius of George W. Bush. Democrats: Nothin.
Egypt is having to bend to pressure to hold elections because of the rise of Democracy--which was led by George W. Bush....
The world is evolving rapidly, and the Democrats are standing around with their eyes shielded, afraid they will have to face what is happening around them.
His policy is working shockingly rapidly. He has changed the world for the better. You are all still trying to criticize him because it's not
fast enough.
You are on the side that opposes the spread of Democracy, and the incredible success that is building across Eastern European countries and the Middle East.
Where is the rejoicing at the advances of Middle Eastern women?
It's not cool to be free if you were freed by a Republican.
A biased source, but the facts are correct, and the reasoning, IMO, is sound.
---------
Can Bush Take Credit For
Middle East Democracy Movements?
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
By Andrew Tully
The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush this week touted Washington's role in the recent wave of democracy movements in Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East. On March 28, the State Department issued its annual report on such efforts, and on March 29, Bush made a speech in which he said Iraq serves as an example of democratic reform to its neighbors. How much credit does Bush deserve for the recent efforts toward democracy?
WASHINGTON (RFE/RL) - In a brief speech at the White House, President George W. Bush called the January 30 parliamentary elections in Iraq a model for other states in the Middle East.
"By claiming their own freedom, the Iraqis are transforming the region, and they're doing it by example and inspiration, rather than by conquest and domination," Bush said. "The free people of Iraq are now doing what Saddam Hussein never could -- making Iraq a positive example for the entire Middle East."
Bush's statements came as not only Iraqis but also the Palestinians have held elections, and when Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is proposing competitive presidential elections. And many Lebanese are demanding the withdrawal of Syrian forces before elections in May so they can take full control of their own political destiny.
"I think a lot of what we've seen lately wouldn't have happened if President Bush hadn't got out in front in calling for democratic reforms in the Middle East."
James Phillips, Heritage Foundation.
Bush's speech came one day after the State Department released a major human rights and democracy report. It says the U.S. government has promoted freedom in the Middle East and elsewhere with persuasion and sometimes sanctions to help improve the records of some countries.
Bush's remarks certainly could be seen as a way to prod the Iraqi parliament into action. Lawmakers in Baghdad have been stalled in their effort to choose a speaker -- something they must accomplish before they can begin drafting a constitution.
But Bush also was speaking with evident pride in helping establish -- albeit through war -- democratic institutions in a country that for three decades operated under Saddam Hussein's authoritarian rule. And his words strongly suggest that Iraq has influenced calls for democracy elsewhere in the Middle East.
Can Bush take this credit?
Unequivocally yes, according to James Phillips, who specializes in foreign policy and security issues at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy-research institute in Washington.
Phillips tells RFE/RL that even before the war in Iraq, Bush was urging democratic reforms in the Palestinian Authority -- reforms that weren't realized until the death of its president, Yasser Arafat. Now, Phillips says, it is up to the Palestinians and the Iraqis to follow up on those elections by establishing democratic institutions.
"I think the Bush administration deserves some credit for what's going on, although ultimately it's the responsibility of the people in the Middle East to build democracy," Phillips says. "But I think a lot of what we've seen lately wouldn't have happened if President Bush hadn't got out in front in calling for democratic reforms in the Middle East."
Phillips acknowledges that Bush didn't invent the idea of democracy in the region. And he says that despite all the work the State Department has done to nurture democratic movements, the people of the Middle East were influenced most by televised coverage of the Iraqis defying threats of violence to vote.
Murhaf Jouejati agrees. Jouejati -- a native of Syria -- is a regional specialist at the Middle East Institute, another private Washington think tank. He says that long before Bush became U.S. president in 2001, the people of the region were demanding reforms, if not democracy.
Jouejati told RFE/RL that Bush can't claim all the credit for the democracy movements in the Middle East. For example, he says, when Bashar Assad assumed the presidency of Syria nearly a year before Bush was inaugurated, he quickly undertook economic and administrative reforms and -- to a lesser extent -- political reforms.
But like Phillips, Jouejati points to the compelling television footage -- not only of Iraqis voting but also of Ukrainians demanding the nullification of a rigged election.
"Certainly, some of the images that people in the area saw were powerful images: the images of Iraqis voting even as they were in the midst of violence; the images of Palestinians voting. With regard to Lebanon, the 'Cedar Revolution' that is taking place, I think is largely the product of emulating what happened in Ukraine and the power of satellite television."
After viewing such compelling television, Jouejati says, the people of the Middle East cannot turn away from their demands for self-determination. If Bush wants to take at least some credit for this, he says, then so be it.
Lash you are entitled to an opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts...
OK.. lets take this one at a time..
Quote:Progress in Iraq. Rather than supporting it, the Democrats--most-- try to downplay the significance of the historic elections, and prefer to trot out the bad news and ignore the positive. Bush aided Georgia, and the Ukraine, which have held historic elections. Democrats: Nothin.
Provide any evidence of one thing Bush did to aid Georgia or Ukraine. We anxiously await your supporting evidence.
I thought it was common knowledge. Bush and US corporations funnelled millions (if not more) to Kuschenko in the Ukraine and to the Rose Revolution in Georgia. He's doing the same in Iran, and likely several other places.
The Orange and Rose Revolutions very likely wouldn't have occurred had it not been for the money--and rhetorical support Bush provided.
-----------
Parados, you must not have read this link.
Edited to help parados see what he/she must not want to read.
I tried to bring the link, but I found it in my school's online library, and the link wouldn't connect.
It's from US News and World Report.
The pertinent excerpt--
MINSK, BELARUS--The moment seemed ripe for revolution. Rose-laden protesters in Georgia had ousted leader Eduard Shevardnadze; mass public demonstrations had brought an opposition democrat to power in neighboring Ukraine; even the small republic of Kirgizstan had dumped its autocratic government. So why not my country, wondered Aliaksandr Atroshchankau, as he joined a pro-democracy demonstration in front of this capital's Republican Palace recently.
He soon had the answer: The thousand or so protesters who bothered to show up were scattered by police; the organizers were roughed up and tossed behind bars; state-run television stations barely acknowledged the incident. "Everyone is moving forward, and we're going back, back to the U.S.S.R.," said Atroshchankau, 24, whose political activities got him expelled from the university in Minsk. "Revolution can't happen just because you want it to."
Maybe not, but calling for a political transformation in Belarus has become a hallmark of President Bush's international campaign for democracy--a theme he is addressing during this week's visits to Russia and Georgia. The Bush administration decries this former Soviet republic, a nation of 10 million, as an "outpost of tyranny" --and denounces its leader, President Alexander Lukashenko, for running the "last remaining dictatorship in Europe." Unlike its erstwhile Soviet brother Ukraine, though, Belarus may not be ready to overthrow its leader, whose archaic regime and centrally planned economy are best described as "Soviet lite." Still, change seems inevitable--the question is, how and how soon? "Lukashenko is a powerful individual as a politician, and the economy has not collapsed," says a senior western diplomat in Minsk. "What will set people off in feeling that a change needs to be made is hard to judge."
Beneath the veneer of a crime-free society and nascent market forces is a corrupt system of tight control and limited personal freedoms. It may not be tyranny--opposition figures still distribute anti-Lukashenko literature, and a handful of independent papers criticize the president--but it does smell of dictatorship. In fact, Belarus is the only post-Soviet state where the secret police continue to be called the KGB. "The Belarussian opposition operates under the harshest circumstances, and the regime is only becoming more and more oppressive," says Anatoly Lebedko, an opposition figure with the centrist United Civic Party. On the wall behind him hang framed photographs of six political dissidents who disappeared or were arrested in the months leading up to Lukashenko's re-election, four years ago. "If we can break the information blockade," Lebedko says, "then we can win."
(I just bolded that, because I think it's the key to the Middle East, as well.)
It may take more than that to claim victory at the polls next year, when Lukashenko will run for a third term. The opposition remains weak and divided. At a recent gathering in neighboring Lithuania, a frustrated American expert working with the opposition candidates played the Elvis Presley hit with the lyrics "A little less conversation, a little more action please" and told the candidates, "It's going to be the theme song for all of you."
...
"Total control." While Belarus lacks the level of paranoia characteristic of Soviet rule, there is a culture of fear, enforced by a bureaucracy with far-reaching tentacles. "There will always be a rule you will break, there will always be a way to punish you, and this way you'll always have something to lose: your money, your job, your life," says attorney Vitali Braginets. At least 80 percent of the Belarussian economy is centrally planned, and what little private business is permitted is heavily regulated and taxed. The laws and regulations change practically daily. "We have a joke in Belarus," Braginets says, "that psycho asylums have a separate room just for accountants and lawyers."
...
Last year, Lukashenko pushed a law through the puppet parliament requiring that all government jobs be reviewed and renewed annually. "As soon as a person complains about what's going on, he loses his contract, and this is done publicly in order to instill fear in others," says a leading pro-western opposition figure, Sergey Kalyakin of the Party of Communists of Belarus. "And this system will be sustainable as long as fear trumps people's desire to change the situation."
...
What will bring change to Belarus is evolution of civil society and grass-roots democracy, say western diplomats. While Washington uses highly charged language to describe the current political scene--words like tyranny, dictatorship, and outrage--the amount of overt U.S. government spending for democracy-building projects in Belarus is relatively modest, roughly $7 million a year. This money goes to groups like the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, which have been banned from Belarus by Lukashenko and so conduct operations from neighboring countries. Rather than give money directly to the opposition, which has been accused of squandering U.S. aid, these groups use the funding for a range of activities from teaching aspiring politicians how to run effective campaigns to paying for their gas when they drive out to the villages to spread their message.
...
For Belarus's western neighbors, the change can't come fast enough. The Baltic nations--Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, which joined the European Union last May--boast some of the fastest-growing economies in the world and need Belarus for both its disposable income and its cheap labor force. "It is in our national interest to have a neighbor which is democratic," says the Lithuanian ambassador to Washington, Vygaudas Usackas. "It is an immediate market of 10 million consumers."
-----------
Putin and pals accuse of of exporting Democracy, and they are correct.
I'm beginning to think you weren't actually anxiously anticipating my sources....
<disillusioned>
I tracked this down because of your snippy comments on the other thread.
So.. lets look at your proof.
I stated -
Quote:Provide any evidence of one thing Bush did to aid Georgia or Ukraine. We anxiously await your supporting evidence.
You provided a very nice article on Belarus but not a single mention of any money going to Ukraine or Georgia in that article.
So much for me running away after you provided proof. I am still waiting for your evidence. :wink:
The ultimate sacrifice
Islam, like Christianity, does not condone suicide. Members of both religions generally view suicide as selfish and against religious teachings. However, insurgents have reframed the act as a sacrifice for their people or as a service to Allah in the war against infidels. This follows a basic psychological principle that the meaning we attach to any event depends on the words used to evaluate it.
When working with clients, therapists often reframe something that the client is doing to put a more positive spin on it. For example, the client is unhappy because he keeps telling himself he "needs" to or "must" do something and feels guilty or depressed when he doesn't do it. The therapist reframes it for the client as you "want to" or "would like to" do something, which takes some pressure off.
We saw a fair amount of reframing in the recent election. John Kerry was labeled wishy-washy by Republicans and open-minded and flexible by Democrats. George W. Bush was seen as rigid by Democrats and firm by Republicans.
Recruits join the insurgents for a combination of reasons: anger, revenge, hopelessness, to be significant to a group, for the money their family will receive on their death, to make a contribution to their group's freedom. We need to keep in mind that these are not individually motivated attacks but occur in the context of social political issues. The individual belongs to a group that needs - would like - someone to become a smart bomb.
What lowers a person's strong will to live? What arguments can be used to break the religious restrictions against suicide? The way it is framed makes a big difference.
● We label suicide as an act against religious principles; they label the sacrifice of their life as part of a holy jihad for which they will be honored in heaven.
● We label ourselves as bringing democracy to the region; they label us as invaders destroying their country to control oil supplies.
● We label ourselves as Christians wanting to improve other people's lives; they label us as infidels who want to destroy their religion.
● We label their attacks as psychotic; they label their attacks as a form of religion-supported retaliation for crimes committed against them.
On this last point, an example of the way attacks on Americans are framed is this quote from one of the masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks: "God said to assault whoever assaults you, in a like manner.
In killing Americans who are ordinarily off limits, Muslims may not exceed 4 million noncombatants or render more than 10 million of them homeless. We should avoid this, to make sure the penalty is no more than reciprocal. God knows what is best."
Fortunately, these ways of labeling what is happening do not apply to the majority of Muslims, but as is obvious from the news, the numbers who do believe are large enough that we are going to continue to have a major problem in Iraq.
source
The US funds Revolutions--
Parados--read and learn something. I've done more than my share in your education.
Russia Accuses Foreign Agencies of Spying
New York Times
MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's security chief accused U.S. and other foreign intelligence services Thursday of using non-governmental organizations that promote democracy to spy on Russia and bring about political upheaval in former Soviet republics.
The remarks by an ally of President Vladimir Putin reflect concern in the Kremlin over its waning regional clout following the ascent of pro-Western governments on its borders.
"Along with classic forms of influence on political and economic processes, foreign intelligence agencies are ever more actively using non-traditional methods," including working through "various non-governmental organizations," Federal Security Service chief Nikolai Patrushev told lawmakers.
"Under cover of implementing humanitarian and educational programs in Russian regions, they lobby the interests of the states in question and gather classified information on a broad spectrum of issues," he said.
Patrushev reiterated claims by Russian officials who have accused the United States and other Western nations of using government-funded groups to aid opposition forces that have brought down governments in former Soviet republics in the past two years.
Groups Patrushev accused of involvement in espionage -- including the Peace Corps -- denied the allegations. And White House press secretary Scott McClellan said he was not aware of the accusations by Russia's security chief. "I have not seen those comments and I have no idea what he is referring to," McClellan said.
Just this week, President Bush visited Georgia, site of the 2003 Rose Revolution -- first of the uprisings against entrenched leaders in ex-Soviet republics that later spread to Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. On Monday, Bush stood beside Putin in Red Square for a ceremony marking the 60th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany.
"Our opponents are steadily and persistently trying to weaken Russian influence in the Commonwealth of Independent States and the international arena as a whole," Patrushev said. "The latest events in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan unambiguously confirm this."
With Bush joining domestic critics who question Putin's tightened control over electoral processes in Russia and pointedly advocating democracy in visits to Russia's neighbors, the Kremlin is sensitive about foreign influence as elections approach in 2007 and 2008.
Russian politicians have claimed that U.S. government money, funneled through NGOs that promote democracy, was a major force behind the protests that swept Western-leaning opposition leaders to power in Georgia and Ukraine, and was also a factor in Kyrgyzstan.
U.S. officials say the programs of American groups -- whose activities include providing election training, underwriting exit polls and supporting independent media -- are not interference, but acknowledge that some of the money has helped opposition groups.
Patrushev suggested Russia believes the next Western target is Moscow ally Belarus, where U.S. officials have not masked their disgust at authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko. Bush has called Belarus the last dictatorship in Europe, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said it was time for a change in the country, where a presidential election is to be held next year.
Patrushev said the International Republican Institute, a group that promotes democracy and gets most of its money from the U.S. government, held a meeting in Slovakia last month during which "the possibility of continuing 'velvet revolutions' on the post-Soviet space was discussed." He also claimed $5 million was earmarked for IRI funding of opposition groups in Belarus this year.
IRI spokeswoman Lisa Gates said in Washington that the organization spends about $500,000 annually on programs in Belarus and that none of it goes to political parties. She said the IRI's Eurasia division had held a staff retreat in Slovakia and discussed "program initiatives."
The IRI received $25.9 million in 2003 to encourage democracy in Ukraine and more than 50 other countries.
Patrushev said his agency, which is known by its Russian acronym FSB and is the main successor to the Soviet KGB, "has prevented a series of espionage operations carried out through foreign non-governmental organizations."
He said the groups included the Peace Corps -- which pulled out of Russia in 2003 amid FSB spying allegations -- as well as the British medical charity Merlin, the "Saudi Red Crescent" and a Kuwaiti group he called the Society of Social Reforms.
In Washington, Peace Corps spokeswoman Barbara Daly dismissed Patrushev's charges as "completely baseless" and untrue. She said 700 volunteers served in Russia since the program was started in 1993, mainly as teachers of English and business education.
A spokeswoman for Merlin in London said the group denied any involvement in espionage. She said Merlin had worked in Russia since 1996, fighting tuberculosis.
Although the FSB routinely claims to have uncovered spying by foreign countries, including the United States, Patrushev's comments underline the wariness of foreigners among Russian security officials who have gained influence under Putin -- a longtime KGB officer and former FSB chief.
It was the latest remark from a top official assailing civil society groups in Russia, which Putin criticized last year as often being more interested in foreign funding than in helping Russians. Patrushev called for tighter legislation governing NGOs, saying current laws were insufficient to stem foreign NGO activity "that damages the security of our country."
Russian security services have long expressed alarm over U.S. NGOs, and Moscow has frequently expelled foreigners considered a threat to the nation, including missionaries and Peace Corps volunteers. Patrushev accused Peace Corps volunteers of spying in 2002, and that year Russia refused to extend volunteers' visas or issue new ones -- forcing the program to shut down.
Here is the entire article you linked to Lash.. Again.. NO mention of any aid by Bush to Ukraine or Georgia. Georgia isn't even mentioned.
Seems you have a pattern of presenting things and hoping that someone doesn't read them because they don't really say what you claim they do. Or perhaps you never read them to begin with. I can only guess as to why you presented this as evidence.
Quote:Bush and Putin: Strains Are Showing
While both governments are expected to remain pragmatic on a number of issues, their diverging visions could become the real problem
When U.S. President George W. Bush meets Russian President Vladimir V. Putin at a summit in Bratislava, Slovakia, on Feb. 24, the spotlight will be on a relationship that has reached its lowest ebb since both leaders were first elected in 2000. The two Presidents will try hard to downplay tensions on such issues as the dismantling of oil company Yukos. And they'll reaffirm their mutual support for the global war on terrorism. But it's an open question whether Russia and the U.S. can halt the dramatic slide in their relations.
Nothing has damaged that relationship more than the recent crisis over Ukraine's presidential election. The fight over the rightful winner and the weeks of street protests that led to an opposition victory has unleashed a torrent of anti-Western rhetoric in Russia. Pro-Kremlin politicians accused the U.S. of "exporting revolution."
What's important, however, is that the Ukraine controversy underscored just how differently Moscow and Washington view the world. While both governments will stay pragmatic on a variety of issues, that divergence in vision could be the real problem in the Bush-Putin relationship going forward.
"OUTPOST OF TYRANNY." It's a clash between realpolitik and Bush's growing idealism. Putin seems wedded to traditional sphere-of-influence politics. He regards Western interference in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the group of ex-Soviet nations that lie in Russia's backyard, with suspicion and resentment. He also seems to underestimate the role of "values" in Bush's foreign policy.
"If you read President Bush's inaugural address, [democracy] looks like a pretty damned big priority," says Andrew C. Kuchins, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, a U.S.-funded think tank in Moscow. "There's a misunderstanding of U.S. politics," he adds.
Bush and his team, on the other hand, see no regional limits on American support for Western interests and values. And they're emphasizing values more than ever in the second term. The Kremlin was outraged, analysts say, when then Secretary of State nominee Condoleezza Rice called Russia's neighbor and ally, Belarus, an "outpost of tyranny" in her confirmation hearings. Belarus President Alexander Lukaschenko is considered one of Europe's last dictators. "Bush wanted to send a message to Putin about [Russia's] support for the Belarus regime," says Alex Brideau, a Russia analyst at Eurasia Group, a New York think tank.
These competing visions could cause more tensions between Moscow and Washington -o particularly if the U.S. supports pro-democracy movements in other CIS countries. Russia typically backs the existing regimes as the best way to preserve its traditional influence in the region. In the wake of Georgia's "Rose Revolution" in 2003 and Ukraine's "Orange Revolution" in 2004, speculation is growing that opposition groups in other neighboring nations will feel emboldened. "The biggest powder keg in the relationship is the CIS," warns Kuchins.
ENSURING CONTINUITY. Already a few places bear watching. Small street protests have been reported in Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan, where parliamentary elections will be held on Feb. 27. On a recent visit to Moscow, Kyrgyz President Askar Akayev, Russia's ally, spoke out against "spontaneous processes" that "possess a potential danger for society's stability." Akayev, in power since 1990, has promised not to run for reelection in October, but like most leaders in the region he's likely to try and secure the election of a loyal successor.
Parliamentary elections are also expected in March in Moldova, where opposition parties hope to make gains on the ruling Communist Party.
Ultimately, the Kremlin is worried about the impact the Ukrainian revolution may have on political stability within Russia itself. Analysts close to the government say Putin is coming under pressure from his security advisers, who want him to crack down on foreign-funded nongovernmental organizations, which Russia blames for its defeat in Ukraine. "American-funded [organizations] will not be too welcome here. That's clear," warns Vyacheslav Nikonov, director of the Politika Foundation, a think tank in Moscow.
Hardly a great recipe for continued friendship with the U.S. Another worry is that Putin may be tempted to restrict democracy further at home to ensure continuity of the regime in 2008, when the end of his second term leaves him with a tricky succession problem. Washington and Moscow are likely to keep cooperating on global issues like counterterrorism. But if democracy in Russia and its neighbors stays high on the American agenda, the Bush-Putin friendship will face increasing strains.
I'm not summarizing the thing for you. If you can't read, that's your problem.
Try the last two paragraphs again.
And, you don't know about the Iraqi scientist that was dragged away from the UN caravan during the run up?
Read more before you talk to me again.
