Putin tightens grip on power

The Age ^ | September 15, 2004 | Julius Strauss

[maestro]

Free Tradw with Communism is nuts

..........except with China, Cuba, and Canada?

(The 3 'c's)

/sarcasm

[flaminco]

"But this seems to be the final stages of the rollback into full-fledged communism. Now, hang around and watch FReepers defend Putin."

Full fledged Communism? Unlikely. Putin is just setting up an old fashioned dictatorship. When Putin took out Yukos I began to wonder if he had plans to stick around after his constitutionally mandated second term. The answer is no longer in question. Putin is pretty slick. He will probably create a post for himself which is unelected but which still holds much of the power of the presidency. He will become the power behind the presidency is my guess.

There is no denying the popularity of Putin, even in Russia. Events seem to be playing into his hands. This isn't good news for Russia, but will probably represent a long relatively stable period for Russian foreign relations.

[flaminco]

"Putin is doing what now has to be done......to protect any kind of future for Russian citizens."

Please, save the melodramatics. He is doing what has to be done in order to assure his continued grip on power.

[maestro]

........There is no denying the popularity of Putin, even in Russia. Events seem to be playing into his hands. This isn't good news for Russia, but will probably represent a long relatively stable period for Russian foreign relations.

Welcome, 'State'.....

:-)

[flaminco]

"I know I was attacked for daring to question how he handled Beslan. "

You should have been attacked. There wasn't anything he or anyone else could have done to "handle Beslan" any better than it was. I am no Putin sympathizer, but I have no patience with people who expect their government to protect them. I will make this simple so you can understand.

Governments can issue proclamations declaring "war on terror". They can clean up the mess and count the bodies after a terror attack. They can guard a limited number of "important" sites. They can even take away your civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism, but they CANNOT PROTECT YOU.

[nuconvert]

"There wasn't anything he or anyone else could have done to "handle Beslan" any better than it was."

Well, you're entititled to your opinion. But considering it looks like some of the townspeople may have accidently shot some of the hostages or even some of the soldiers, I think it's open to debate.

[maestro]

......Governments can issue proclamations declaring "war on terror". They can clean up the mess and count the bodies after a terror attack. They can guard a limited number of "important" sites. They can even take away your civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism, but they CANNOT PROTECT YOU......

WW-II never happened....

/sarcasm

[flaminco]

"But considering it looks like some of the townspeople may have accidently shot some of the hostages or even some of the soldiers, I think it's open to debate."

You say "may have"? You are criticizing Putin for something that might have happened? Governments all over the world do lots of incredibly stupid and corrupt and despicable things, and if you want to criticize Putin, there are plenty of things he has done which are pretty stupid, corrupt, and despicable, but this isn't one of them.

I guess you would be happier if the townspeople had been unarmed? It certainly would reassure the terrorists. They would no longer have to worry about being shot by one of their victims. Free to terrorize without danger. Every Muslim terrorists dream.

Hmmm... kind of makes me wonder whose side you are on?

[flaminco]

"WW-II never happened...."

sorry, I assumed you understood we were talking about terrorism. should read "CANNOT PROTECT YOU FROM TERRORISM"

Incidentally, I was talking about governments in general, not the US government in particular. The reason the US government won WWII was partially due to it's constitution, and partially due to it's people. This includes the people in it's government. The US did not win because of their government.

The countries who lost WWII had governments who could not protect their people either. This is because people are not suddenly endowed with superior judgment simply because they go to work for the government. Indeed, often the opposite is true. Government is the least efficient form of bureaucracy there is.

[nuconvert]

I think it's up to someone in charge to get the townspeople out of the immediate vicinity.
You can try to argue that this was handled just dandy. It wasn't.

[nuconvert]

And BTW - I heard President Bush speaking this afternoon. He said his job as President was to protect the American citizens. I kinda thought that was one of his jobs.

[flaminco]

" He said his job as President was to protect the American citizens. "

Politicians aways say stuff like that. Doesn't mean they can. It's just another lie to get votes, and in the case of Bush and Putin, to claim more power for themselves. All in the name of imaginary security of course.

[flaminco]

"I think it's up to someone in charge to get the townspeople out of the immediate vicinity.
You can try to argue that this was handled just dandy. It wasn't."

You have proof townspeople shot anyone they shouldn't have, or is this just a feeling you have? The townspeople were trying to protect their own, they were not the enemy. That you would treat them as such says a lot about you.

It is really disgusting that you would blame them instead of the terrorists for the loss of life in Beslan.

[nuconvert]

Your thinking is warped.

The first thing law enforcement does in a similar situation is to secure the area. That means get the citizens off the street and far enough away that they won't be in danger or a danger to themselves or anyone else. DUH. No one did that in Beslan. Is that a mistake? I'd say so.
Now, am I blaming the inept law enforcement for the hostage situation? NO. But am I saying it wasn't handled properly? YES.
I've read the accounts from different papers from different countries. My only proof is the accounts in the papers. I wasn't there.
And if you'd like to know if I believe in the right of a citizen to bear arms...YES. But I don't think armed townspeople ought to be allowed to stand behind the soldiers or law enforcement officers during a stand-off.
You may disagree with that, but there's a reason that's normal practice and procedure for law enforcement.

[nuconvert]

"Politicians aways say stuff like that. Doesn't mean they can. It's just another lie to get votes, and in the case of Bush and Putin, to claim more power for themselves. All in the name of imaginary security of course."

Well I don't know how I missed that gem of a post.
So, President Bush is a liar, Huh?
He only wants to claim more power for himself, Huh?

I'm beginning to think that maybe you don't belong here.

Take a Hike, TROLL.

[nuconvert]

You thread had been infected with a TROLL.

[snakeoil]

From the beginning my observations and comments have remained the same.
" Beware yon Cassiuis, he has that lean and hungry look"

[Luis Gonzalez]

Hiya Bert!

[CWOJackson]

The Soviet Union rising from the ashes.

[CWOJackson]

"Let's not overlook the very distinct possibility that this whole mess with Chechnya was dreamed up to benefit Putin's candidacy..."

Yeltsin gave Chechnya their independence, Putin took it away. Chechnya has been simmering under Soviet style domination for ten years.

Can you say Reichstag fire?