The Times May 05, 2006

Cold War is reheated as Cheney tells off Moscow
From Jeremy Page in Moscow

DICK CHENEY, the US Vice-President, accused Russia yesterday of eroding a decade of democratic reform and blackmailing Europe with its energy reserves, in America’s sharpest rebuke to President Putin.

Speaking at a summit of eight former Eastern bloc countries that have turned against Moscow, Mr Cheney said that the Kremlin should embrace democracy or risk harming relations with more countries.

“America and Europe want to see Russia in the category of healthy democracies, and yet opponents of democracy in Russia are seeking to reverse the progress of the past decade,” he said. “In many areas of civil society — from religion and the news media to advocacy groups and political parties — the Government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of the people.”

The speech caused outrage in Russia, with some senior figures accusing Mr Cheney of trying to undermine Mr Putin before the G8 summit in St Petersburg in July. Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin’s deputy spokesman, said that the speech was incomprehensible and “full of a subjective evaluation of us and of the processes that are going on in Russia”.

Mikhail Gorbachev, the former leader of the Soviet Union, said: “Cheney’s speech looks like a provocation and interference in Russia’s internal affairs in terms of its content, form and place.”

Mr Cheney was addressing leaders of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Georgia — all former Warsaw Pact countries that are at varying stages of integration with the EU and Nato. He voiced particular support for Ukraine, criticising Russia for cutting off gas supplies to Kiev in January in what was widely seen in the West as punishment for the Orange Revolution of 2004.

“No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply manipulation or attempts to monopolise transportation,” he said. His comments reflect the growing tensions between the White House and the Kremlin. With his own ratings low, President Bush is under pressure to take a harder line with Mr Putin, who has reasserted central control over media, parliament, business and regional government since 2000. Some US politicians are even calling for Russia’s expulsion from the G8.

Mr Cheney’s remarks will infuriate the Kremlin just when the US needs Russia’s support against Iran.

Vyacheslav Nikonov, of the Politika Fund think-tank, told The Times that Mr Cheney’s speech could lead Gazprom, the Russian gas monopoly, to reject Chevron and Conoco-Phillips, the US oil companies, when it chooses partners to develop the huge Shtokman gasfield. “There’ll be a tough reaction,” he said. “If you enter the path of escalation, it can lead any place, even to a new Cold War.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2165502,00.html

Accusing Russia of "blackmailing Europe with its energy reserves"

Blackmailing has been a practice of the US long before anyone else. If not, just remember that the small countries are blackmailed all the time, if they don't vote at the UN, or any other place, along with what the US votes.
And as for reserves, every time a poor nation that may make some extra money with its natural resources, US puts out for sale, lets say, the mineral reserves they keep ... Do you think that politics is a clean, honest game, certainly not, it is a nasty filthy game, and the big nations are the masters at this.

Geez Sedan,

Cheney was telling it like it is, dammit.

He's telling it like it is sure, but the problem is he tells it in Cheney style.

Cheney is no statesman & he needs to keep his fat ugly mouth zipped.

Is this the right time to be antagonizing Russia? Don't we need their support in the UN Security Council to impose santions on Iran? Or is this Cheney's way of saying we'll deal with Iran on our own? I can only guess at his real motive for doing this, but no doubt we'll all find out soon enough.

On a not altogether unrelated point, Gazprom last week passed Microsoft to become the #3 corporation in the world, trailing only Exxon-Mobil and General Electric.

We aint going to get Iran's support in the UN & what's more Iran has already said it doesn't care what the UN says.

The US needs to put it to Russia and China like this - "Support sanctions or we are going to bomb Iran, over throw the government and all their oil will be handled by western oil companies plus you deals with Iran will be torn up by our installed viceroy"

Iran, just like Iraq will be invaded because other countries don't back the US.

Russia is but a shadow of it's former guise as the U.S.S.R.. A paper tiger with a few fangs is more like it, yet they're treated as if they're still major players on the world's stage.

We aint going to get Iran's support in the UN & what's more Iran has already said it doesn't care what the UN says.No one knows if sanctions will work because so far there haven't been any. We do know that sanctions crippled Iraq's economy and castrated Saddam's WMD program.The US needs to put it to Russia and China like this - "Support sanctions or we are going to bomb Iran, over throw the government and all their oil will be handled by western oil companies plus you deals with Iran will be torn up by our installed viceroy"Didn't you just say that Cheney should keep his mouth shut? This is Cheney x1000! China and Russia would laugh their fool heads off at a threat like this. The US can't even control Iraq let alone Iran. They'd sit back and watch us bleed ourselves to death, then move in to grab the oil for themselves.Iran, just like Iraq will be invaded because other countries don't back the US.Yes. Let's go to war because we can't find any allies. It all makes so much sense when you put it that way.

This sudden verbal attack on Russia is a bit transparant,The White House is more than a bit pissed off that Russia is getting more involved in deplomacy with Iran ie offering to help and monitor their nuclear programme,and secondly,this is a distraction from the conflict in Iraq.Bringing up Ukraine is nuts,first,its coming into summer in Europe,so why bring it up now,why not when it happened,and Ukraine was suffering temps of -20 plus..Second,if you or I stopped paying or gas bill,we'd be cut off also.

Russia is but a shadow of it's former guise as the U.S.S.R.. A paper tiger with a few fangs is more like it, yet they're treated as if they're still major players on the world's stage.

I'm under the impression that your above statement was probably true a few years back but today Russia has rebuilt and streamlined their military and are indeed still a major power, their focus being on defense notwithstanding.

Here's a good rule to live by ... never underestimate the enemy and I offer the courage and tenacity of Iraq as an example of that being true.

We aint going to get Iran's support in the UN & what's more Iran has already said it doesn't care what the UN says.

The US needs to put it to Russia and China like this - "Support sanctions or we are going to bomb Iran, over throw the government and all their oil will be handled by western oil companies plus you deals with Iran will be torn up by our installed viceroy"

Iran, just like Iraq will be invaded because other countries don't back the US.

You do realize Iran is a very close neighboor to Russia and China?
You do realize we will have to nuke Iran to be effective? ... we have no other solution.
You do realize that would put radioactive dust in the air that will blanket both Russia and China, killing millions of people.
You do realize both China and Russia are nuclear powers?
You do realize an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country is a war crime?
You do realize an unprovoked nuclear attack on a sovereign counyry is both a war crime and a crime against humanity?
You do realize americans would never again be safe anywhere in the world including the United States?
You do realize Invading a major oil power would invite a world-wide depression and guarantee one if sympathic oil powers join with Iran?
You do realize the United States is already seen as the modern day Nazi Germany?
You do realize Bush would have to declare martial law in the United States which has the highest number of armed citizens of any country in the world.
You do realize I retired 6 months ago and would like to enjoy a few years of retirement before they make Soylent Green out of me?


Bottom line -- good luck with bombing Iran.

No one knows if sanctions will work because so far there haven't been any. We do know that sanctions crippled Iraq's economy and castrated Saddam's WMD program.Didn't you just say that Cheney should keep his mouth shut? This is Cheney x1000! China and Russia would laugh their fool heads off at a threat like this. The US can't even control Iraq let alone Iran. They'd sit back and watch us bleed ourselves to death, then move in to grab the oil for themselves.Yes. Let's go to war because we can't find any allies. It all makes so much sense when you put it that way.

I agree - nobody knows if sanctions will work. They probably would work - but we'll never find out because Russia and China will never support them. This split is exploited by Iran.

China and Russia shouldn't laugh at all - we have proven we will attack - just look at Iraq. Iran will not be like Iraq because we won't invade Iran we will just bomb it for months and months. We surround Iran and can bomb it at will. We won't use nuclear weapons as Dop so dramatically dreams about. Conventional bombing for 2 months will completely destroy Iran.

If we had coherent support that stayed the course - then no bombing would be needed. That may not make sense to you - but it does make perfect sense.

I agree - nobody knows if sanctions will work. They probably would work - but we'll never find out because Russia and China will never support them. This split is exploited by Iran.

China and Russia shouldn't laugh at all - we have proven we will attack - just look at Iraq. Iran will not be like Iraq because we won't invade Iran we will just bomb it for months and months. We surround Iran and can bomb it at will. We won't use nuclear weapons as Dop so dramatically dreams about. Conventional bombing for 2 months will completely destroy Iran.

If we had coherent support that stayed the course - then no bombing would be needed. That may not make sense to you - but it does make perfect sense.

Here's more dreaming for ya ...

It's common knowledge that conventional bombing of Iran will not take out the nuclear facilities ... only nukes will have a chance to accomplish the objective and even that is questionable.

As far as bombing Iran for months on end and completely destroying the country (killing all 65 million inhabitants) -- ain't gonna happen. The world would step in and put us out of business if we take that approach just like the world did to Hitler.

Iran, just like Iraq will be invaded because other countries don't back the US.Iran will not be like Iraq because we won't invade Iran we will just bomb it for months and months.Make up your mind, will ya? :lolhit:

You do realize Iran is a very close neighboor to Russia and China?
You do realize that would put radioactive dust in the air that will blanket both Russia and China, killing millions of people. Russia perhaps in the southern territories, but no effects would be felt from the major cities of northern Russia, much less China. The distance is too much, Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing are far from being "close neighbors."
You do realize Bush would have to declare martial law in the United States which has the highest number of armed citizens of any country in the world. Although it would be a disatrous turn of events in human history, why would Bush be required to declare "martial law", and do you think that would even fly?

And don't throw out things he has gotten by with in the past, a country with so much gun enthusiasm that is simultaneously a free society would not stand for a militant state. That is dreaming.
You do realize I retired 6 months ago and would like to enjoy a few years of retirement before they make Soylent Green out of me?
Bottom line -- good luck with bombing Iran.
LOL

"Soylent green.......is DOP!"
-Charlton Heston's son

Good job Cheney!

Russia's Aeroflot to choose Airbus planes over Boeing
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060506/ts_afp/russiaeconomyaviationcompanyboeingairbus_060506101 622;_ylt=Ag3B9Fu1esYG.lHUlAsm5FymOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA 5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA

The US has always 'blackmailed' suppossed allies into doing its bidding.
The US cannot even guarantee that it is a democracy with the electronic voting machines.

Russia perhaps in the southern territories, but no effects would be felt from the major cities of northern Russia, much less China. The distance is too much, Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing are far from being "close neighbors."
Although it would be a disatrous turn of events in human history, why would Bush be required to declare "martial law", and do you think that would even fly?

And don't throw out things he has gotten by with in the past, a country with so much gun enthusiasm that is simultaneously a free society would not stand for a militant state. That is dreaming.

LOL

"Soylent green.......is DOP!"
-Charlton Heston's son

We're not talking about a single target ... reports show there are 400 targets that would need to be hit ... maybe not all by nukes but many of them are earth hardened and could only be taken out by nukes.

Those blasts will spew radioactive dust several thousands of feet into the atmosphere where the winds could (will) carry them for long distances. Don't be surprised if we don't see traces of it here in North America. Russia would be blanketed.

I agree americans would not put up with martial law and that was the essence of my original post.

I guess I now know why that guy wrote the song'American Dreaming'; nuke that,nuke this,carpet bomb this,carpet bomb that,any chance of coming into the real world here,nuclear weapons have two purposes and two purposes only,1.a bargaining chip,2.last line of defence,since 1945 they were never made as a first strike weapon. Dont you guys get it yet,nobody out there is frightened by America anymore,because none of its enemys have anything to loose,their all mobile,they dont rule countrys,they rule minds....

Here's more dreaming for ya ...

It's common knowledge that conventional bombing of Iran will not take out the nuclear facilities ... only nukes will have a chance to accomplish the objective and even that is questionable.

As far as bombing Iran for months on end and completely destroying the country (killing all 65 million inhabitants) -- ain't gonna happen. The world would step in and put us out of business if we take that approach just like the world did to Hitler.

Nobody said anything about killing all 65 million inhabitants. Just months of bombing like we did to Afghanistan.

Nobody is going to step in and take on the US - that is just nuts. Most of the world can't make any kind of decision - so deciding to take on the US for the sake of Iran which nobody cares about is pure lunacy. And exactly how would they take us on? Start bombing the US? There is no way they can take us on. They are too weak for one thing. There is no country nor collection of countries that stand any chance against the US military.

We may not take out their nuclear facilities but sustained bombing will bring them back to the table, or result in the overthrow of the mullahs.

Nobody is going to step in and take on the US - that is just nuts.

Are you suggesting the U.S. is militarily strong enough to take on all the world powers simultaneously?

Not that all the world powers would take on the US - so the question is pretty insane, but yes - barring nuclear attack - the US could easily fend off the combined military of every country. Unless you forgot - the US is a land mass surrounded by large oceans & Canada and mexico to the north & south. How would this combined world army even attack the US?

You are wandering off into crazy land again Dop.

Back to reality - If the US attacks Iran - no country will come to Iran's aid, and certainly there would not be a coalition of the world stepping in.

The US attacking Iran is a foregone conclusion - it's going to happen - so you best get comfortable with the idea.

Assuming Canada also decides to join in on the party, it would be very easy for the rest of the world to destroy America. Hell, an alliance between Canada and China could do it, with Russia providing aid in the form of money and aircraft. China would just land an army of millions in Alaska, then ride Canadian trains down to Washington state. With such an overwhelming army on American soil, the soft nature of Americans will lead to cries of peace in no time, particularly once they start pillaging their way through California.

Yeah right.

Suit yourself then.

Nap,your keeping very late hours...Tell me,would you think the Canadian Pacific run a good timetable...

Drew, your watching too much tv man,were did picking off selscted targets achieve anything in Iraq,or Afghanistan,the US will be tied up for years in that region.An invasion of Iran is out of the question,and the first bomb dropped on it secures extreme religious dominance of the country for the next 50 years,youd get a job in the Pentagon no problem.

I'm a real night owl, and Red is usually up this late (it's morning for her!) to keep me company before I hit the sack.

With the classic American haughtiness, arrogance, and general rudeness to spur them on, I wouldn't be surprised if they laid extra track down and migrated cars from all over Canada there to help out if they had the opportunity.

Well the sun is coming up here,at least I think it is,dont see no mushroom cloud anyway,of course The Defence Dept,take the weekend off..

Drew, your watching too much tv man,were did picking off selscted targets achieve anything in Iraq,or Afghanistan,the US will be tied up for years in that region.An invasion of Iran is out of the question,and the first bomb dropped on it secures extreme religious dominance of the country for the next 50 years,youd get a job in the Pentagon no problem.

The Taliban fell without any troops. Kosovo was fought without any troops. Sustained bombing works - it's been proven to work.

The question is though, do we have enough bombs, enough planes, enough personnel, enough money, to fight a third war, against an enemy with more of a defense force than the can of Army Men that Iraq and Afganistan had, including weapon tech designed specifically to foil American air power?

We have enough planes, bombs and money. We have an abundance of those things.

Russia and China have been selling AA and rockets to Iran. I doubt they would defend Iran but if the US uses a nuke then they expose themselves as a threat to the entire world and something might go down.

BTW:
Russian bombers flew undetected across Arctic - AF commander
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060422/46792049.html

Same problem as before Drew,in Kosovo and Afghanistan the target and objectives were black and white,my point is that a bomb dropped from 6 miles up,or a missle launched from a boat off the Italian Coast cannot win over 'hearts and minds',the more 'macho' the US Army becomes on its world tour,the more people especially Muslims will resent them and the US,the warmongers in DC havnt even adressed this issue,never mind failed in it,thats were the real war is...

Not that all the world powers would take on the US - so the question is pretty insane, but yes - barring nuclear attack - the US could easily fend off the combined military of every country. Unless you forgot - the US is a land mass surrounded by large oceans & Canada and mexico to the north & south. How would this combined world army even attack the US?

You are wandering off into crazy land again Dop.

Back to reality - If the US attacks Iran - no country will come to Iran's aid, and certainly there would not be a coalition of the world stepping in.

The US attacking Iran is a foregone conclusion - it's going to happen - so you best get comfortable with the idea.

Barring nuclear weapons ... I'll agree to that.

If the world powers came after us on a serious basis, we would get clobbered and have no choice but resort to nukes which would be the beginning of the end for all of us.

BTW: The land mass scenario is bogus ... Russia has capabilities of flying right through our radar systems ...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2006/russia-060422-rianovosti01.htm

An invasion of Iran will send the message to every country in the world Your next. Schoolyard bullies usually don't last long.

Dont worry about the Ruskies,just throw money at them,theyll do anything for a few bucks..

Schoolyard bullies usually don't last long.

Who ever told you that?

Russia is one of the most corrupt places there is theyve no interest in cold war tactics because quite simply,they couldnt afford to play the 'ego war' with the Pentagon boys anymore,and by the way Drew nobody told me that,I can sit back and read betwwen the lines now and again,the Defence Dept must throw 'recruitment leaflets' through your door,if you believe anything else.

Who ever told you that?

All bullies end up the same way ... especially the bullies that kill people ... look at what happened to Hitler, Saddam, Ceausescu, Bif ... they all got theirs in the long run.

The US cannot be compared to Hitler or Saddam. There is simply no comparison.

The US cannot be compared to Hitler or Saddam. There is simply no comparison.

Gulf war 1
Gulf war 2
DU deaths from both wars
Deaths due to sanctions

Add them all up and you find the U.S. has killed more Iraqui citizens than Saddam.

Add them all up and you find the U.S. has killed more Iraqui citizens than Saddam.

And here boys and girls we find the wonderful world of made-up statistics!

It is rather intellectually dishonest to say that America is responsible for the deaths of, say, roughly 300,000 Iraqis and then continue on to equate it with Hussein's genocide. What we are looking at with Saddam is the purposeful extermination of innocent civilians, while with our violent crusade most of them are a melange of Ba'athist soldiers, rebels, and insurgents (along with civilians that account for much of the "collateral damage").

And with this claim, how is it that you know this? How is it possible for any human being on the planet at this point in time to know such figures? You can't.

One can qualify it however one wants, but the fact remains that we killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did. Similar to how the US and Israel have killed far more Palestinians than the Palestinians ever killed Israelis. You can apologize all you want for the West, but facts are facts.

One can qualify it however one wants-----
No you can't, facts are facts.
but facts are facts.
What facts? Dop unabashedly told a lie unless there is some sort of evidence of the ludicrous claim from a verifiable, trustworthy source.

Any reasonable estimation of the total number of casualties will bear out the truth of that reasoning. One can hide behind the fact that no official numbers were released, but all that accomplishes is hiding one's head in the sand.

No you can't, facts are facts.

It would seem you are unaware of the process of manufacturing propaganda. Statistics presented differently will tell differing stories. One can qualify the facts with whatever reasoning one wants to present the story one wants, but at the end of the day, the facts remain, and the story changes with the times.

Any reasonable estimation of the total number of casualties will bear out the truth of that reasoning. One can hide behind the fact that no official numbers were released, but all that accomplishes is hiding one's head in the sand.
300,000 is no where close to a reasonable estimation, and since there are no official numbers, this issue Dop brought up has to be put to a close unless it is a factually-driven claim.

300,000 is no where close to a reasonable estimation,

The veracity of that has to be decided through reasoned argument.

this issue Dop brought up has to be put to a close unless it is a factually-driven claim.

It is a factually driven claim. A fact is something that can be proven or disproven, which a reasonable estimation is. If Dop cares to make an argument supporting his numbers as a reasonable estimation of casualties, then, barring equally strong counter-argument, Dop's numbers will stand.

Add them all up and you find the U.S. has killed more Iraqui citizens than Saddam.

Bullshit

Show us the data

Christ Drew,its a pity America sees you as an Alien,you could have joined the Republican Party,and ran for the White House..

Bullshit

Show us the data

Show me where I'm wrong ...

You're making just as much of a claim as I am ... you're saying Saddam killed more people than the United States of Israel ...

YOU SHOW ME THE DATA

YOU SHOW ME THE DATA
Way to dodge. You were the one who made the original claim, we are not claiming something else that needs verification, but saying you are the one who is incorrect (because you most assuredly are, much like the 100,000 Katrina deaths estimation), so the burden of proof is on you.

Yes, the burden of proof is indeed on Dop. You must justify that number. That is a positive argument. Drew's is a negative one. One cannot prove a negative.

Yes, the burden of proof is indeed on Dop. You must justify that number. That is a positive argument. Drew's is a negative one. One cannot prove a negative.

OK then ... If I provide links to substantiate my claim then no one can call them bogus without providing links to refute my links.

Got game???

OK then ... If I provide links to substantiate my claim then no one can call them bogus without providing links to refute my links.

Got game???
Provided it is a reputable source with exact information, I'm all ears.

Provided it is a reputable source with exact information, I'm all ears.

It is important to understand that the Bush administration did not (and still does not) allow the public to have access to Iraqui body count nor have they allowed the International Red Cross or any other humanitarian organization access to Iraq to provide that information. In fact, Gen Tommy Franks is on record as saying we don't do body counts. They simply don't want americans to know about the carnage, better known as genocide.

That said and presuming you do understand, exact information probably doesn't exist, at least not in public domain. The best one can get are estimates based on different methodology and therefore differing in degrees of accuracy.

So telling me that I posed a negative to another poster is not entirely correct. I posed what is available which is a negative by design.

So what would you consider a reliable source and how do we prove it's accuracy?

All I want to see is a reasonable estimation, using facts gathered from various reputable sources. We are all well aware that the Bush administration doesn't keep track of deaths as you say, and even if they did, there would be good reason to believe the numbers would be doctored in important ways to suit the Administration's political purposes, just like their pollution numbers.

So what would you consider a reliable source and how do we prove it's accuracy?
We can't, as you and I have pointed out the information for such conclusions does not exist, and therefore it is just inferences that are left to squabble over.

All I want to see is a reasonable estimation, using facts gathered from various reputable sources. We are all well aware that the Bush administration doesn't keep track of deaths as you say, and even if they did, there would be good reason to believe the numbers would be doctored in important ways to suit the Administration's political purposes, just like their pollution numbers.

Start with this one ... http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_333.shtml

and keep in mind that Anbar was dutched out of the equation and DU deaths are not included nor are sanction deaths.

that puts the deaths at 100K excluding Fallujah which was probably 100K just by itself. And as usual the DU and sanctions deaths were not included.

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/PR_2004/Burnham_Iraq.html

The links you posted are interesting and are probably about as best one can get to the true number. Although it's guestimate number there is some valid statistical science behind the estimate.

Having said that - it still does not prove your claim that the US has killed more than Saddam.

Also take into account - 10 years from now. Saddam would have had another 10 years of butchering, the deaths from this Iraq invasion should reduce year after year as Iraq approaches some kind of stability.

Who are you people?

I hope theres some very deep mine shafts around Hermosa California.A tip,when it starts,grab the beer and the cable box..

I hope theres some very deep mine shafts around Hermosa California.A tip,when it starts,grab the beer and the cable box..

All I need is a nice 10-ft'er or an overhead and my short board. Screw everything else. :D