8 posts tagged “russia”

Whether you support the war in Iraq or you don’t—and here in New Zealand we have the luxury to criticize the United States—David Horowitz’s recollection (video found originally on Humbled Infidel’s blog) of why the US went in certainly correlates with my own. It’s why I have always held back attacking President George W. Bush, because faced with what he had in front of him, I cannot honestly say I would not have done the same thing. As Horowitz reveals, neither would Al Gore, who supported Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ speech in 2002.
   The end of this video (cut short) goes into the rationale for war surrounding UN Security Council resolution 1441, which PM Tony Blair managed to sell to Parliament—but which, I always felt, the US was less successful at doing. There are legal arguments there based on the UN Charter but it was always about 1441. 
   This is one of the problems I tend to have with the US Democratic Party, for all my own left-leaning tendencies. Right now, for example, constituents are begging the super-delegates that they should not select who will best beat Sen. John McCain and the Republicans, but who represents their position. The fact this question has even arisen is disturbing: as representatives of the people of course one should represent the citizens. The minute you do not, you do not have a democracy: it is a quest for power among élites ignoring the citizenry, the sort of thing people were getting away from when the US was founded. 
   I am not saying that the GOP wouldn’t look after its own, but given that they have fielded men like Sen. Bob Dole—who from a marketing perspective was a tough sell against President Clinton—it seems that it might be more willing to represent its base than look at seizing power. The 42nd president gifted them the Monica Lewinsky situation, which hurt the Democrats. I would say that they never forgave the GOP or Kenneth Starr who were steadfast in their condemnation and investigation. That power-hungriness from the Democrats is very apparent in the way the Bush administration has been undermined in the last eight years.

   I say if one opposes the war, then there are ways to do it without resorting to revisionism. I might not agree with our PM, Helen Clark, on her courses of action, but at least she took a position based on the facts before her and said ‘No’ to going in to Iraq. She has never gone and revised history, and simply held firm on her principles. She has good support for it because most New Zealanders opposed the war and carried out her job (on that occasion) as a servant and representative of the people.
   The consequences of Resolution 1441 were always clear but the means of acting upon them were less so because of the way the UN Charter is written, and that ambiguity effectively gave some countries a chance of opting out. Our PM took it, as did the leaders of many other nations. It is respectful, even if she later made a gaffe about how she did not think a Gore presidency would have gone to war. (As Horowitz reminds us, that is probably an incorrect position.) They believed that an extra resolution was needed before war; the US, UK, Australia and others did not.
   The Democratic Party and the anti-war movement probably think that this is all too tough to sell to the public, so they engage in other tactics, shaming US troops or the administration and pressuring those who have short memories to join their cause. I am not saying that what they have uncovered is all untrue—of course I accept there are dodgy dealings surrounding the war and I even accept some misconduct—but they’d earn my respect if they didn’t flip-flop or cover up the truth. Sen. Clinton, who voted for the war, who voted for the increase in expenditure alongside Sen. John Kerry, is one of those very high-profile politicians who has changed depending on the trade winds of public opinion.
   Of course a senator or a future president must be representative but she must also stand on truth. ‘I was wrong to have supported the war because …’ would have been a good start. ‘Now the American people are telling me that it is time to withdraw our troops.
   ‘My support was founded on the belief that resolution 1441 was inviolable. It was not, and we have carried out the due punishment needed on Saddam Hussein’s régime.’
   There are millions of ways to spin it, especially ways to do it without demoralizing the young men and women serving in Iraq—and I am not even a politician.
   This would also mean she’d have to go against her husband’s attacks on Kosovo, which also did not have that additional Security Council resolution but was a preemptive strike by the US. George W. Bush is not alone, just that the media give him more grief over it.
   But a mea culpa is not flip-flopping and it is not pandering. It is being honest, something the Beltway sees very rarely.
   What concerns me, however, is that the road to war is a serious matter. It should not be so easily bent because the decision should be founded on principle—and if those principles existed after resolution 1441 was broken then they exist today. Congress voted for the war, with bipartisan support. There needs to be a far bigger shift for any US representative to say no to the war now—so what is it?
   A poor entry strategy, a poor exit strategy, the belief that the US’s only task was to oust Saddam Hussein, the belief that the parameters of the original declaration of war have been fulfilled—what? Certainly Sen. Clinton needs to tell us.
   She has said that she would not have voted for the war if she knew there were no WMDs. But as Horowitz points out, the existence of WMDs was not the basis for war. Did Sen. Clinton “misspeak” again?
   There is a popular notion that that was what resolution 1441 was all about and we all remember Sec. Powell’s Powerpoint presentations to the UN.
   But unless Sen. Clinton has misremembered this incident as well, resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002 was about Iraq’s non-compliance with conditions laid down by the international community over disarmament, which included WMDs, but they were not the core issue.
   When Iraq lied about what it did with its WMDs, which the international community confirmed it had as late as 1998, the US took a hard line.
   Iraq itself never offered an explanation on the discrepancy between its claims and tests by the inspectors.
   That was one legal justification for the US and the UK, and, skipping over a few issues, the war began.
   I sure wish the US politicians would just tell the truth about the vote at that time because they should have a better understanding of it, having been there—rather than let people like me catch them out.
   This is another reason to not dislike Bush: he said he would stay the course, so he did. The majority of Americans voted for him in 2004 (regardless of whether one is counting the electoral college or the popular vote) and knew this full well. And while I think some of his spending has sent that US deficit soaring, he has stayed firm on his belief in his tax cuts. He seems content because he thinks he is protecting the Constitution and that he needs to continue his strategy. Maybe that is the Bush world-view. (He saw how his Dad got burned on the ‘No new taxes’ and learned from it. He saw how his Dad lost the support of the right wing of the GOP and learned from it. And he saw how he was criticized for being too smart when he ran for Congress—which is where the folksy public image comes from. Welcome to Bushland.)
   Had the war successfully concluded people would praise him on his steadfastness.
   For if a leader bends based on the trade winds, then will she bend based on pressure from other sovereign nations? If Saudi Arabia put pressure to bear on the US, would Sen. Clinton cave in? If a communist nation put pressure on Sen. Obama, would he? Or, for that matter, how far will Sen. McCain bend to foreign pressure? 
   We cannot turn back the clock now and see how the message could have been better communicated to the US. We should know, from the Horowitz video, why the US went in and understand who is now lying to the American public: that is important. For all his failings in everything from the Patriot Act (which I am no fan of, and it has restricted the movement of people who could benefit the US) to the Alberto González judicial appointments, I do not think it was President Bush. I have never called him a bare-faced liar.
   The next presidential election is a chance to address those failings. The economy can be fixed but what is in dire need of repair are the values to which not only Americans want moral leadership, but most of us in the western world. Get the values right, get the truth right, and the rest will follow.
   At the end of the day I care not if the president is a Democrat or a Republican, and I have no say in it anyway, as long as our common values are restored and preserved, and the leader is truthful. And that the decision for staying the course or withdrawing is also founded on truth.

I saw a Peugeot 407 next to a 1980s BMW 5-series today and noted how much bigger, in every dimension, the 407 is. The 407 is regarded as small down the back—which makes you think about the size of, say, the Ford Mondeo CD345, which is about the same size as the outgoing Ford Falcon.
   Here’s a wild prediction: in years to come, the equivalents or descendants of the Ford Focus, Mondeo and Falcon will all be the same size and differ only in body styles and engine sizes.
   At Toyota, Corolla and Camry are approaching similar sizes, and Toyota Australia’s full-size model, the Aurion, is actually the same size as the Camry, right down to wheelbase. In fact, in some markets, the car that Australians call the Aurion is actually called the Camry.
   Roads can only be so wide unless even Toyota gets in to the Hummer H1 game and in future, we wind up with a mega-wide Previa.
   This may sound daft but if you consider that the Peugeot 307 and 407 and Ford Focus and Mondeo have similar engineering roots, then the likely integration in future will happen.
   As niche vehicles develop, the mainstream models will become fewer. For example, Nissan in Europe pretty much retails only specialty cars now. Aside from the supermini, the Micra, every Nissan sold in Europe is either an SUV, minivan or sports car. That’s a far cry from the manufacturer of the Sentra, Altima and Maxima in North America.
   What may likely happen is that mainstream nameplates will wind up on some niche vehicles, or niche vehicles may be marketed as the successor to everyday models—one of the few ways to get sufficient economies of scale.
   We’re unlikely to see a TGV approach to cars: the same width, but differing lengths based on your requirements—though models like the Renault Kangoo and Espace, with their lengthier counterparts, make me wonder.
   We’re also bound to see more manufacture in cheaper countries: Romania, Hungary and the Czech Republic for the European market; Russia, Uzbekistan and Ukraine for their regions; and, of course, Red China.
   Whatever the case, at this present rate, the motor industry will have a very different shape in the next decade, assuming we haven’t given up on the internal combustion engine or seen some catastrophe.

Sen. Hillary Clinton frequently stresses her foreign policy credentials over Sen. Obama. Today on al-Jazeera, which covered the Russian presidential election, Sen. Clinton was shown fumbling the pronunciation of Dmitri Medvedev—badly. And added a ‘or whatever’ to the end of that. This is hypocritical of Sen. Clinton and disrespectful to President-elect Medvedev (which is not a very hard word to pronounce for anyone who has had contact with Russians).
   If President George W. Bush did this, it would be all over the news, David Letterman would have it on ‘Great Moments in Presidential Speeches’, and the Democrats would be going on and on about what a dumbass Dubya is.
   I have not seen the American media showing Sen. Clinton’s gaffe, at least not as part of a news bulletin, but a quick Google search did show that it aired there in the US as part of a presidential nominee hopefuls’ debate. One blog commenter, Redmanrt, at Slate wrote this sentiment and I have to agree:

Pravda, the mouthpiece of the CCCP many moons ago, asked Sen. Hillary Clinton 12 questions, to which it has not received a reply beyond a standard, anonymous answer of two years ago. Repeated contact has amounted to nothing. Even Dick Cheney’s office acknowledged the questions it received.
   I think the American people might want to know the answers from Sen. Clinton, too. They are seemingly harmless questions, though the first might be possibly inflammatory and the fifth could be difficult to answer. Pasted from right-wing site Death by 1,000 Papercuts.

   1. Senator Clinton, is it true that you insinuated President Putin does not have a soul?
   2. You have said you wish to reform the US healthcare system. Could you please tell us how you plan to do this?
   3. Why should you succeed where others have failed?
   4. How would you comment on your statement that being a Republican and a Christian are difficult to conciliate?
   5. Is it true that you have the support of the Jewish Lobby? If so, how will this influence your foreign policy? Will it continue to be controlled by Israel?
   6. What is your message to the average American voter? How would you propose to make his/her life better?
   7. What are your plans for Iran? Do you stand for a war?
   8. How would you improve America's standing in the international community?
   9. Why did you support the war against Iraq?
   10. What are the reasons for your having fallen for the lies which were launched against Saddam Hussein?
   11. Why does your Candidate website not have an email for the Press, whereas that of Senator Obama has? Would you agree this is a comment on the professionalism or the arrogance of your campaign?
   12. Did you hope to gain an advantage over your opponent by announcing your trip to Florida and your support for the seating of Florida delegates just prior to the Florida primary?

   The newspaper then commented on Sen. Clinton’s failure to acknowledge or respond:

The absense [sic] of an answer, on a systematic basis, can mean one or all of a number of things: Senator Clinton cannot answer these questions, does not want to answer these questions because she cannot find a credible enough reply, could not care less about the international press (in which case, what a fine candidate for a US President at a time when the USA needs to build bridges) or worse still, never received the messages in the first place, which would indicate a tremendous and shocking degree of lack of professionalism. If she cannot handle a website, how can she be expected to govern a nation of 300 million people?
   Indeed, for some reason Barack Obama’s website has a contact for the Press, whereas Senator Clinton’s has none.

   If Sen. Clinton indeed has more of a clue on how to do her job than Sen. Obama or even Sen. McCain, she is not showing it in this case.

Russia and Indonesia have signed a $1 billion arms’ deal. Sir Robert Muldoon’s warnings about an Indonesian invasion in 2020 don’t seem too far-fetched now, do they?

[Cross-posted] As we watch the tributes flow in for the late former Russian president Boris Yeltsin, the article that seems to be best balanced that I have encountered so far is from the Associated Press. It is not for me to speak in depth of Mr Yeltsin, as I only know of his image—outside Russia, it was often congenial, but more often confusing. I might not have agreed totally with his approach, but he led at a difficult time. I hope his passing yesterday helps the Russian people create dialogue, learning and understanding that they can apply to their collective future as world citizens. The fact we can even consider them, and so many former Soviet republics, our neighbours on this planet is, perhaps, due in some great respect to Mr Yeltsin.

Found at the advertising group here on Vox, a post about a Russian anti-smoking animation can be found here:

http://publicite.groups.vox.com/library/post/6a00d41418d2bd6a4700d41421401b3c7f.html

   It is meant to be humorous, but if you do click on it, please note there are 9-11 jokes (planes crashing into the Twin Towers). Which makes me wonder: are some countries ready to laugh about the deaths of thousands of people? I think it may be too early. In fact, I don’t think many of us ever can. I sure as heck don’t make Pearl Harbor jokes, and that was 66 years ago this year and I wasn’t even alive when it happened.
   Please note that the person who posted about it at Vox is not the animation’s creator, so please do not direct any flames to him.

Why did Vladimir Putin attack the US most recently? Simple: he’s been watching the American MSM and seeing how division has crept in to the United States, and figures, ‘I’d rather go back to that old CCCP system. If we follow this democratic route that the US wants us to, we’ll become divided and fight one another. I’ll have a population that doesn’t even vote for the most part, and half the bunch spends the rest of the time hating the guy at the top. I might as well side with the Red Chinese: at least they are keeping their population in check with few revolutionary elements that get out of hand, depriving them of their basic human rights.’