Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Putin urges voters to back Bush

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Putin urges voters to back Bush

    Putin urges voters to back Bush

    MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin says terrorist attacks in Iraq are aimed at preventing the re-election of U.S. President George W. Bush and that a Bush defeat "could lead to the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world."

    Putin, speaking Central Asian Cooperation Organization summit in Tajikistan Monday, made his most overt comments of support so far for the re-election of Bush for a second term.

    "Any unbiased observer understands that attacks of international terrorist organizations in Iraq, especially nowadays, are targeted not only and not so much against the international coalition as against President Bush," Putin said.

    "International terrorists have set as their goal inflicting the maximum damage to Bush, to prevent his election to a second term.

    "If they succeed in doing that, they will celebrate a victory over America and over the entire anti-terror coalition," Putin said.

    "In that case, this would give an additional impulse to international terrorists and to their activities, and could lead to the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world."

    Putin noted that American voters will not decide the election just on Iraq.

    "Because of this we must take a realistic approach and be prepared for any development of events," he said. "We respect any choice the American people will make."

    President Putin made it clear Russia remained opposed to the war in Iraq.

    "Today, our views on that differ from the views of President Bush," he said.

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...raq/index.html
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  • #2
    Can't say I didn't see this coming, the Japanese too would like to see Bush re-elected. While all this suport is nice it will still be the American voters who decide and not the rest of the world, including those in Britain trying to persuade visiting Americans that Bush is the anti-christ and should be thrown out.

    I don't think we will se another Spain senario in this election.
    Last edited by smilingassassin; 19 Oct 04,, 00:57.
    Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

    -- Larry Elder

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by smilingassassin
      Can't say I didn't see this coming, the Japanese too would like to see Bush re-elected. While all this suport is nice it will still be the American voters who decide and not the rest of the world, including those in Britain trying to persuade visiting Americans that Bush is the anti-christ and should be thrown out.

      I don't think we will se another Spain senario in this election.
      yeah we really have alot of "world" support. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...-uk-iraq_x.htm

      Comment


      • #4
        Considering the general incompetence and corruption of the rest of the world, I'm not terribly concerned about their support or judgment. Be like forgetting your accordian for a hunting trip.
        The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.

        I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

        Comment


        • #5
          ...but you forget only the U.S. can be critisized for these perceived acts of corruption! All other parts of the world are insignificant untill they are attacked by the U.S.!
          Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

          -- Larry Elder

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Horrido
            Considering the general incompetence and corruption of the rest of the world, I'm not terribly concerned about their support or judgment. Be like forgetting your accordian for a hunting trip.
            You should be, because this Putin's backing of Bush is a clear proof that Bush is favored by authoritarian regimes, such as the Russian one, simply because Bush supports them (albeit not openly) in exchange for those regimes' support (or soft opposition) for Bush's illegal war in Iraq. One more example is Ukraine, those authoritarian regime has sent troops to Iraq, and is now exterminating internal opposition with no fair of American critisism (and there is no any).

            Remember my word -- if Bush is reelected, democracy is going to lose worldwide, and if democracy loses the terrorism is going to win.

            I almost believe that Bush would do a referendum to allow for extending his presidency into third term, as another Putin's friend just did in Belarus.

            Comment


            • #7
              I disagree, I see it as Putin realising he can't handle the terrorist situation without US support. He's caught, he has to deal with anti-American sentiment at home, but must court our funding and not challenge US military forces in former Soviet republics. It's also not an indication of authoritarian regimes common support of Bush (PRC, N. Korea, Iran, etc...), nor does supporting Bush indicate you're authoritarian (England, Japan, Poland, Australia, etc). Europe hasn't faced a serious terrorist attack, short of Spain that demonstrated their willingness to be cowed into submission. Also, the war in Iraq was not illegal. As has been posted here several times, Iraq violated the ceasefire agreements in a number of areas, thus, we had full obligation to remove Hussein. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it illegal, and if it was illegal, as you claim, why has action not been formally taken against us?

              A second Bush term will not destroy democracy in the US, if the Republicans anger the US population enough, they will understand how the Dems felt in 1994. A referendum would not allow for a third term, Bush is barely squeaking by as it is. They know they've reached the edge, and that pushing harder will result in a terrible back-lash against them. We are not a dictatorship, and our citizenry too-well armed to allow us to become one, and only the left is outspoken in their desire to weaken that defense.
              Last edited by Horrido; 19 Oct 04,, 17:31.
              The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.

              I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

              Comment


              • #8
                Well, by supporting one of the presidential candidates it would be a strange way to "court out funds" from Americans, especially when you don't know if that candidate is going to win, wouldn't it? The thing is Putin supports Bush because he feels that he could continue strengthening his authoritarian regime without fear for Bush's criticism. Because Bush is weak due to his terrible mistakes in international politics, and is looking for friends even among dictators. America will be much weaker under another term of Bush administration, both politically and economically, and a worldwide democratic process will suffer a major setback because of that. The above-mentioned example of Ukraine is a clear indication that this is already happening.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Not necessarily, Putin is a very shrewed and intelligent person. It's also possible he realises the US Congress is Republican-controlled, and will most likely remain so. Even if Bush loses, Putin may still garner financial support through Congress. If Kerry threatens a veto, he's soft on terror and abandoning an ally. I doubt Putin really cares about anyone's criticism if he decides to strengthen his authority. I also don't think we'll be weaker under another Bush administration, internationally or economically. Countries that aren't supporting us now, won't be leaping to our aid if Kerry is elected. There is no benefit if their only change is "we don't like you" to "we like you," but still refuse to cooperate in the UN, send troops, aid the rebuilding process, blah, blah, blah. What makes you think the US is economically weak? We're doing much better than almost every other western nation at the moment in terms of growth. Average unemployment under Clinton was 6%, under Bush it's 5.5%. It all depends on who's spin you want to believe, the gloom-and-doom of the chicken-little Democrats, or the everything's great high-on-crack Republicans. Their goal is simply to either maintain, or gain, power. Solving problems and finding solutions aren't their forte. At this moment, I see the Republicans as more organized and capable than the Democrats, who tend to lose sight of the goal in favor of the preferred agenda or system, and no matter how bad the situation may currently be under the Republicans, the Democrats can only fumble to make them worse, as evidenced by Carter and Clinton.
                  The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.

                  I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Can somebody point out where is Putin explicitly endorsing Bush for a second term?

                    All I get from the article is that Putin is saying that the choice is that of American people to choose their president.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Good point. Darned trees, getting in my way of viewing a perfectly good forrest. Call Weyerhauser.
                      The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.

                      I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I tend to agree with Ulian observation and disagree with Horrido. Horrido is inaccuarate on many counts. First of all US aid is not a big deal to Russia at all. Russia receives less than $1 billion, and given that its economy is $1.2+ trillion and growing at a rate of avergae 6.5-7% over the last 5 years, $1 billion is nothing. Thanks to the Iraq war and faulty Bush policies, crude oil prices have shot through the roof, and Russia being the second largest producer of crude oil in the world is reaping the bonanza. So in financial terms it does not really matter to Putin who is the president of US. It matters in the policy terms though since Bush is more likely to overlook Putin growing authoritarian approach than a democratic Kerry. In that sense yes, Putin would prefer Bush as Ulian pointed out.

                        People here tend to overlook that Bush in order to oust one dictator Saddam has mollycoddled 1/2 dozen different dictators in Central Asia, Pakistan, and ME. In effet project demcracy in Iraq actually is coming at the cost of democracy in Central Asia, Pakistan, and other nations in ME.

                        If Kerry is elected US has better chances of getting international coperation than under Bush. Bush confrontational approach to foreign policies has alineated a very large section of international opinion including those of its closest European allies.
                        So Ulian is right that US position on international front will remain week under Bush since it will have to trudge along pretty much alone, thus US will fail to achieve optimal solution in international policies.

                        On economic front, the comaparison should not be with the western nations but done internally, and fact of the matter is US is certainly worse off than it was 4 years ago. All economic indicators are down from the Clinton years. Horrido date about unemployment under Clinton is wrong, average unemployment under Clinton was only 5.2%.
                        http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/graphs.htm
                        When Bush took over from Clinton unemployment was around 4%, so in effect a 5.6% unemployment under Bush actually means that it has gone up by 40%. That is really very poor performance. Afterall Bush is the first president after Herbert Hoover to lose jobs. Poverty has gone up, and highest number of people currently have no medical insurance, over 45 million of them.

                        I am astounded by finger pointing at Clinton when simply put US economy recorded the longest peacetime expansion under his predidency. When Regan/Bush-I era was over US had accumulated the largest debt ever totalling trillions of dollers. Clinton not only got rid of the deficit in budgeting but was also able to repay a big chunk of debt reducing it by $2 trillion. Now with Bush-II the debt again has gone back to ~$7 trillion, up by $2 trillion.
                        On foreign policy front Clinton did much better job than the unlilateral approach of Bush administration which has resulted in loss of 1000+ American lives in Iraq and a whopping cost of $200 billion. Compare that with Clinton's handling of Bosinia/Kosovo crisis, you will be able to see the difference.
                        His personal predilections aside, Clinton undoubtebly has been one of the great president in US history.
                        I also disagree with people who blame Carter. The Oil crisis of the early 70's happend under Nixon watch because of his wrong policies. Oil embargo happened under Nixon presidency, not under Carter's. Oil crisis of the early 70's lead to all kind of economic problems, Carter simply inherrited them from Nixon/Ford.
                        Carter must be the most revered American round the globe (and Bush probably is the most hated American!).

                        In any case I don't see how Republican will do a better job than the Democrats, considering what they have done in the last 4 years. They have done a poor job both domestically and internationally. Can anyone believe that Bush is responsible for largest ever expansion of federal govt.? Whatever happened to fiscal conservatism?
                        Republicans have followed a policy of "borrow and spend" which is much worse than "tax and spend", since we are burdening our future generation with all the debts.
                        On international front Iraq/North-Korea/Iran are good examples of failures, as well as very serious damge done to US credibility because of the false pretext of WMD's etc. to rush into an unauthorized and thus illegal war.

                        I don't see how Kerry can do worse than that! If Kerry can restore Clinton's economic policeis and continue to take care of the problems in Iraq by involving more allies as well as tweak the approach to with war on terror, he would do just fine.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Don't be Mad, Chirac supports Kerry you should be happy about that!
                          Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

                          -- Larry Elder

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Ulian, I agree w/ sum of your pts; however,
                            r u serious about Bush referendum for a Third Term? I think thats hillarious! (in an almost impossibilistically irrealistic way)
                            [btw, Bush came 2 S FL this last weekend. met him]

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The referendum thing is what caught my attention, i agree it'll never happen ever.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X