| Poster | Message |
|---|
Motty
|  09 Feb '09 21:22 : 0 recs
whats he doing these days... |
|
| |  You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
little c
| 06 Oct '08 10:11 : 0 recs
 |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
Merlin
| 09 May '07 16:46 : 0 recs
Because the USA etc kept thieving villians in charge of them. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
Waterloo Sunset
| 09 May '07 09:32 : 0 recs
yes, failed states. why? |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
Merlin
| 09 May '07 08:42 : 0 recs
Actually Agnostic Life expectancy in Africa under cololialism was around 75 - today under African rule for fifty years in some states it has halved. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
agnostic
| 08 May '07 13:08 : 0 recs
Poor old Boris. One UK and one French election later, and he's a footnote in history.
Still, I'd rather be a footnote than a blank, which is my likely fate ... |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
agnostic
| 02 May '07 08:59 : 0 recs : edited 1 time : last edit 02 May '07 09:01
George:
Far from not having heard of the Little Big Horn, I have used the event as an analogy for the climate change argument (those who still insist no scientific proof exists resembling the shrinking band of cavalry surrounding General Custer).
The treatment of indigenous people almost everywhere in the 18th and 19th centuries remains a matter of intense debate. The white Americans' treatment of the "red indians", the white Australian treatment of the aborigines, British (and French and Portuguese) treatment of the native Indians and of all native Africans, the Dutch in Indonesia, where do you want to stop?
The American Consitution does proclain that all men are created equal. The essence of the Civil War was whether slaves counted as "men" in that sense. In other words, it was about determining the true meaning of the Constitution (see those few famous words uttered at Gettysberg). I'm not sure about the Constitution not allowing secession (by implication, in any circumstances). I'm prepared to accept expert opinion on that.
And I wouldn't say the EU is without its internal stresses. It isn't only in the UK that you encounter voices saying that "We should get out". That most self-interested of all nations, Switzerland, has never been "in", although it has negotiated special treatment for itself. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
George Sore Ass
| 02 May '07 06:25 : 0 recs
Agnostic
Yes, there was that little flutter in the dovecote - and indeed it was in essence fought over the interpretation of an article of the Constitution.
So the fantastic constitution you rate so highly did not guarantee freedom for all and did not allow secession, thus leading to the bloodiest conflict in the country's history.
But apart from permitting people to be 'owned' and preventing states from leaving the union if they chose (thereby leading to a war that killed 700,000 people), it was a pretty impressive document(!)
The EU also has countries banging on the door to join. And it doesn't have any proposing leaving yet. Pretty impressive really. No slavery, and no wars fought to prevent countries leaving.
The US founding fathers would be in awe i think....
Regards
George |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
George Sore Ass
| 02 May '07 06:14 : 0 recs : edited 1 time : last edit 02 May '07 06:15
Agnostic
The USA spread, southwards and westwards, by attracting territory after territory to enter the fold. It did nothing by conquest - unless you count the Civil War, and one or two little squabbles with Mexico!
In 1801 Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark to cross the continent to the pacific, as the plan right from the beginning was to expand the US from sea to sea. They encountered numerous indian tribes along the way, but reported disappointedly on their return that even the amenable ones were unwilling to abandon their pattern of frequent wars and disputes and unite under the US president.
And so the US embarked on the conquest of the west. It granted land to white settlers to head west and take the country. The small problem of the fact that land was occupied by various indian tribes did not prove a major problem. In the worst cases, you can always slap a bounty on dead apaches - man, woman or child.
Once the indigenous indians had been subjugated, or just slaughtered in various battles (or just slaughtered not in battle), the last piece of the puzzle was for the US settlers to join the union that had encouraged them out to the west to conquer the land.
I think it is rather disingenuous to not mention the brutal wars fought by the US against the indians, even if you use a technicality to exclude the brutal colonization by US-sent settlers of lands not yet in the US.
You've really never even heard of Little Bighorn? Unbelievable!!!?
Regards
George |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
agnostic
| 01 May '07 09:35 : 0 recs : edited 3 times : last edit 01 May '07 09:43
GSA
Yes, there was that little flutter in the dovecote - and indeed it was in essence fought over the interpretation of an article of the Constitution. And even as the war was being fought, California joined the Union!
On the other hand, individual territories before and after aspired to full statehood and did plead for admission. The background to the musical "Oklahoma!" is in fact that territory's gaining of statehood in 1907 ... though it doesn't register on the scale of "Oh, What a Beautiful Morning" or indeed anything sung by the enchanting Shirley Jones ...
The USA spread, southwards and westwards, by attracting territory after territory to enter the fold. It did nothing by conquest - unless you count the Civil War, and one or two little squabbles with Mexico!
I wonder what the long-term result might have been of the Confederates winning independence? |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
George Sore Ass
| 01 May '07 08:03 : 0 recs : edited 4 times : last edit 01 May '07 08:10
Agnostic
Interesting study, the US Constitution - all through the 19th century it had non-federated states hammering on the door, asking to be admitted.
Hmmm I seem to remember a group of federated states hammering at the door to leave (which was not allowed, resulting in a four-year bloodbath).
Regards
George "don't mention the war" Sore Ass |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
George Sore Ass
| 01 May '07 07:49 : 0 recs
Agnostic,
I don't doubt Yeltsin had guts to stand on the tank. It was a risk for sure. He might have ended up dead or in a gulag. It's the kind of thing most of us might only try with a bit of dutch courage
Yeltsin was a significant figure in history for sure, but let's face it. The coup plotters may have sent tanks out against the democrats but they didn't get them firing of shells all over the city. It was Yeltsin two years later who also sent the tanks out against civilian democrats, and then ordered them to shell the parliament.
So maybe history is unfair - we should be commending the coup plotters for restraint and respect for human life, and not singing the praises of a man who ordered shelling of the first democratically elected parliament in Russia's history.
Regards
George |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
ssaines
| 29 Apr '07 01:06 : 0 recs
I'm going to be the Russian Devil's Advocate here, since Yeltsin is getting very few accolades here. This forum won't be extant for much longer, so allow me to post an article quoting Yeltsin's peers in this nation:
ALEXANDER PANETTA
The Canadian Press
Two Canadian prime ministers remember Boris Yeltsin as a larger-than-life figure - with a booming character, big dreams, and a bone-rattling handshake.
To Jean Chretien and Brian Mulroney, he was not only the man who hastened the death of Soviet communism by climbing aboard a tank in a historic act of defiance.
He was also the hard-partying Russian colleague who guzzled copious quantities of bubbly during a birthday party at 24 Sussex, and who engaged in public arm-twisting contests with fellow world leaders.
Chretien saluted his bravery during the 1991 coup attempt when he met hardline communist forces outside the Russian parliament and strode onto one of their tanks.
"He must have been minutes away from dying," Chretien told The Canadian Press. "That will be remembered as a great moment for democracy in my judgment."
Mulroney described his former colleague as a powerful figure who - unlike his predecessor, Mikhail Gorbachev - believed strongly that the only way forward for Russia was a complete break with communism.
He also recalled a Yeltsin visit to Ottawa in 1992 which happened to coincide with his birthday. Mila Mulroney made a birthday cake and served up a profusion of champagne.
"Let me just tell you that he celebrated his birthday in fine, fine fashion. He knew how to do it, too," Mulroney said outside his Montreal office.
"He enjoyed his own birthday more than I can tell you."
Polar bear
That larger-than-life quality extended to the power of his handshake.
Chretien described how impressed he was by the massive paw of the man once described by Bill Clinton as a polar bear.
Even as he struggled with the effects of alcoholism, and amid reports he was ailing, Yeltsin arrived at a G8 meeting in 1999 and fared well against Chretien in a playful tug-of-war.
"I'm in reasonably good shape for a guy of my age. But for a guy who was supposed to be sick, it was impressive to see the physical strength of the guy at that moment," Chretien said.
He recalled how then-U.S. president Bill Clinton looked on and joked: "Look, the two polar bears are fighting down there."
Chretien proudly described how he invited Yeltsin to participate in a G7 meeting in Halifax in 1995, before Russia formally joined the group of the world's most powerful democracies.
Democracy
Chretien said he's disappointed by the slow progress of Russian democracy, as evidenced by recent crackdowns on opponents of President Vladimir Putin.
"They're not going as fast to establish what we call Western standards of democracy as I wish they would. But they've made a lot of progress," he said.
"I think it's slower than we were hoping, but I always said to be the president of Russia is probably the toughest political job in the world."
Harder than being prime minister of Canada? Chretien laughs at the question.
Seated in the giant corner office of his law firm - one decorated with Inuit carvings, family photos, and a framed picture of him golfing with Clinton - Chretien gestures toward an old sandstone building a block away.
He waves his hand toward the Prime Minister's Office and says its occupant has it easy compared to Russia's president.
"Oh, no match. Easy," he says, motioning toward his old office.
"Here it's nothing compared to (Russia's) problems."
Chretien, Mulroney remember larger-than-life comrade
Rare are the nations that don't need a 'strongman' to run them. Chretien was a very strongman politically, bordering on being a tyrant, and yet he pushed this nation forward like few have. He throttled protesters (I kid you not! Why charges were never laid...well, it seems many leaders push the legal envelope...) and yet our relationship with other nations was never better. The US and Canada were very, very close at that time.
Chretien called it as he saw it, how different things are now with PM Hairspray, the disgusting wimp suck-azz.
Governing Russia takes a Strongman. I say this with some hesitance, but as with *most* nations, the concept of 'Democracy' as we know it is alien, and not apt. (Nothing could display that more than Iraq). With that in mind, I do defer to the opinions of Mulroney and Chretien (nemeses btw).
Whether Putin is apt for today's Russia or not is highly contentious. He is *certainly* very popular, far more so than any other Russian leader in memory. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
ssaines
| 28 Apr '07 17:06 : 0 recs : edited 4 times : last edit 28 Apr '07 17:23
Ag writes:
Interesting study, the US Constitution - all through the 19th century it had non-federated states hammering on the door, asking to be admitted. Not exactly true. These were territories that demanded the right to be active states, and have representation in Congress, let alone greater taxing rights.
Edit to Add:
The Toronto Star has an extremely well written and researched analysis of Scottish Independence today. There are many parallels to the UK and USSR:
[...]"Newfoundland was given multiple choices in the referendum that brought it into Canada," said Nicola McEwen, senior lecturer in politics at University of Edinburgh's Centre for Canadian Studies.
McEwen's colleague James Kennedy, acting head of the university's Canadian Centre, suggested that facing multiple choices, Scots might be inclined toward the pragmatic middle. A made-in-Scotland version of Canada's "sovereignty-association," perhaps.
"The thing to keep in mind that is if the question is `Are we a country?' most people in Scotland would say, `Absolutely, yes.' The cultural issue is not at stake. We know exactly who we are," said Kennedy.
"Yet if we look to Quebec, Scottish politicians see many things they envy – like the ability to raise taxes through a wide range of powers, control over immigration. Scotland has a long way to go before attaining the levels of power that Quebec has now."[...]
Elections will measure nationalist momentum
I wonder if Tony would stand on a tank, drunk with power and the Bible...as he tries to rout Scottish Nationalists from Westminster....
Second Edit: I might add rather dryly...that the Soviets in fact recognized a distinct Canada more than the UK does! Brits are incredibly...errr...'misinformed' on what Canada is, her standard of living, her reasons for success, her history. Housing immediately comes to mind, but Brits are completely numb on learning from anybody on that.
Oz gets far more mention in the UK than Canada, and yet Canada is economically a much greater power (over twice the GDP), and a member of the G7.
Russia recognizes this, as did the USSR, and also held Canada in esteem, as she was second only to Germany in terms of aid per capita to the ex USSR, something Yeltsin discussed frequently with Brian Mulroney.
You will of course never read of this in the UK Press.
Cricket anyone? |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
agnostic
| 28 Apr '07 10:26 : 0 recs
GSA:
"The problem is that people make out that Yeltsin stood on the tank because he was a committed democrat risking his life to save the march of freedom and all that. Tosh. He was doing it because if the coup succeeded he would lose his power and position."
Still took guts to do it, though, He could have turned hmself back into a communist. Very few people had heard of him up to that point.
"As it was, after the coup he effectively took over the country from Gorby by the backdoor, getting the Soviet Union dissolved so there was nothing to govern."
There was still Russia to govern, and it's one big country with lots of resources. But I grant that one huge failure of imagination was not to draft a new Constitution resembling that of the USA, which might have keep the USSR more or less intact.
Interesting study, the US Constitution - all through the 19th century it had non-federated states hammering on the door, asking to be admitted. Compare that with the way the former Soviet republics couldn't wait to cast adrift and go their own way. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
George Sore Ass
| 27 Apr '07 21:32 : 0 recs : edited 2 times : last edit 27 Apr '07 21:41
Agnostic,
Yeltsin was a politician. He's a communist when they're in power, and then leaves when the going gets bad and recasts himself as a liberal democrat. So he's clearly not ideologically driven, but driven by a desire for power. The worst kind of politician (think Tony Blair).
The problem is that people make out that Yeltsin stood on the tank because he was a committed democrat risking his life to save the march of freedom and all that. Tosh. He was doing it because if the coup succeeded he would lose his power and position. As it was, after the coup he effectively took over the country from Gorby by the backdoor, getting the Soviet Union dissolved so there was nothing to govern.
Did he do this because he believed in freedom? Well, just two years later he ends a dispute with the first freely elected russian parliament by getting his tanks to shell it.
After much drinking and shambolic economic management (including selling off industry way below value in return for political support) he hands over to his chosen successor, a man who ran the KGB. Nice move. That's the way to ensure freedom, democracy and human rights for future generations eh?
Yeltsin's acts may at times have coincided with those of the democratic movement in Russia. But at other times they were totally contrary to it. But if you view them as the acts of an ambitious politician anxious to hold/gain power, everything becomes much more consistent.
I really don't think Yeltsin should get such kudos for being a democratic champion given that the act on the tank had a hefty dose of self-interest and he subsequently ended up crushing democratic institutions by force. Old habits and all that. Would you excuse Mugabe for the chaos (and worse) in Zimbabwe because he was instrumental in 'freeing' the country from colonialism? I don't think so.
It is quite noticeable how muted the west is in criticizing Putin, considering that democracy is dead already in Russia. Sadly the west was never opposed to communism because of the dictatorial aspect of the regimes, it was always just the economic philosophy they objected to. The west is quite tolerant of capitalist dictatorships, it's when businesses are nationalized and foreign companies cannot get access that the bombs start getting loaded up.
Regards
George |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
agnostic
| 27 Apr '07 19:30 : 0 recs
GSA:
If Yeltsin hadn't stood on that tank, there is an excellent chance that Gorbachev would have been consigned to Siberian oblivion and that the entire apparatus of Soviet Communism would have been restored, for a while at least.
The fact that Yeltsin's pragmatic best wasn't nearly good enough to prevent the short-lived triumph from turning into chaos shouldn't detract from that one achievement.
As an inspirational leader in a moment of crisis, he was good. As a capable administrator for replacing seventy years of entrenched, dead-handed socialism with something better, he was pretty hopeless. But credit where credit is due ... |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
ssaines
| 27 Apr '07 17:30 : 0 recs
Yes, Winchester Mr Car. I have very pleasant memories of the place, and scenes are flashing before me. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
George Sore Ass
| 27 Apr '07 16:22 : 0 recs : edited 1 time : last edit 27 Apr '07 16:23
WS
I think history will judge Yeltsin kindly. Her became a giant the day he stood on that tank and defeated the communists finally thus creating the Russian democracy that the gangster/spy Putin has been busily undermining ever since
Remind me who made a snap decision to step down and then appointed Putin in his place (I mean, an ex KGB chief... what did he expect the guy would do)?
History will judge Gorbachev as the man who brought dictatorship and communism to an end in Russia, quite rightly. Yeltsin will just be seen as a drunk chancer who did little good in terms of the economy, selling off state assets cheap in corrupt fashion in return for political support. He even ended up sending tanks to blow up the parliament he was supposedly defending two years earlier.
The best we can say for him is that he probably was so sh1tfaced he didn't know what he was doing.
Regards
George |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
Warren BuffetCar
| 27 Apr '07 13:40 : 0 recs : edited 1 time : last edit 27 Apr '07 13:40
Goel,
Does anyone remember a bar in in Lan Kwai Fong, central Hong Kong named Yeltsins, around the mid-90s?
There is a pub in Hampshire called the "Percy Hobbs", I used to drive past it alot. Its named after one of the locals who'd drunk there since 1920.
I wonder how yeltsins got its name. Hmmm.
WBC |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
|
|
|
