Ovi -
we cover every issue
newsletterNewsletter
subscribeSubscribe
contactContact
searchSearch
Μονοπάτι της Εκεχειρίας  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Tony Zuvela - Cartoons, Illustrations
Ovi Language
Michael R. Czinkota: As I See It...
Stop violence against women
Tony Zuvela - Cartoons, Illustrations
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
 
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
GermanGreekEnglishSpanishFinnishFrenchItalianPortugueseSwedish
Who said it! Who said it!
by Thanos Kalamidas
2007-10-14 10:05:16
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her Russian visit showed concern about Russia’s situation, especially over human rights issues, and was worried about too much power concentrated within the Kremlin. Before we get to the Kremlin, I would like to say something to Ms. Rice: Lady, do you think about what you say or do words just drop uncontrollable out of your mouth?

In the name of the War on Terror over the last few years, the White House and the Democratic administration has created Guantanamo, has pushed a nation into a civil war on the other side of the globe, it has reduced in many ways the civil rights of its own citizens and, while in control of Congress, only they know how many bills have passed that make the rich richer and the poor poorer - all without any second thought or hesitation.

Guantanamo is the violation of human rights and it is idealized from this administration in the same way Dachau was by the Nazis. Following all of the above, what gives Ms. Rice the right to criticize anybody about human rights?

Respect to others and their rights, regarding respect to its own citizens’ rights has been wounded so badly during George W. Bush’s administration that the next administration will spend all its time and efforts to recover a country that has lost any credibility abroad, except, of course, if the American administration and Ms. Rice consider Pakistani’s dictator Musharraf's opinion credible.

Bush’s administration had a plan, one way or another, to help the weapon's industry increase their profits. Of course, when they took over the US was already a big global power without any opponent equal to their power so the administration’s advisor thought that it was a good idea to find either a new bad guy, create one or recreate one from the old guard - Putin was perfect for the role. He's not exactly a comrade in the old style; he's more something between a comrade and Rasputin!

The rest you know. Bin Laden got there first, Saddam followed and the weapons sales went… bananas! Lately the sales needed new marketing, people started complaining about the situation in Iraq, and Guantanamo doesn’t help marketing much, so out of the cupboard here comes the good old enemy Russia. However, there was something needed to trigger the hostilities.

Plant some missiles in the former Russian satellite of Poland, with the help of the local idiotic twin administration, and you get the provocation you need. Russia is right to complain when the American administration is planning to put missiles on its borders just like the good old times, while the USA and Russia are supposed to be allies. The excuse about 'terror' sounds very weak, especially when the hate of the Polish twins to anything Russian is well-known and their love to anything American is equally high – there's something about a white cowboy who occasionally speaks with… God!

Don’t worry! I’m not going to say that what Ms Rice said about Russia was wrong or unfair. She’s totally right. Mr. Putin plays games that remind of the old regime, manipulating even the Russian constitution to make sure that he will be in power forever. Yes, he has collected tremendous power at his disposal, especially after ruining the political system and disgracing the politicians in the eyes of the simple Russian public. He has established himself as the only chance for safety and stability in Russia, with his excuse that the Russian style of democracy sounds, if not naïve, but idiotic.

You see the problem in this case is not what Ms. Rice said but who said it!

    
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Comments(5)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
 (comments policy)

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-14 14:28:17
You are quite right, Mr. Kalamidas, in distinguishing what is said from who said it. Indeed, those who live in glass houses, or white houses or black houses for that matter ought not to throw stones at the risk of looking slightly ridiculous, if not down right hypocritical. There is however a flip side that is also worthy of reflection: if only the pure at heart were able to speak on an issue, half of the world would have no right to speak out on any issue. The pure night in Camelot is an ideal rarely found in the world of real-politic and secular salvation. In an imperfect world, alas, the what and the may be theoretically distinguished from each other but not always neatly separable in practice. Perhaps you’d concur that a partial solution to such a conundrum is that of not conceiving of human rights as objects or gifts to be acknowledged by an observing subject, conferred or certified by anybody, especially not by any manipulating holier than thou polity, but as being inalienable, that is to say, as just existing as part of what it means to be human, unsupported by any political power, shining like a star in the firmament and applying to each and all human beings whether or not anybody of any persuasion courageously acknowledges them and speaks out about them or cowardly denies them and keeps num about them. On the other hand, if power is the only reality, then such a proposal is moot.


Jack2007-10-14 22:54:30
Dear friends, I fear a return (if not already) to the Cold War Era of old. One in which mistrust is played like a game of chess. I pray there be some constructive, concilliatory conversation and exchange of dialoge (let diplomacy work here...and Mrs. Rice, you are indeed not helping). There must be some mutual compromise that can be reached. It is when diplomacy grows cold, being exhausted, that the "big chill" is heating up again, ironically by heated exchanges.

With apologies for all the cliches, I say let cooler heads prevail.


Jack2007-10-14 22:57:30
There is decidely blame on both sides. We play the hippocrite when one accuses the other of crimes against humanity. It is not who did what but who said what. Well put Thanos for your "...but who said it!." You are right on it.


Emanuel Paparella2007-10-15 00:47:07
Indeed Jach, that chess game you refer to is called geo-political real politik and its core is raw power. It is a complicated game which has precious little to do with human rights and democracy and free speech. See the link below for a glimpse of this monstruous game:

http://uruknet.info/?p=m37194&s1=h1




Jack2007-10-15 03:36:10
Yes Emanuel, this consolidation of power and control is occuring on both sides. Democracy and freedoms (speech, assembly, to protest...)are destroyed from this "friendly-fire". Like the same ends of a maganet, they repel each other by unseen but very real forces. Finger pointing and blaming only ensures the other side dig's their heals in deeper and deeper in resistance. So in reality, we have met the enemy and it is WE.


© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi