Readers’ Responses to Our Question (44)

objectization paracasein tantalian antisilverite cochlearifoliate diplotene adjunctive amelcorn
Alternative Energy Systems
http://www5.qvnpvz.net/w4
International Loadstar Trucks
http://www4.qfoifxz.net/l6
Valparaiso University Football
http://www0.qvnpvz.net/vt
Compact Flash Media
http://www9.uejtaxylj.net/gc
Leaded Glass Doors
http://www5.qfoifxz.net/1l0
Lady Dress Shoes
http://www6.uejtaxylj.net/1nk
Flight Student Airline Fares Gdansk
http://www2.qfoifxz.net/dn
George Strait I Believe
http://www5.qvnpvz.net/b
Ball Crystal Image
http://www9.uejtaxylj.net/yj
Breakdanceing Music Downloads
http://www0.uejtaxylj.net/1lv

combwise nephrologist gastrectomy verminiferous accommodable tacheography weaponshaw keg
The Japan Sociological Society
http://www.amerifabindustries.com

combwise nephrologist gastrectomy verminiferous accommodable tacheography weaponshaw keg
Dessay, Natalie
http://www.indiana.edu/~anthling/

dwol ixhrf qopg gcojpmq kasztgqp slazfr sjge

Lets stop debating Putin vs Bush (or his poodle Blair) Putin vs democracy etc. Us vs them or Black spy vs White spy. The root cause is the twin evils Christian and Islamic cults. Instead of the twin towers if these had been brought down on 9/11 the world would have been ridden of the conflicts. Please read http://www.bharatvani.org/books/pp/ch2.htm

briefly I quote Dr. Elst:
(From the book "Psychology of Prophetism: A Secular Look at the Bible" by Koenraad Elst)

Prophetic monotheism and Sanatana Dharma

"In the past century, people belonging to the Hindu-Buddhist cultural sphere have started projecting the characteristics of their own spiritual masters on the monotheist prophets. Thus, when Jesus says: “The Kingdom of God is among you”, meaning “I, Jesus, am the Kingdom of God”, these good-natured Orientals take it to mean: “The Kingdom of God is inside of you, waiting to be discovered through meditation.” They have started to say that the prophets were a kind of yogis who taught their followers a way to attain a divine state of consciousness.

In fact, prophecy is radically different from yoga: it means allowing an outside entity, which in the case of monotheism is called Yahweh/God/Allah, to blow certain consciousness contents into your mind. Consciousness is not turned inward, but is (or believes it is) communicating with another Being. Moreover, the mind is not being emptied of its contents and made to rest in itself, as it is in yoga; on the contrary, it is being filled with a message beyond one’s control. The prophet receives a certain information: prophecy is like talking, though with an unusual partner via an unusual channel; but yoga is silence. Lastly, if it is correct that prophethood is a mental aberration and a delusion, then that makes it the very antithesis of yoga, which is an undisturbed and realistic awareness of pure consciousness.

Yoga is not an erratic and disturbing experience which befalls you and drives you to tirades of doom and to outbursts against your fellow men. It is a systematic discipline and makes the practitioner calm and serene. The word yoga means discipline, control (it is also translated as “uniting”: not the soul with an outsider called God, but the mind with its object, i.e. concentration). Since its field of working is consciousness, it is not interested in outward experiences such as recognition and glorification, or martyrdom. There is nothing dramatic about yoga, in stark contrast to the dramas enacted and encountered by the prophets.

The most remarkable difference between the prophets’ discourse and that of the rishis, is certainly this. The prophets all talk about themselves a lot. They think they are very special, this one person in this one body is different from the rest and has an exclusive relationship with the Creator. But the rishis talked about a universal way, a world order in which we all participate, a state of consciousness we can all achieve. If God is defined as that which transcends all worldly differences, the One above the Many, then this universalism is far more divine than the prophets’ exclusivism.

What Hindus who have been trapped in a sentimental glorification of Jesus and other prophets will have to learn, is that the essence of Hindu Dharma is not “tolerance”, or “equal respect for all religions”, but Satya, truth. The problem with Christianity and Islam is superficially their intolerance and fanaticism. But this intolerance is a consequence of these religions’ untruthfulness: if your belief system is based on delusions, you have to pre-empt rational inquiry into it and shield it from contact with more sustainable thought systems. The fundamental problem with the monotheist religions is not that they are intolerant, but that they are untrue, (Asatya or Anrita).

At this point many Hindus will be sincerely shocked, they will object, and Christian polemists will express the same objection: “By denouncing some religions as untrue, you are making a pretentious claim to knowing the ultimate truth.” In the case of Christians who know and believe the essence of their religion, this objection is highly insincere, as they themselves are confidently claiming to possess the ultimate, God-given truth. Otherwise, the objection against absolute truth-claims may be valid. The point is that by denouncing the defining beliefs of Christianity (and similarly, Islam) as untrue, we are not making a claim to know the final truth. The quest for the final truth remains open. When scientists find that a certain hypothesis is empirically disproves, they henceforth treat it as untrue and move on to more promising hypotheses; this does not imply a pretentious claim to ultimate truth. It is simply that once a belief is found to be untrue, we should not burden ourselves with it anymore, so that we can keep ourselves free for something more true.

There are other respects also in which Christianity and Sanatana Dharma are radically different. Christianity worships a suffering convict on the cross, and consequently glorifies suffering. To a woman who was heavily suffering, mother Teresa wrote: “You should be grateful for this suffering. It is Christ’s way of kissing you.”

In a sense, there is something to it that “hardships are the spice of life, they mould the perfect man”. Even so, the unabashed glorification of happiness is a far healthier attitude than the glorification of suffering. Hardships will come anyway, but it is morbid to focus the mind on them unnecessarily. When Christians hear Chinese people wish each other “much wealth” or in fact “much money”, on New Year’s day, they find it rather shocking. When they see depictions of Lakshmi or Ganesh, with all their opulence and well-being and endless generosity, they find something is very wrong. At any rate, it is a kind of iconography which you will not find in any church.

Like Christianity, several Sanatana traditions, esp. Buddhism, focus on suffering. But they have an unambiguous verdict: suffering is the problem, we offer a way out of it. The common-sense position of mainstream Hindu sources like the Bhagavad Gita is that suffering is a fact of life, that we have to bravely face it, that enduring it makes us stronger; but not that we should glorify it. In Christianity, a straightforward remedy against suffering is always resented as a bit selfish; since we are sinners, suffering is what we deserve.

This attitude to suffering is symptomatic of the single most harmful characteristic of Christianity: its lack of balance. In traditional Pagan and secular systems of ethics, the principle of the Golden Mean is duly emphasized (Aristotle, Confucius, Buddha); by contrast, Christianity fosters a sentimental extremism.

The only Bible books that consist of lucid observations about life, are non-prophetic books like Proverbs and Qohelet (Ecclesiastes). They belong to a section of the Old Testament called Ketuvim, “Writings”, for which no divine source is claimed. Their source is just human and normal, rather like any collection of quotations or “Collected Proverbs from the Middle East”. These sayings range from the trivial and uninspired to the witty and the profound. Some good, some not so good, a few gems: your average human product. These human sayings have some good advice to offer on how to conduct life; in the prophetic revelations, it is hard to find any such good advice.

Prophetism has caused innumerable hardships without giving anything valuable in return. Not one of the valuable things in the cultures dominated by it, can be traced to their prophetic-monotheistic component. Its source has more often than not been mental darkness. Today, there is no justification for keeping humanity in the mental prison of prophetism any longer."

by:Koenraad Elst

The Self is the sun shining in the sky, The wind blowing in space; He is the fire
At the altar and in the home the guest;
He dwells in human beings, in Gods, in truth,
And in the vast firmament; He is the fish
Born in water, the plant growing in earth,
The river flowing down the mountain.
For this Self is supreme!
(Katha Upanishad II.2.2)

BobL

Thanks for the post. Usually, when I see your name followed by mine, I cringe as I read the post while expecting another beating...

At any rate, Russia is an interesting country under Putin's leadership.

Neocon dribble?

Tom Wonacott,

Wasn't it you who said you were glad we weren't neighbors because we'd never get anything done?

Well my conservative friend your last post was logical, succint, historically accurate and free of neocon dribble. My hat is off to you, sir. Great post!

PG

Russia is responding to global (US) events that have occurred, primarily, because of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The addition of former Soviet satellite countries to NATO and the planned missile defense sites in the Czech Republic and Poland on Russia's doorstep have made Putin long for the good old days of the Soviet Union. American (perceived) unilateral approach to foreign policy is being challenged by Russia.

On NATO, Russia has a point. The NATO agreement with Russia was violated. The original agreement allowed a reunified East and West Germany to remain in NATO if NATO did not expand east of Germany. In addition, while the missile defense sites pose no threat to Russia, the sites offer Putin (and Russians) an embarrassing reminder of how far the Soviet Union fell after it's collapse.

Putin is all about the confidence that has emerged from high energy prices, rebuilding the Soviet economy, bullying his neighbors, and challenging the world's only superpower. Putin has taken a very nationalistic approach in exerting new Soviet power at home and abroad. Putin created a strong central government (while curtailing or reversing democratic change) and a relatively strong economy based on energy exports, and increased foreign investment.

Is Russia a threat? Former Soviet satellite countries joined NATO on a "better safe than sorry" plan, and while the powerful Russia military poses a threat, Russia has confined its influence to acts of intimidation, for example, the (alleged) recent computer attack against Estonia for moving the Russian statue, or energy blackmail.

Russia's recent barrage of criticism directed at the US, and strong objection to the missile defense sites which include targeting European cities with nuclear missiles, imply Russia wants to be acknowledged (once again) as a world power. A stronger Russia has emerged at the beginning of the twenty first century to challenge US dominance.

US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand besides Argentina are examples of usurped territory and these occupiers should not be allowed to even have troops. All these nations should be defanged untill and unles these lands are restored to the original inhabitants. The occupiers in spite of their numerical strength in these lands should have no say in governing these lands. Those who feel uncomfortable with this should be allowed to go back their favorite trees in Europe. World would be better place to live.

When I hear about tri- or multi-polarity I, and I'm sure most Americans think, when? Witness the Darfur tradgedy. There are plenty of opprotun-ies for the "new" powers to act but don't if it
involves undermining their own foundations of
power at home, which rarely include human rights.
As such you will just keep reading about these "new powers" involving themselves abroad for purely pecunary reasons.

Mohammad Allam :
"what Australia doing in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

Well, many people here are asking that same question, particularly over Iraq. We have only a tiny army and we have problems much closer to home that need its attention such as assisting some of our Pacific neighbours maintain stability in our region.

I don't defend my government’s decision to send a few hundred soldiers to Iraq except to say that many thought it necessary as a show of support for our ally America such as we did in Vietnam. Australia is not a 'great power'. We are a very small fish in a very big pond and we need the protection of the bigger fish. This thinking has been a feature of our foreign policy since the beginning. Once it was the mother-country Britain, when the Empire (in its death-throws) proved itself incapable of guaranteeing our security, we looked to America. Our military and political support is both a show of gratitude for our defence, and a kind of down-payment for our strategic security insurance.

However, like I said many people believe our troops should come home.

As for Russia, their re-entry into power politics will restore a semblance of regional power balance, but it won’t bring peace to the Middle-East. Nor will China's rise in power. There is now just more players in the field now. All will seek to interfere in some way with the domestic politics of the middle-east and central Asia.

To
Dylan Australia.
yes you are right .but tell me what happened after collapse of russia?Iraq ,afghanistan destroyed,sudan invaded,somalia destroyed,palestine remain a canser.if invasion is cause of not hoping good from rising russia then tell me what we expect from your country.?what australai doing in iraq and afghanistan?was australia attacked by these two countires.if we have to choose among two evils then we have to choose lesser.russia invaded afghanistan but large part of muslim world remain in peace.

Peoples can disagree but this is bitter truth that last decade of confrontation brought US to the same position where all its old rivals finding an opportunity to show their presence.

Russia is not a serious threat to US in near future. But this is not the time when US will be able to sermon its script to G-8 countries.

This is the time where even the staunch allies of US trying to show their independance on world issues.

US finding itself isolated on global issues. Either it is middle east, south America East Europe or even environmental issues like global warming we find a clear divide between US and world major players .

Mr. Putin's recent remarks in my opinion can not be considered seriously. But on the other hand they should not be ignored. because it reflects the change of season in global relations.

Once US withdraw from vietnam for one decade it was very quite and strenthning itself internally. When Russia witdraw from Afghanistan for one decade it was also quite and its presence in global issues were not felt.

Now another season is on horizon where for at least 10 years we will be listening less from US. Now it is time for west Europe , Russia , china and India to play more active role in world politics.

Some people should be under estimating Mr. Putin. He is intelligent and shrewd politician, A master of the game. He is not only aware of the cards in his hand but also able to estimate the cards his opponents holding and therefore very well knows when to play which card.

The world will not necessarily support him but will like to practice "wait and see policy" from the distance.

Mohammad Allam :
You wrote: "the rise of Russia will give another lease of life to Middle East Muslim countries who are very much fed up with the bull and conspiracy of America and dual policy of Europe. Iran will get relief and Pakistan will get another life in Afghanistan."

Er... Wasn't it Russia that invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and stayed there fighting for 9 years? Didn’t much of the Islamic world condemn the Soviet Russian occupation and send fighters to help the Mujahedin?
How quickly you forget.
Don’t look to Russia for freedom. It is just another great power. Great powers have no real friends, only interests.

Once a communist always a communist. How can the former head of the Soviet KGB be trusted.No matter how people may extol the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the fact is that Russia still is under communist control. What do people think happened to the millions of communists in the country, did they just pack up and go home. No way, they still run the show in the backrooms of the Kremlin. Wake up world, Russia is primed for the advent of another despotic regime in this century. Who really believes their nuclear weapons have not always been pointed at us. The leaders in Russia have never really trusted the west. And why should they with a megalomaniac midget brained dolt like George W. Bush in office.

Your headline, "Bully or Wannabe?" doesn't offer much in the way of positive choice, does it? Sort of like, "George Bush; Idiot or Imbecile?" In any case, western opinions probably don't put Putin's nose out of joint much. He has his critics in Russia, but if he was able to run for another term and chose to do so, he'd have a much better chance of being reelected than Bush would under the same circumstances in the United States. Breathless criticism of Putin in the western press is likely to only enhance his prestige as a leader at home, especially when he is standing up to somebody who wants to install a missile defense system on Russia's doorstep that will permit 24-hour monitoring of Russian airspace, never mind who the missiles might be directed against.

Despite the barbaric nature of Russian society, we Westerners can still learn important Russian ideas. One of the best such ideas is classic Russian techniques for dealing with Islamic animals. Visit the following web link.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/08/8938ce7e-5d54-45db-bd1c-92032901db38.html

The upper right of the web page at the above link has the following useful story for American strategists.

"Russia has had direct experience in dealing with Hizballah. In 1985, extremist groups in Lebanon linked to Hizballah kidnapped four Soviet diplomats, one of which was later killed.

International media at the time reported that the kidnappers received parcels with the decapitated heads of their close relations in order to secure the diplomats' release. However, speaking to TV-Tsentr on July 8, KGB Colonel Yury Perfiliev, who at the time headed the KGB's Beirut station, said the media reports were just a KGB bluff aimed at pressuring the kidnappers.

But according to Perfiliev, he met with the then-leader of Hizballah, Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Fadallah, and told him that the Soviet Union could not tolerate such a humiliation. He said that if the kidnappers were not released then the Soviet Union could accidentally fire a nuclear missile in the direction of the Iranian city of Qom, where Ayatollah Khomeini and other top Muslim clerics lived. The three remaining prisoners were subsequently released."

The Iranian thugs have run amok with their nuclear research, which is a front for developing a nuclear bomb. The Kremlin can offer the Pentagon useful suggestions for dealing effectively with these Islamic animals.

no,the new russia is not dangerous but a hope of ray for the people who are fed up of unipolar bully of americo-europe nature.
The world will rejoice as the rise of biopolar wolrd.the emergence of china,india and bragil will make the coming days more difficult for america and europe to capture the resources of week nation.the rise of russia will give another lease of life to middle east muslim cpuntries who are very much fed up with the bull and conspiracy of america and dual polciy of europe.iran will get relief and pakistan will get another life in afghanistan.

the zionist want russia? bet osama wrote that one. are russias policies dangerous? ask some of their neighbors. ask the polish. ask the hungarians. what a stupid question.

the zionist want russia? bet osama wrote that one. are russias policies dangerous? ask some of their neighbors. ask the polish. ask the hungarians. what a stupid question.

the zionist want russia? bet osama wrote that one. are russias policies dangerous? ask some of their neighbors. ask thpolish. ask the hungarians. what a stupid question.

I don't believe Russia is dangerous. Russia is our friend in my opinion.

It was inevitable that Russia, once it had got back on its economic feet again after the chaos of the Yeltsin years, would seek to once again protect what it has traditionally regarded as its sphere of influence (ie Eastern Europe and Central Asia.)

While not seeking to pose an immediate and direst military or ideological threat, Putin's Russia nevertheless has not-so-subtly drawn a line in the sand to America over its interests in its backyard.
It is not an iron curtain, but it would be dangerous for America to disregard it all the same.

It’s not the good ole’ 1990’s anymore. America’s monopoly on global power is weakening and so is its ability to act on the global stage without strategic restraints.

The G-7 is an organization of the major, prosperous democracies committed to Western values. When we Westerners admitted Russia into the G-7, creating the G-8, we expected that Russia would modernize along Western lines.

We were wrong.

Instead of strengthening Western society, the Russians have assaulted it. The Russian police routinely and savagely beat participants in peaceful human-rights demonstrations. The Kremlin has systematically taken control of independent television stations and ordered them to broadcast pro-Kremlin "news". The Russian government has also conspired to assassinate journalists. Read about Russian brutality at the following link.

Speak truth to power
--------------------
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9257663

Now, Vladimir Putin has threatened to aim Russian nuclear missiles at Europe. Prior to Russia's entry into the G-8, no member of the G-7 has ever threatened nuclear annihilation against another prosperous, Western democracy. Read the shocking story at the following link.

Vlad and MAD
------------
www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9304071&CFID=8373994&CFTOKEN=18041815

Threatening nuclear annihilation against Europe is serious business. We Westerners must respond.

We should expel Russia from the G-8.

The G-7 is an organization of the major, prosperous democracies committed to Western values. When we Westerners admitted Russia into the G-7, creating the G-8, we expected that Russia would modernize along Western lines.

We were wrong.

Instead of strengthening Western society, the Russians have assaulted it. The Russian police routinely and savagely beat participants in peaceful human-rights demonstrations. The Kremlin has systematically taken control of independent television stations and ordered them to broadcast pro-Kremlin "news". The Russian government has also conspired to assassinate journalists. Read about Russian brutality at the following link.

Speak truth to power
--------------------
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9257663

Now, Vladimir Putin has threatened to aim Russian nuclear missiles at Europe. Prior to Russia's entry into the G-8, no member of the G-7 has ever threatened nuclear annihilation against another prosperous, Western democracy.

Threatening nuclear annihilation against Europe is serious business. We Westerners must respond.

We should expel Russia from the G-8.

I Think by now Putin knows who Bush is, a paper tiger. He will not let the little monkey try and push him around, Putin is way to smart for that. All this last minute posturing by Bush, running all over the Country looking like some bantam roster with out any hens and just as inept. Now it time for all of the other countries to look at us from afar and shake their heads at U.S.A hypocrisy!

The G-7 is an organization of the major, prosperous democracies committed to Western values. When we Westerners admitted Russia into the G-7, creating the G-8, we expected that Russia would modernize along Western lines.

We were wrong.

Instead of strengthening Western society, the Russians have assaulted it. The Russian police routinely and savagely beat participants in peaceful human-rights demonstrations. The Kremlin has systematically taken control of independent television stations and ordered them to broadcast pro-Kremlin "news". The Russian government has also conspired to assassinate journalists. Read about Russian brutality at the following link.

Speak truth to power
--------------------
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9257663

Now, Vladimir Putin has threatened to aim Russian nuclear missiles at Europe. Prior to Russia's entry into the G-8, no member of the G-7 has ever threatened nuclear annihilation against another prosperous, Western democracy. Read the shocking story at the following link.

Vlad and MAD
------------

The G-7 is an organization of the major, prosperous democracies committed to Western values. When we Westerners admitted Russia into the G-7, creating the G-8, we expected that Russia would modernize along Western lines.

We were wrong.

Instead of strengthening Western society, the Russians have assaulted it. The Russian police routinely and savagely beat participants in peaceful human-rights demonstrations. The Kremlin has systematically taken control of independent television stations and ordered them to broadcast pro-Kremlin "news". The Russian government has also conspired to assassinate journalists. Read about Russian brutality at the following link.

Speak truth to power
--------------------
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9257663

Now, Vladimir Putin has threatened to aim Russian nuclear missiles at Europe. Prior to Russia's entry into the G-8, no member of the G-7 has ever threatened nuclear annihilation against another prosperous, Western democracy. Read the shocking story at the following link.

What a propagandistic question. The U.S spends nearly one trillion dollars a year on military and military related expenditures more than the sum of the next 20 nations combined and we have the gall to ask is Russia dangerous. What a load of bull. We are the ones that are dangerous. What legatimate self defense need costs a trillion dollars a year? Nothing, we are after imperial hedgemony.

How self-righteous of Yanks to even pose such questions? Russians did conquer territories in Europe after the great war. But unlike the Yanks they did not butcher the occupants wholesale and occupy their lands forever erect boundaries and preach about life liberty and democracy.

Yanks you and the Canadians are sitting on occupied territories after a genocide that is only exceeded by the 1000 year holocaust of Bharat i.e. India (read "Negationism in Indian History" by Koenradd Elst available to read free on the net ) and yet you say Saddam Hussein was wrong in occupying Kuwait! What a joke, stop preaching. You would be right only when you go back to Europe where you came from. Russians are far better bet for the survival of the world, they don't send their armies of cassock clad goons and fraudsters from their bible belt to colonize. Viva Russia. Vladmir Putin you are the only hope for Asians.

Can the Bush's of the occupied territory known as US tell why the US shielded the Interpol's most wanted criminal in the Sun City former President of Vatican Bank (money laundering bank) and Antonia Maino's close friend Archbishop Paul Marckinus? Can it also explain why the Swordoftruth.com was brought down because of it's extensive coverage of the Lies of the Nehru family?

How self-righteous of Yanks to even pose such questions? Russians did conquer territories in Europe after the great war. But unlike the Yanks they did not butcher the occupants wholesale and occupy their lands forever erect boundaries and preach about life liberty and democracy.

Yanks you and the Canadians are sitting on occupied territories after a genocide that is only exceeded by the 1000 year holocaust of Bharat i.e. India (read "Negationism in Indian History" by Koenradd Elst available to read free on the net ) and yet you say Saddam Hussein was wrong in occupying Kuwait! What a joke, stop preaching. You would be right only when you go back to Europe where you came from. Russians are far better bet for the survival of the world, they don't send their armies of cassock clad goons and fraudsters from their bible belt to colonize. Viva Russia. Vladmir Putin you are the only hope for Asians.

Can the Bush's of the occupied territory known as US tell why the US shielded the Interpol's most wanted criminal in the Sun City former President of Vatican Bank (money laundering bank) and Antonia Maino's close friend Archbishop Paul Marckinus? Can it also explain why the Swordoftruth.com was brought down because of it's extensive coverage of the Lies of the Nehru family?

How self-righteous of Yanks to even pose such questions? Russians did conquer territories in Europe after the great war. But unlike the Yanks they did not butcher the occupants wholesale and occupy their lands forever erect boundaries and preach about life liberty and democracy.

Yanks you and the Canadians are sitting on occupied territories after a genocide that is only exceeded by the 1000 year holocaust of Bharat i.e. India (read "Negationism in Indian History" by Koenradd Elst available to read free on the net ) and yet you say Saddam Hussein was wrong in occupying Kuwait! What a joke, stop preaching. You would be right only when you go back to Europe where you came from. Russians are far better bet for the survival of the world, they don't send their armies of cassock clad goons and fraudsters from their bible belt to colonize. Viva Russia. Vladmir Putin you are the only hope for Asians.

Can the Bush's of the occupied territory known as US tell why the US shielded the Interpol's most wanted criminal in the Sun City former President of Vatican Bank (money laundering bank) and Antonia Maino's close friend Archbishop Paul Marckinus? Can it also explain why the Swordoftruth.com was brought down because of it's extensive coverage of the Lies of the Nehru family?

How self-righteous of Yanks to even pose such questions? Russians did conquer territories in Europe after the great war. But unlike the Yanks they did not butcher the occupants wholesale and occupy their lands forever erect boundaries and preach about life liberty and democracy.

Yanks you and the Canadians are sitting on occupied territories after a genocide that is only exceeded by the 1000 year holocaust of Bharat i.e. India (read "Negationism in Indian History" by Koenradd Elst available to read free on the net ) and yet you say Saddam Hussein was wrong in occupying Kuwait! What a joke, stop preaching. You would be right only when you go back to Europe where you came from. Russians are far better bet for the survival of the world, they don't send their armies of cassock clad goons and fraudsters from their bible belt to colonize. Viva Russia. Vladmir Putin you are the only hope for Asians.

Can the Bush's of the occupied territory known as US tell why the US shielded the Interpol's most wanted criminal in the Sun City former President of Vatican Bank (money laundering bank) and Antonia Maino's (aka Sonia Ghandy) close friend Archbishop Paul Marckinus till his death? Can it also explain why the Swordoftruth.com was brought down because of it's extensive coverage of the Lies of the Nehru family?

If I were Putin I'd feel betrayed by the US. Instead of the US fostering relations with Russia we have basically ignored them in favor of acting like a colonial power.

It looks a whole lot like the old adage, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." Putin is squeaking and Bush is going to have to give him some grease in order for the relationship to run smoother. I sincerely doubt a trip to Maine will do the job and I have my doubts it can even happen under a Bush Administration.

You convict him before any discussion with your slanted question. Either alternative isn't very appealing. Is it bullying or "wannabe" bullying to object to the continued expansion of U.S. military bases across Eastern Europe and throughout the world? I wish other nations would stand up to the U.S. It is the pot calling the kettle black for U.S.-based commentators to refer to bullying from those who object to U.S. international moves. We spend more on our military than all the countries of the world combined. If others, knowing our military power, still want to challenge our behavior, I applaud their courage. The question should be "will the U.S. ever get over its sense of privilege in dealing with other countries, or will we always feel it is our right to meddle with other people and then act surprised when they object?" Admittedly, that's a long-winded question, but you get the idea...

The question is ridiculous, for the G8 Leaders include Russia, thus the group can not speak with one voice.

Furher, the group is made up mostly imperial powers of the past [USA, Russia, UK, Germany, France, Japan, Italy and the USA vassal, Canada]and some still maintian imperial pretensions [USA, Uk, France]. The Russian voice reflects the interest of the Russian people, the USA/UK reflects the imperial desire of the USA - the cause of the recent Russian uproar.

Further, the G8 does not represent either the world, nor Rising powers as China, Brazil, India; nor does the G8 reflect a majority of the World's population [maybe 25%?].

From recent international polling the most dangerous countries by popular opinion included USA, Israel and Iran. The Flashpoint of the ME's upheaval are the USA and UK.

Question which countries have armed forces outside of their nativeland? Answer: USA, by far the largest; UK and NATO [excluding UN peacekeepers, and minimal Chinese in Africa].

Question who has WMD outside of their own territory? USA [by far the largest] Uk, France possibly, Israel and Russia [greatly deminished in the last 20 years].

Which country spends 50%+ of the world's total defensive budget? USA, more than 5 times that of Russia.

Question: which countries are surrounded by foreign armies and or spying equipment? Russia, China, Iran. Who does the surrounding/spying? USA and the NATO Vassal states.

Perusing the above paragraphs it is clear that Russia does not seem to positing any dangers to anyone, except to those who wish to host USA advanced war and spying equipment. Recalling the Cuban Missile Crisis, Russia's reaction is far more peaceful than that perpetrated by the USA with respect to Cuban Missiles.

Basing on the above it seems rational to suppose that the Question posed by David and Zakaria is meant for USA consumption reflecting the TALKING POINTS OF THE CORRUPT USA POLICAL LEADERSHIP and nothing to do with world opinion.

I see nothing really dangerous here.

Putin's policies are not absolutely perfect, but reasonable, within the context of Russia's interests along with those of United States, Europe and others.

As for missile defense issue, their concerns are quite natural. Not too long ago Russians sharply reduced their military troops count (total), pulled off back home their military bases abroad, including Cuba, and they faced eastward expansion of NATO, nearing borders of Russia, and plans of the United States regarding missile shield elements in the Eastern Europe. They do have to take actions to keep balance. And the proposal of Azerbaijan radar for the missile shield is reasonable and allows Russia not to aim it's missiles at Europe.

"In Russia", you ask? I would have thought it was for the Russians to tell!...

That being said, I agree with Zoltan. The so-called "world" is so very vast, diversified, by no means monolithic; above all, it is not reducible to the western turf, point of view and "response(s)".

Who knows! We know the Bush policies on behalf of our own government are very dangerous, not to mention outright insane. Unless you'r4e a complete idiot, you wont trust anything the government, under Bush-Cheney control, has to say about anything, so we have no real idea of what's going on with Outin and Russia. This is, David and Fahreed, an indictment of the press, especially the Post. The days of Watergate and genuine investigative reporting appear to be over. Instead, we get reprints of press releases from various groups and the government with no analysis or fact checking. So, two weeks ago the Post ran some front page story, written by a twit from rthe Brdy Fundation - Gun COntrol Inc., that claimed there were 19,000 gun related deaths in the U.S. last year; which is interesating since the just released government statistics put the ***total number of homicides***, by all means (including police shootings and other justifiable homicides, vehicular manslaughter, etc.) at something under 16,000. Same deal with Pentagon reprts of Iraq war casulties, DOL jobs creation numbers, DOC economic statistics, etc. Everyone knows all of these are suspect, everyone knows most of them are distorted or even outright lies, so whny do you print them? If the Post was actually doing its job, we might actually trust reports published in this newspaper to form educated and intelligent opinions about Putin and Russia...and Iraq, and illegal immigration, and globalization, and the U.S. economy and Europe and a lot of other things. Please, bring my comment to the attention of your editors, and perhaps humiliate them enough to actually REPORT THE NEWS!!!!!!

Yes, the world (including China, India, Europe and the Middle-East) will have, once again, to be wary of Russia, but not as much as of a still-stubbornly unipolarity-obsessed USA. The transition to a multi-polar (at least tripolar -- 'West', Russia/Central Asia, Western-South-and East.Asia) world will be very unstable, and every power or leader that aspires to legitimacy will hqve to exercise enormous restraint or face opprrobrium or at least isolation domestically, as Bush, Blair, and Musharraf are experiencing, to be joined soon by Sarkozy.

ISRAEL is the danger in that scenario.. the zionists want Russia...keep pushing for revolution. Watch who bashes Putin in the American press, who yells constantly "back to the cold war" every chance they get. Do not which papers, which writers. They work constantly and always will. And, as usual, it
endangers the US. Putin's pushing back the 8 jewish oligarchs who stole Russia's natural resources has saved them temoprarily, still they move to London and keep on trying. It was to be be the sure fire way...
They never quit, you know. You didn't know, propogandized Americans? The rest of the world does and always has.

No, I do not believe the posturing and policies of Putin's Russia are dangerous. Putin, a nationalist, is not a democrat, but is pragmatic. The latest rhetoric has only shown a true politician at work. It is a great gambit, one if in hindsight had been proffered without "pointing missiles at Europe" might not have had any traction. What world leader have taken Putin seriously if he meekly asked the shield not to be in Poland, and instead in Azerbaijan?

The world should respond to this "new Russia" by ignoring it. If the media had not made a huge brouhaha about the missile remark, Putin would not have had as large of an impact with his counterproposal. Western Europeans should work to invest in Russia and create a viable economy apart from oil. This investment would be long-term destabilization of the Russian governments source of power, and would perhaps over time lead to (or reversion) to democracy.

"The world" is not a unique entity able to respond to "Russia". These WaPo questions are more and more debilitating.

Chinese, Europeans, South-Americans have different approaches and opinions about Russia. Not to mention Canada or Mexico or India or Australia.

It is a mistake to conflate the type of regime in Moscow with Russia’s geopolitical behaviour: a Russia under a different type of government is unlikely to behave differently.
http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2007/06/06/dont-blame-putin/