Putin orders Special Ops to "Find and Destroy" Iraq Kidnappers

[dant]

According to the latest news:
http://www.echo.msk.ru/news/321085.html

I was not able to reach this link. I even tried: http://www.echo.msk.ru and my browser just hangs.

Just testing to see if I am being blocked by someone (ISP, NSA, ???) in USA... just being a bit paranoid.

Dan

Works fine for me Dan. I'm in the US also. But the website is all in Russian, so you might not be able to read it anyway.

Please accept my apologies. It turns out that I added a block myself since I was
receiving a lot of spam and this URL link happens to be 194.67.28.234 and I was getting
spam from 194.67.52.19-22 so I blocked 194.67.*.* -- oops. I reset my filters to use
194.67.52.19-22 so now I can read the site - but you are right... I cannot read russian

Dan

 

[ark]

Ark, before I answer, could control be partial? Or if it's partial, it ceases to be named as control? What is your opinion?

Partial control is a partial control. But there are two kinds of controls (partial or not): a direct control and indirect control. Indirect control can be through the (partial or not) control of the media, internet, the criminal part of the society, etc.. Direct control may be through infiltration, double agents, blackmail, secret protocols (a'la Riebentrop-Molotov), etc..

An interesting commentary (in Russian) explaining why Russia is not going to support sanctions against North Korea:

http://grani.ru/War/Arms/Nukes/m.108349.html

In short: because Russia is a major provider of arms for North Korea.

BTW: grani.ru seems to me to be one of those "partially controlled" (directly and indirectly) Russian media.

 

[CarpeDiem]

If only to North Korea, think about Iran and i don't know how many other countries. They are probably quite busy partaking benefits of bloody trade. World is flooded by Kalashnikov's.
Ark, thanks for answering. I needed it to clarify my point. I do understand difference between to depend on air and to be controlled by air. But I think your comparison of verbs depend on - controlled by is not faultless in context of this thread. Maybe well i'm wrong. Here is my reasoning:
In breathing you are active side inbreathing and outbreathing, and air is a passive side being inbreathed and outbreathed. And you depend on air to survive but you can't be controlled by it as a passive force. Situation imo changes when we apply verbs to depend on - to be controlled by to our particular situation when both sides are active as in our case: one country (active) depends on other country (also active). Prey country depends on Predator country in key area(s), thus makes itself vulnerable to manipulation, and if prey country doesn't exercise its will to actively counteract / neutralize manipulation, it will be controlled (directly or more likely indirectly) by Predator country. I think in context I replied you previously phrasing holds: if one country is dependent on other in some vital areas it's (in)directly controlled by it maybe not completely but to certain extent (partial control).
I'm half through Pereslegin book; one of contributing authors is Sobyanin (head of Putin's administration). Maybe he will be the next one? Please get the book

 

[ark]

Lets not forget about geostrategic triad China-Russia-India.

It seems China is out of the triad:

Perhaps the most troubling of all is the Israeli/Chinese arms relationship. Israel is China's second largest supplier of arms. Coincidentally, the newest addition to the Chinese air force, the F-10 multi-role fighter, is an almost identical version of the Lavi (Lion). The Lavi was a joint Israeli-American design based upon the F-16 for manufacture in Israel, but financed mostly with American aid. Plagued by cost overruns, it was canceled in 1987, but not before the U.S. spent $1.5 billion on the project.

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0509-07.htm

and news from today:

(AP) U.N. Council Rebukes Israeli Operation"
By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS
Associated Press Writer
GENEVA


July 6, 2006

The U.N. Human Rights Council on Thursday deplored Israel's military operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as breaching international humanitarian law and voted to send a fact-finding mission to the region.

By a vote of 29-11 with five abstentions, the council approved the resolution proposed by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference after it was amended to suggest the Palestinians also had a responsibility to refrain from violence against civilians.

"It is absolutely unacceptable" that the resolution only names Israel, Israeli Ambassador Itzhak Levanon told The Associated Press. "Obviously this resolution isn't evenhanded. It's not equitable and it's not balanced. Everybody knows that. Even those that voted in favor, they did this for political reasons."

Switzerland had earlier proposed amendments saying armed Palestinian groups also should be called to account in the resolution.

But the council accepted instead a more vague Islamic conference amendment that "urges all concerned parties to respect the rules of international humanitarian law, to refrain from violence against the civilian population and to treat underall circumstances all detained combatants and civilians in accordance with the Geneva Conventions."

China, which was among those voting for the amendment, said the resolution should have been changed so that everyone could accept it by consensus.

"This is a new council, and it should have a new start," Chinese Ambassador Sha Zukang told the AP. "This type of voting should not be encouraged."

 

[CarpeDiem]

Cozzy Tea Duo I was writing about:

Tea for Two: Kissinger and Putin.
Weekly Standard 06/19/2006, Volume 011, Issue 38

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12314&R=ECC619716