quote:

---

BISHKEK, Kyrgyzstan (AP) Kyrgyzstan's president was in hiding and the opposition solidified its control Friday after the government fell in an upheaval that sent protesters swarming into government offices, tossing computers out windows in a frenzy of anger over a disputed election.

Opposition-led protesters in the impoverished Central Asian country of five million forced President Askar Akayev to flee in an uprising of breathtaking speed that left only a few-dozen injured. The government was the third in a former Soviet republic - after Georgia and Ukraine - to be brought down over the last year and a half.

Opposition leaders were named to top posts in an interim administration and faced the immediate challenge of halting looting in government buildings and shops in the capital, Bishkek.

Whooping protesters took over the presidential headquarters Thursday and groups of them took turns sitting in Akayev's chair. Outside, people stomped on portraits of Akayev.

"It's not the opposition that has seized power, it's the people who have taken power. The people."

"They have been fighting for so long against corruption, against that (Akayev) family," said opposition activist Ulan Shambetov.

---

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

New Kyrgyzstan leader promises fair vote

quote:

---

BISHKEK, KYRGYZSTAN - Kyrgyzstan's interim leader on Friday promised to hold free and fair elections as opposition leaders struggle to restore order in the former Soviet republic.

Following a Friday meeting of lawmakers, opposition leader Kurmanbek Bakiyev announced he had been appointed "acting prime minister and acting president."

"Parliament today appointed me prime minister and gave me the functions of president," he told supporters gathered around the parliament.

Widespread looting broke out in the capital, Bishkek, Thursday after demonstrators sacked the presidential palace and parliament. President Askar Akayev fled with his family, possibly to neighbouring Kazakhstan.

---

[ 25 March 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard MacKinnon:
...the 1999 Silk Road Act

---

Basically, it was a measure aimed at strengthening ties between the newly independent republics in central Asia and the United States, for strategic reasons centering on resource access and military cooperation.

The coverage of this story in the media has been pretty superficial, as far as I can tell. Take the Globe and Mail, which has editorialized twice in two days on the "outbreak of democracy" in the region. Yesterday, they scolded Putin for trying to meddle in the events in Kyrgystan; today, they say Kyrgyzstanis are sending a "message" to other regional despots.

What they don't say is that the former Kyrgyzstan regime--oppressive and undemocratic--enjoyed strong *US* support for years, as do other similar governments in the region. The US has a military base in Kyrgyzstan--AFB Peter Ganci--and has trained its military in counter-insurgency efforts, while funelling hundreds of millions of dollars to the country. The twin wars on terror and drugs provide the rationale.

William Arkin's book "Code Names," actually suggests a connection between deepening ties with the US--military and otherwise--and popular resentment toward the former president, particularly among groups in the south, and others who felt he was benefitting personally, along with his cronies, from the flow of aid.

The official US line on current events, according to comments from Condi Rice, is to "wait and see," and encourage democracy and peace: Link.

Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, has recently spoken out about U.S. "renditions" to that useful tyranny, where a couple of members of a fairly mild (until recently) opposition movement are believed to have been boiled alive. See this link from Just a Bump in the Beltway.

I was just about to edit my post to include a link to the Boston Globe story about Ambassador Murray's allegations re: Uzbekistan when you posted.

Of course, you're right to point out our country's complicity--in the person of Jean Chretien--as well.

And how about this Canadian link to the Kyrgyzstan situation I discovered by googling on Centerra Gold, a Canadian company the Globe identified with a major gold mine in Kumtor, Kyrgyzstan:

quote:

---

The restructuring of one of Kyrgyzstan’s most lucrative state-controlled economic assets is fueling political controversy in the Central Asian nation. Members of the Kyrgyz parliament continue to insist the government’s decision to reorganize the operations of the Kumtor gold mine "contradicts the state’s interests." Some legislators say the deal should be scrutinized to ensure that proceeds reaped by the government are properly allocated, and are not diverted for the personal benefit of top officials.

[snip]

The government pressed ahead with the reorganization without seeking the consent of the legislature. On December 31, 2003, Prime Minister Nikolai Tanayev signed a decree that accelerated Centerra’s creation. The move provoked an outcry, mainly from opposition parliamentarians. "A parliamentary resolution takes precedence over a government decree," asserted MP Ishenbay Kadyrbekov. "The government’s actions were not legitimate."

Three parliamentary committees in February determined that Tanayev’s decree concerning Kumtor violated the June 2003 legislative resolution. The government announced shortly thereafter, however, that its decree would stand, and the deal would proceed. Officials defended their decision by insisting it was, and remains, the best way to attract additional investment to improve the mine’s operations.

---

Link.

So, we have a questionable business deal involving a Canadian company right at the heart of the conflict between the Akayev government and opposition leaders. The company and Akayev's executive branch wanted the deal: the legislature wanted oversight and a transparent process. The government's decision to ignore the legislature on the mining issue may well have fed the discontent we're seeing erupt right now.

It seems such a no-brainer that al-Qaeda or its offshoots would find organizing in the Stans irresistible, especially in that valley that is shared by several of them (need to check my maps again). As they have done in Chechnya as well, of course.

And yet repeatedly the press here fall for the smirking lies of Bush-Putin & Co. Reinforce the rape of one nation after another, and call it bringing freedom and democracy to the whole world.

quote:

---

Anatomy of a Revolution
February 20, 2005 CBC Correspondent

When Ukraine’s government tried to rig the vote in the presidential election of November 2004, their opponents responded with the Orange Revolution. A million people flooded into the Maidan, the main square in Kiev, to demand a new vote. They stayed there until that happened and stayed on until just before Victor Yushchenko’s inauguration as Ukraine’s new leader.

Behind the revolution were students and other young people in a movement they named Pora, Ukrainian for “it is time.” Their strategy was peaceful civil disobedience. As Carol Off explains in Anatomy of a Revolution, the keys to Pora’s success were humour, careful planning, the internet and considerable help from outside Ukraine.

That help came from people who had already fought similar battles in Serbia and Georgia. In Serbia they called themselves Otpor – “resistance” – and in Georgia, Kmara, which means “enough!” Otpor ended the rule of Slobodan Milosevic in 2000, when the organization was just two years old. In Georgia in 2003 it was the former Soviet Politburo member, Eduard Shevardnadze, who had to resign as president. Assistance or money for the Ukrainian movement also came from groups like Freedom House, the International Republican Institute, western governments and émigré communities. The Open Society Institute, funded by billionaire George Soros, had been involved earlier.

---

http://www.cbc.ca/correspondent/feature_050220.html

Ottawa, March 15, 2005 – “Our report tells how Placer Dome Inc. of Vancouver, built a million dollar mining operation on the tiny Philippine island of Marinduque and then abandoned it, leaving behind a toxic legacy that threatens lives today. We want Placer to take responsibility, clean up its waste and pay up what it owes,” says Oxfam’s Mining Ombudsman, Ingrid Macdonald.

The post-revolution parties (especially in Georgia, where the new government is social democratic...The socialists in Ukraine, meanwhile, backed Yushchenko) are far more socially progresive and far less authoritarian than the pre-revolution autocrats.

While the U.S. may be backing these parties for the wrong reasons, it doesn't make the parties and their leaders, who need all the friends they can get in what is a locally-hostile political environment, bad guys.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard MacKinnon:
As in this article from Miningwatch.ca ?

Ottawa, March 15, 2005 – “Our report tells how Placer Dome Inc. of Vancouver, built a million dollar mining operation on the tiny Philippine island of Marinduque and then abandoned it, leaving behind a toxic legacy that threatens lives today. We want Placer to take responsibility, clean up its waste and pay up what it owes,” says Oxfam’s Mining Ombudsman, Ingrid Macdonald.

---

Foreign mining companies have abandoned similar polluted sites all over Canada. A settling pond left by one company in an area north of my hometown is still there and poisoned by cyanide and heavy metals percolating into ground water. The general area around this part of the Great Lakes is home to some of the highest cancer rates in North America. Scientists have noticed birds with weird birth defects and young people with androgenous physical features.

And The World Bank stipulates that aid loans to developing countries are not spent on infrastructure to make a difference and focusing on obscure models for privatisation. The WB is complicit in the destruction of the world's rain forests and other green regions. As we allow corporations to become distorted reserves for capital and influence on power, they will continue setting the economic agenda and blackmailing governments into accepting their polluting ways or the highway.

Trans-national corporations have have created their own command-style global economies with little or no regulatory control of by democratically elected governments too willing to sign over control of our natural wealth for the sake of profit.

David Suzuki said that without the environment there can be no economy.

[ 26 March 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

It shall be the policy of the United States in the countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia--
(1) to promote and strengthen independence, sovereignty, democratic government, and respect for human rights;
(2) to promote tolerance, pluralism, and understanding and counter racism and anti-Semitism;
(3) to assist actively in the resolution of regional conflicts and to facilitate the removal of impediments to cross-border commerce;
(4) to promote friendly relations and economic cooperation;
(5) to help promote market-oriented principles and practices;
(6) to assist in the development of the infrastructure necessary for communications, transportation, education, health, and energy and trade on an East-West axis in order to build strong international relations and commerce between those countries and the stable, democratic, and market-oriented countries of the Euro-Atlantic Community; and
(7) to support United States business interests and investments in the region.

The US policy is to support democracy and tolerance in that they're tied to American business interests. Free Trade is supposed to benefit Canadians as long as the US has dominate control over our natural resources. One might argue that these examples of American interventionism is fairly benign.

But it's tied to the same foreign policy which was exerted in Panama, Iraq and Viet Nam - largely for the same ends.

Ultimately it gets back to the key issue of social justice. Is it acceptable for people to die and suffer so that I can maintain my relatively comfortable life style? The US may pay lip-service to the 1st 2 parts of the Silk Road policy but there is plenty of evidence showing that, depending on time and location, life is fairly cheap.

[ 27 March 2005: Message edited by: Richard MacKinnon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Terrorist bombings are the usual in Bishkek, by what I know. bin Laden(Osama, not his Bush-Carlyle associated family members( and his former? employers, the CIA/USDOA know all about this area of the world.

---

If anyone wants to help out, Kramer Ltd. in Saskatchewan will collect and ship donations to the Tien Shan Orphanage. It's run by the employees at Kumtor. Any kind of kids stuff or medical equipment and supplies are much needed.

[ 27 March 2005: Message edited by: quagmire ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by quagmire:
Right. The 500 or so coal miners killed each month in China doesn't say much about their commitment to safety either. Their use of slave labour isn't so great either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
I find it funny to see Fidel lauding the environment. The Red Fascists committed non human holocausts to the extreme in their quest to build a grand socialist alternative to the neoliberals. The bad things that the capies did was duplicated by the state cappies to an even more terrifying level. The Soviets downed that lake like rare bottle of vodka.China is continuing this great state capitalist tradition.

And the peeps in that country outed that dude because he was too much like their former rulers.

---

I appreciate the sentiments that you express on these subjects but your politcal language is irritatingly imprecise. The communists were not facists. People seem to make the mistake on confusing the means through which state power is exercised and the purposes to which it is put.

This is essentially what Vanguardists became. The only real difference is that one side is not racist.
If you see that as an essential part of the definition then I suppose you can exclude them as fascists. I certainly don't.

Also the meaning of communism has to be taken back from these losers. Communism and statism are opposites pure and simple. Call these people what they are, the F word.

[ 30 March 2005: Message edited by: Vigilante ]

I'm sorry that I can't link to this story from B6 of the Leader-Post, but I can't seem to find it on the web.

The short article, "Canadian Operated Mine Unaffected by Civil Unrest," mentions last year's deal to spin off Centerra Gold, but does not report that this deal was a source of friction between the Kyrgystan government and the opposition.

Regarding safety, the article concludes with a reference to a tragic 1998 helicopter crash that killed 15 people, including six from Saskatchewan. It makes no mention, however, of the mine's environmental record, including the cyanide spill mentioned in the article I linked to above.

There is also no mention in this story--which, frankly, reads almost like a company press release--of the fact that the mine has been a recent political flashpoint:

quote:

---

Kumtor was expected to return to normal operations Wednesday after a roadblock related to parliamentary elections had affected the mine's ability to transport supplies and employees since February 22nd. Mining operations were scaled back during the protest, but mill operations were unaffected. Kumtor's forecast production of 141,000 ounces of gold remains is not impacted by the blockade.

---

[ 30 March 2005: Message edited by: sgm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
I see no reason to not call them such.It was Mussolini who said "Everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing above the state"

---

I dont think they are the same, in practice, or in theory.

Mussolini's state existed above the the masses, the communist vision the state would be controlled by the working class. In other words the state would be subordinate to the working class and its party. That is directly contradictory to Mussolini's vision.

Also the communists were as you say antiracist, but they were also internationalist, the facists were nationalist.

These forms actually represented differences in practice on numerous levels. As an exmaple Polish enlisted men (working class and peasant people)were not shot in Katyn forest like the officers, but sent to camps east of the Urals and then later released, even as the war was in progress. The Germans on the other hand shot people on the basis race, and shot Polish prisoners without regard to class -- to the Soviets Polish enlisted men were potential class allies, not class enemies, to the Germans Polish soldiers were simply Polish enemies.

I am not using this example to show how the Soviets were morally superior (although I think they were) but as an example of how the theoretical ideas played out in the real world. Being working class saved the Polish enlisted soldiers, so we can see that the theory actually had meaning in its application in the real world.

Also, both systems differed in terms of economy, the communists laboured to create what has been called a "command" economy where all economic activity was directed by the state and party, whereas Hitler actively encouraged capitalist "free" enterprise owned by private indivduals.

Managers of Soviet state enterprises could simply be removed by the party and the state, whereas the owners of large corporations operating in Germany operated sometimes at the service of the state, but managed their own affairs -- the owners were not under threat of removal by the National Socialist state (unless of course they were undesirable) and hugely profited from the enterprise.

So, on a number of levels you have major practical differences between the facist states of Europe and the Soviet states theoretically, ethically, and functionally in terms of the management of the economy and the adminstration of justice.

And please dont mistake me for an Stalanist appologist for making these distinctions, as anyone who has seen my posts here over time will testify. I am saying these things because I think it is important to be precise politically.

[ 31 March 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan are strategically placed in the post-Soviet space. They comprise Russia's "near abroad." Washington has been expanding its influence in the arc of former Soviet republics. Ever since 2003 when Mr. Akayev decided on allowing Russia to establish a full-fledged military base in Kant he knew he was on the American "watch list." All three revolutions are meant to signify the unstoppable spread of the fire of liberty lit by the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of 9/11.

But behind the rhetoric, the truth is that the U.S. wanted regime change in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan because of difficulties with the incumbent leadership; they incrementally began to edge towards a resurgent Russia under Vladimir Putin. They had reasons for doing so. Russia could offer them tangible cooperation in the vital economic sphere that was not forthcoming from the West — subsidised energy supplies, investment and trade. And all the three countries are strategically placed in the post-Soviet space.

mosnews.com/news/2005/03/30/behindkyrgyzstan.shtml

"The political uprising that led to the recent upheaval in Kyrgyzstan was prepared and financed by Western countries, the New York Times reports. The newspaper said that the U.S. NGO Freedom House played a crucial role in removing Askar Akayev from the president’s post.

In particular, Freedom House gave U.S. government grants to an opposition newspaper that was influential in making President Akayev and his family unpopular among the people. The newspaper was also printed on an U.S. government-financed printing press."

Quagmire said,

quote:

---

It's a great thing for Kyrgyzstan. The people there are showing their spirit and hope in throwing out Akayev's corrupt family. It's good news to see them willing and able to fight to improve their country. In the USSR days they learned to shut up and take all sorts of shit from the Russians or else.

---

quote:

---

Cueball:
Mussolini's state existed above the the masses, the communist vision the state would be controlled by the working class. In other words the state would be subordinate to the working class and its party. That is directly contradictory to Mussolini's vision.

---

Yeah but That was Marx(who got it wrong)When Lenin hit the scene one of the 1st things he did was crush the councils. He wasn't a fan of bottom up which is an essential part of worker selfmanagement.

quote:

---

Also the communists were as you say antiracist, but they were also internationalist, the facists were nationalist.

---

Internatianalism can be dangerous to. It tends to force people into one big box. Also there have been plenty of nationalist tendencies throughout this bankrupt ideologie's history.

quote:

---

These forms actually represented differences in practice on numerous levels. As an exmaple Polish enlisted men (working class and peasant people)were not shot in Katyn forest like the officers, but sent to camps east of the Urals and then later released, even as the war was in progress. The Germans on the other hand shot people on the basis race, and shot Polish prisoners without regard to class -- to the Soviets Polish enlisted men were potential class allies, not class enemies, to the Germans Polish soldiers were simply Polish enemies.

---

Yes the racism was a glaring factor. But on the other side indigenous people were fucked under the vanguardist ideology, FUCKED. They had the whole communal thing down long ago, but they had to be part of the socialist orthadoxy against capitalism. They had to become 'civilized'.

quote:

---

I am not using this example to show how the Soviets were morally superior (although I think they were) but as an example of how the theoretical ideas played out in the real world. Being working class saved the Polish enlisted soldiers, so we can see that the theory actually had meaning in its application in the real world.

---

Morals don't apply with me. Both views were greatly infected by the enlightenment. Both views believed in forcing a grand narrative down the the throat of the world. Large amounts of life tend to get killed because of this type of thinking. Were working class people less fucked under the red fash as opposed to brown, yes. Were indigenous people, nyet.

quote:

---

Also, both systems differed in terms of economy, the communists laboured to create what has been called a "command" economy where all economic activity was directed by the state and party, whereas Hitler actively encouraged capitalist "free" enterprise owned by private indivduals.

---

But under the command economy 'private individuals'hust had to shack up to the various Reds. I see no huge essential difference. Look at all those Billionaires in Russia. They didn't just become rich at the snap of a finger when neoliberal shock therapy was dilivered, they had connections back in the old days.

quote:

---

Managers of Soviet state enterprises could simply be removed by the party and the state, whereas the owners of large corporations operating in Germany operated sometimes at the service of the state, but managed their own affairs -- the owners were not under threat of removal by the National Socialist state (unless of course they were undesirable) and hugely profited from the enterprise.

---

In practace this does not happen. There were all kinds of corrupt bastards in old soviet land. This is going on big time in China right now too.

quote:

---

So, on a number of levels you have major practical differences between the facist states of Europe and the Soviet states theoretically, ethically, and functionally in terms of the management of the economy and the adminstration of justice.

---

It was the defense of Leningrad which gives us a clue:

quote:

---

Less than two and a half months after June 22, 1941, when the Soviet Union was attacked by Nazi Germany, German troops were already approaching Leningrad. The Red Army was outflanked and on September 8, 1941 the Germans had fully encircled Leningrad and the siege began. It lasted for about 900 days, from September 8, 1941 till January 27, 1944.

Two million 887 thousand civilians (including about 400 thousand children) plus troops didn't even consider any calls for surrender.

Food and fuel stocks were very limited (1-2 months only). All the public transport stopped. By the winter of 1941-42 there was no heating, no water supply, almost no electricity and very little food.

In January 1942, in the depths of an unusually cold winter, the lowest food rations in the city were only 125 grams (about 1/4 of a pound) of bread per day.

In just two months, January and February, 1942, 200 thousand people (!!!) died in Leningrad of cold and starvation. But some of the war industry still worked and the city did not surrender.

---

Stalin was a criminal, Hitler was a far bigger criminal.

To the extent that Stalin was a communist, he was required to believe in the equality of all people in the world. Race discrimination was utterly forbidden in theory, and practiced to some extent later in Stalin's life.

I don't consider myself a commie by label(though I fit all the criteria) but I do think the word should be taken back from the vanguardists. Starting with Lenin, they had the ingenious idea that a form of centralized capitalism had to come first.These 'Communists' would come to it later and crush anyone who started it imediately(Kronstadt, Ukrain, Spain) At some point these people decided that pure communism would never happen. The fascists kept the name but they said what it really was could never happen.

This is really no different then the View Mussolini arived to. He to was a former Marxist(go figure) He eventually fell for the iron law of oligarchy mentality. There's always gonna be leaders and elites so let's pick a good one. How is the Decision Mussolini arrived at and the vanguardists trully that different? If the Vanguardists arrived to this conclusion fine, but drop the C word please. Neoliberals douse it up enough.

On to the racist thing, I mentioned this is a glaring difference. But not enough of one to disqualify them from the F word. Red Brown may they both go down.

Also the moralistic views that I see espoused here are really a distraction. At the end of the day the reds got the better of the deathboard then brown. Indiginous peoples still suffered, they were equal yes but only if they got civilized and got to work on that so called socialist paradise. I doubt Hitler would have been as harmfull. He may have thought them inferior, but he never had a plan to methodically wipe them out as far as we know.

The Vanguardists may have been inverted on some issues compared to their brown counterparts. But that does not wipe away the core similarities.

[ 03 April 2005: Message edited by: Vigilante ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by maestro:
To see the difference between communism and fascism one only needs to examine the response of the people to both systems.

It was the defense of Leningrad which gives us a clue:

That's the people's response to fascism.

---

That is an interesting take on it. Though I think some people would argue (with some cogency) that the defence of Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad was one beteen the Russians and their old enemy the Germans. Some time in 1942 Stalin himself authorized a change in propoganda to reflect this, by allowing a change of war fighting slogans calling for the defence of Communism to the defence of the Motherland.

It might be better to compare the defence of the Russian cities along the Leningrad, Moscow Stalingrad axis, with the defence of Berlin. The battle for Berlin lasted throuout the month of April 1945, from the first assault on the Sealow Heights to the fall of the Reichstag. one month -- nothing in comaprison to the period in which the Germans unsuccessfully tried to reduce the defences of Leningrad. Interestingly, the bitter last ditch defence of the Reichstag was fought by the remnants of the Facist international military formations, made up of die hard French, Poles, Croats, etc., not Germans.

Two books, both by Anthony Beavor: Stalingrad and the The Fall of Berlin.

[ 03 April 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Interestingly, the bitter last ditch defence of the Reichstag was fought by the remnants of the Facist international military formations, made up of die hard French, Poles, Croats, etc., not Germans.

---

quote:

---

Morals don't apply with me. Both views were greatly infected by the enlightenment. Both views believed in forcing a grand narrative down the the throat of the world. Large amounts of life tend to get killed because of this type of thinking. Were working class people less fucked under the red fash as opposed to brown, yes. Were indigenous people, nyet.

---

I appreciate that your critique stems from an anarachist/libertarian view that identifies modernist themes that manifest themselves in real world politics as what is called "statism." Fair enough, and I think the critique has some value. However, I think your interpretation of this analysis is simplistic and reductionist.

Characterizing all of these states as essentially the same, seems a little bit like going to a fruit stand and asking to buy some fruit, and then responding to the question "what kind of fruit," by saying "I said fruit. All fruit is the same it doesn't matter. It is all fruit."

Stalingrad was, at the same time, a grudge match between Stalin and Hitler. Hitler demanded that Stalingrad be taken at all costs. German soldiers who retreated or refused to fight were ordered shot to death on the spot. Paulus had orders to fight to the last man at the cauldron.

At the Yalta meeting, Stalin pounded the table with his fist and demanded, I want a second front against these bastards!.

The Red Army liberated Auschwitz and laid rail lines every inch of the way to Berlin. Churchill and Roosevelt were afraid the Russian's would liberate Europe by themselves.

[ 03 April 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Fidel:
Vigilante, you're a closet fascist yourself. You've stated affection for Adolf Hitler in this thread and Chiang Kai Chek in another. What those two murderous fascists had in common is that they were both backed by Anglo-American imperialism. So c'mon and admit it, you're a closet nazi with a major hate-on for socialists. ha ha

---

Fidel you truly are comic relief. I don't moralise what Hitler did, if you want to think that's tantamount to loving the guy fine. Chek. On a tactical level I think that the Chinese may have had more freedom of movement today. I could be wrong, but I look at what Taiwan became as apposed to China. If you feel that makes me like the guy fine. And is being US backed Despot the only way to classify as a fascist? I suppose you like Saddam because he was anti-american toward the end. As for being a Nazi, I would think being an anti-authoritarian would disqualify this, but oh well.

quote:

---

What about Hitler's other lap dog, Franco ?. Was he a good guy, too ?.

---

Hardly,my anarchist anscestors were battling the shit out of him. Ironically enough he had some help crushing the short lived anarchist rule there by Stalin who trotted out the ole 'infantile leftism' excuse. It was more important that the anarchists(and some trots i believe) industrialize then set up a communist existance right then and there. They broke the manifesto rule book, thus had to be quelled, even if it meant helping fascist franco.

So again, who be the fascist Fidel?

[ 04 April 2005: Message edited by: Vigilante ]

quote:

---

Hardly, my anarchist anscestors were battling the shit out of him.

---

The CIS was founded in December 1991 on the very day the Soviet Union disappeared. Dominated by Moscow, it was meant to be the instrument that would allow Russia to retain its influence over the former Soviet empire.

But over the past year and a half, three faithful Kremlin allies were toppled in peaceful revolutions: Eduard Shevardnadze in Georgia, Leonid Kuchma in Ukraine, and, last week, Askar Akayev in Kyrgyzstan.

In Moldova, the revolution occurred as a quiet change of hats at the top—the ruling Communists who came to power on a pro-Russia ticket won a recent election fielding a clear Western-friendly agenda.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:

Fidel you truly are comic relief. I don't moralise what Hitler did, if you want to think that's tantamount to loving the guy fine.

---

You seem to enjoy bashing communism moreso. And then this, you doubt Hitler would have been as bad ?. And in another thread, Chiang would have been the better choice ?. It's no wonder I've stopped reading your posts. You're a fascist.

quote:

---

Chek. On a tactical level I think that the Chinese may have had more freedom of movement today. I could be wrong, but I look at what Taiwan became as apposed to China. If you feel that makes me like the guy fine. And is being US backed Despot the only way to classify as a fascist? I suppose you like Saddam because he was anti-american toward the end. As for being a Nazi, I would think being an anti-authoritarian would disqualify this, but oh well.

---

quote:

---

You seem to enjoy bashing communism moreso.

---

WRONG! You bash communism by lying about what it really is. I repeat communism=It is the idea of decentralized, leaderless, classless, selfsufficiant ,directly democratic or consensus based society. Hence not what we saw with the Vanguardists. I got no problem with the logical definition.

The Vanguardists ushered in state capitalism. LENIN coined it himself. They eventually in 1920 or so attached communism to their so called transition phase(which never became a transition) You're perpetuating an 85 year old lie plain and simple, and the neoliberals love you for it I must say. They do a good enough job lying about what it truly means.

quote:

---

And then this, you doubt Hitler would have been as bad ?. And in another thread, Chiang would have been the better choice ?. It's no wonder I've stopped reading your posts. You're a fascist.

---

The Hitler point was in relation to indiginous peole. Vanguardists are notorious for what they did to them. Hitler may not have been as damaging(though I'm open to being proven otherwise) And the Chiang thing I never framed it as a choice, the Chinese did not have much choice overall.

A criminal investigation into the sale of the mine has also been launched:

quote:

---

ANKARA, 26 April (IRIN) - Anti-corruption activists have applauded a move by Kyrgyzstan's interim government to investigate the business interests of former president Askar Akayev and his family, calling upon the Kyrgyz authorities for systematic and comprehensive reforms to tackle corruption in the former Soviet republic.

[snip]

On Friday, Prosecutor-General Azimbek Beknazarov announced a criminal case in relation to the sale of the Kumtor gold mine, which accounts for up to 10 percent of Kyrgyz annual gross domestic product (GDP).

"A criminal case has been opened because around US $90 million that Kyrgyzstan received in exchange for Kumtor stock has disappeared," Beknazarov told AFP.

---

Link to story.

Here's what they were saying at United Press International earlier this month:

quote:

---

No one is watching political developments in Kyrgyzstan more anxiously than Canada's Centerra Gold Inc. As the majority holder in the country's Kumtor gold mine, Centerra is nervously contemplating that the Kyrgyzstan's new administration, which might rewrite its "sweetheart" deal with the Akayev administration.

[snip]

Under the original joint venture, the Kyrgyz government held two-thirds interest but last year the enterprise was absorbed into Centerra. The Kyrgyz government receives 27 percent of Centerra's shares in exchange for its two-thirds share in the Kumtor venture. Bishkek subsequently divested its interest in Kumtor to about 16 percent.

Parliamentary deputies complained for years about a lack of transparency surrounding Kumtor's operations and were outraged by the 2004 deal, charging that the reorganization "contradicted the state's interests" amid rumors of corruption, with legislators complaining hat the government did not receive book value for its share.

[snip]

With gold trading at over $424 an ounce, no wonder Centerra is worried about the post-Akayev's Parliament interest in its "sweetheart" deals.

---

Link.

[ 28 April 2005: Message edited by: sgm ]

quote:

---

BISHKEK, Kyrgyzstan (CP) - This tiny mountain country held its first free presidential elections last week, but few experts expect much respite from the cycle of instability and political revolt that threatens to tear former Soviet Central Asia apart.

"All the governments of this region are under stress, and there may be more violent revolutions coming," says Vladimir Bogatyrov, an adviser to newly elected Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev.

"Stability cannot be restored on the national level. There need to be concerted international approaches."

Bakiyev was elected with 88 per cent of the vote, by a population frightened and exhausted by three months of turmoil following a lightning March revolution that overthrew longtime Kyrgyz president Askar Akayev.

---