A libertarian returns to Scotland
"Freedom and Whisky gang thegither"
- Robert Burns
"Freedom and Whisky gang thegither"
- Robert Burns
(Update: more news here and here.)
Comments made on previous template:Neil Craig One of 2 people got more votes & I tend (no stronger than that) to think it was Yanukovich because he officially won by a not large but clear majority & fraud does not appear to be so open, massive or one sided as to disprove that. Certainly electoral fraud shouldn't happen but, even in Burmingham, it does. Thanks for the Curtis link. His statement that "notably more voters voted using an absentee ballot in the southern half of the country where the pro-government candidate, Viktor Yanukovich is strongest, than did so in the west" does I agree tend to suggest more fraud in the east but "some election officials who reported unexpectedly good results for Yuschenko in the first round of voting were sacked", while not used that way, is at least as indicative of fraud by Yushenko supporters. As you say, the information we have been getting is poor & in light of western support of the Georgian result, untrustworthy.29 November 2004, 19:16:22 GMT– Like – ReplyStuart Neil You speak with wisdom beyond your years. But how can you "tend to think that he did" when the quality of the information we are privy to is so sparse and poor? I'm no fan of the self-important opinion-poller Curtice. He puts far too much "slant" on his findings for me to totally trust his methodology. But perhaps he makes some valid observations here: http://www.sundayherald.com/4635628 November 2004, 21:32:25 GMT– Like – ReplyNeil Craig I tend to think he did - I have certainly seen no convincing evidence otherwise & the onus should be on Yushchenko's lot to prove their case. I wouldn't wish a civil war on anybody merely because they vote for idiots - not living in Britain (or Scotland). I had not previously been aware that the Georgian opposition had won their re-run by an average of 96% - I do not believe that. That western observers could approve it seems to me to totally discredit anything they say.28 November 2004, 18:52:48 GMT– Like – ReplyStuart Yes, I'm listening, but the fact remains that despite all the shenanigans SOMEBODY has to fill the office of president, don't they? Given two terrible candidates, surely Ukrainians must choose the slightly less terrible one. I do not know who that is. It is their choice, not mine (thank God). Actually it is Ukrainians own fault if they persist in electing such idiots. But they must have a choice. I still think that their freedom to choose has been more severely compromised than the usual unfair things that happen in all elections. In short I do not believe that Yanukovich got more true votes than Yushchenko. In the longer term it might be wiser to reduce the power of the presidential post and allow parliamentary elections to be the descisive vote.28 November 2004, 10:21:25 GMT– Like – Reply
Neil Craig So do I but not from the same side. I hate to quote from the Grauniad which I find normally a particularly illiberal organ but this guy clearly has a handle on the facts: The western imagination is now so gripped by its own mythology of popular revolution that we have become dangerously tolerant of blatant double standards in media reporting. Enormous rallies have been held in Kiev in support of the prime minister, Viktor Yanukovich, but they are not shown on our TV screens: if their existence is admitted, Yanukovich supporters are denigrated as having been "bussed in". The demonstrations in favour of Viktor Yushchenko have laser lights, plasma screens, sophisticated sound systems, rock concerts, tents to camp in and huge quantities of orange clothing; yet we happily dupe ourselves that they are spontaneous. Or again, we are told that a 96% turnout in Donetsk, the home town of Viktor Yanukovich, is proof of electoral fraud. But apparently turnouts of over 80% in areas which support Viktor Yushchenko are not. Nor are actual scores for Yushchenko of well over 90% in three regions, which Yanukovich achieved only in two. And whereas Yanukovich's final official score was 54%, the western-backed president of Georgia, Mikhail Saakashvili, officially polled 96.24% of the vote in his country in January. The observers who now denounce the Ukrainian election welcomed that result in Georgia, saying that it "brought the country closer to meeting international standards". The blindness extends even to the posters which the "pro-democracy" group, Pora, has plastered all over Ukraine, depicting a jackboot crushing a beetle, an allegory of what Pora wants to do to its opponents. Such dehumanisation of enemies has well-known antecedents - not least in Nazi-occupied Ukraine itself, when pre-emptive war was waged against the Red Plague emanating from Moscow - yet these posters have passed without comment. Pora continues to be presented as an innocent band of students having fun in spite of the fact that - like its sister organisations in Serbia and Georgia, Otpor and Kmara - Pora is an organisation created and financed by Washington. It gets worse. Plunging into the crowd of Yushchenko supporters in Independence Square after the first round of the election, I met two members of Una-Unso, a neo-Nazi party whose emblem is a swastika. They were unembarrassed about their allegiance, perhaps because last year Yushchenko and his allies stood up for the Socialist party newspaper, Silski Visti, after it ran an anti-semitic article claiming that Jews had invaded Ukraine alongside the Wehrmacht in 1941. On September 19 2004, Yushchenko's ally, Alexander Moroz, told JTA-Global Jewish News: "I have defended Silski Visti and will continue to do so. I personally think the argument ... citing 400,000 Jews in the SS is incorrect, but I am not in a position to know all the facts." Yushchenko, Moroz and their oligarch ally, Yulia Tymoshenko, meanwhile,28 November 2004, 09:43:22 GMT– Like – ReplyStuart I still think that the Ukrainian election stinks to high heaven.26 November 2004, 10:56:46 GMT– Like – Reply
Neil Craig William Walker, chosen by the US as a human rights investigator in Kosovo "discovered" the Racak massacre which was ultimately used as the pretext for bombing Yugoslavia. He is the one who publically claimed he had seen bodies shot close up in the face, proving they were executed not died in combat. When, in his "trial" Milosevic asked him about this & the report of Finnish forensic scientists that no such wounds existed he admitted to not having seen them at all. Mr Walker was acting as an OSCE human rights investigator at the behest of the US. Previously he had been ambassador to El Salvador where, among other duties, he had publically defended local death squads. There may be honest people in the OSCE but as an organisation they are hopelessly compromised.26 November 2004, 10:07:26 GMT– Like – ReplyStuart I wasn't thinking of the BBC. The BBC have a right cheek complaining about "bias". It is riddled with bias. I was thinking about the OSCE election observers reports. There are many, many people in that team who are not in the slightest sympathetic to the USA and its imperialist pretensions.26 November 2004, 07:50:13 GMT– Like – ReplyNeil Craig But the people saying the state controlled media were biased are the same BBC who said that Izetbegovic was a moderate, Tudjman a "nationalist" (when they were both nazis at the time publically in favour of genocide) & the KLA committed to a liberal multi-cultural Kosovo. Not, perhaps, to be trusted when saying a country's media is biased.25 November 2004, 21:03:48 GMT– Like – ReplyStuart Neil Some valid points, especially re. Venezuela, BUT it still seems crystal clear that the fraud was extensive enough to suggest that the 2nd placed candidate is about to be ordained president. No matter how much the USA interfered in this election, no way did it outweigh the bias of the state-controlled media.25 November 2004, 20:20:49 GMT– Like – ReplyNeil Craig I am extremely dubious about this. The western reporting is entirely pro-opposition but there are some questions. During the Bosnian "independence referendum" which was certainly dubious our media made no complaint. During the coup that overthrew Milosevic (which was done specifically because polls showed he was going to win the 2nd round) our media openly supported the opposition. The Georgian "revolution" is equally questionable. Ditto reporting on Chavez in Venezuela. It is accepted that western powers organised & funded the Yugoslav coup. It has been noted that coincidentally one of the opposition parties in Georgia bore the same name & logo as one of the openly western funded Yugoslav parties. Some years ago the US ambassador to Beloruss (previously the ambassador to Nicaragua) said that his embassy was funding 300 opposition political organisations, which in a country of 10 million is quite a lot. There seems to be an idea that democracy is not how the majority of people vote - it is only democracy if they vote the way our governments want. Even if it turns out there was some voting fraud (& looking at the policeman who was killed & seems at least even money that he was killed by opposition not government thugs) the official winner has certainly freely got a considrable higher share of the vote than Tony Bliar's 40%.25 November 2004, 20:03:48 GMT– Like – ReplyStuart My best wishes too.24 November 2004, 20:39:37 GMT
Post a comment