Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

**Matt W** · Mar 25, 2005, 04:52 am

Surprised there's been no mention of this, given the importance:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/4381555.stm

Quote:

Mr Akayev's administration was swept from power on Thursday, when thousands of anti-government demonstrators chanting "Down with the Akayev clans" gathered in Bishkek and stormed the presidential palace.

Unlike previous revolutions, this one is decidedly violent - what will Russia and the US do? Both governments are decidedly partisan, and the chaos may give either an excuse to step in.

castille · Mar 25, 2005, 08:14 am

A friend of mine was actually stationed near that area. The chicks there are quite hot apparently.

Zeebadee · Mar 25, 2005, 11:51 am

Interesting how some repressive governments can be forced out of power, even brutal ones like Ceausescu's Romania, yet the Iraqi people were totally unable to do anything at all against saddam until the U.S. invaded.

**Matt W** · Mar 25, 2005, 12:06 pm

My take is that the ex-USSR republics had at least the pretence of being a democracy, and leaders who weren't willing to risk the ire of Russia and the US (quite a few of these republics see the US as a means to better economic conditions) by machine-gunning protesters - especially if you consider that they were brought into being by the collapse of the USSR thorugh people power.

Saddam, on the other hand, was a known psycho - having used poison gas against the Kurds, and brutally put down the revolt post-Gulf War 1. Prior to that, it wasn't as if rebels would have any support - the West would have quietly ignored whatever atrocities it took to keep the Middle East stable.

Mar 25, 2005, 08:14 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	A friend of mine was actually stationed near that area. The chicks there are quite hot apparently. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Mar 25, 2005, 12:06 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Matt W Moderator Location: Reading, UK. Posts: 7,197	My take is that the ex-USSR republics had at least the pretence of being a democracy, and leaders who weren't willing to risk the ire of Russia and the US (quite a few of these republics see the US as a means to better economic conditions) by machine-gunning protesters - especially if you consider that they were brought into being by the collapse of the USSR thorugh people power. Saddam, on the other hand, was a known psycho - having used poison gas against the Kurds, and brutally put down the revolt post-Gulf War 1. Prior to that, it wasn't as if rebels would have any support - the West would have quietly ignored whatever atrocities it took to keep the Middle East stable. I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. -George Best, on being asked what he did with his footballing fortunes.

Mar 25, 2005, 11:51 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
Zeebadee Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,836	Interesting how some repressive governments can be forced out of power, even brutal ones like Ceausescu's Romania, yet the Iraqi people were totally unable to do anything at all against saddam until the U.S. invaded.