or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Georgia, South Ossetia, Russia, NATO, Israel, etc.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Georgia, South Ossetia, Russia, NATO, Israel, etc. - Page 2

post #41 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

I sure can. The one that's closer to democracy which is not Don Putin.







Putin on the Ritz!
post #42 of 93
You know something is wrong when the Russian are calling for a war crimes trial at The Hague. Let's hope they don't try to plant any evidence.

I wonder why Europe is supine toward this aggression on their continent?


Oh Yea!
post #43 of 93
Oh please. Lay off the Russia is bad cool-aid already. The US has set the precedence of might is right and making a mockery of anything that doesn't fall in line with their policies (international court of justice and the UN for starters). What right does it have to criticize Russia other than being the bigger bully? The situation in Georgia was instigated by the actions of Israel and the US.

Stop giving credibility to http://larouchepac.com/
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #44 of 93
Wow. Anyone that looks as the last decade of Russia and comes away with an attitude of "they aint so bad, were just as bad" hasn't been paying attention. Bizarre
post #45 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Wow. Anyone that looks as the last decade of Russia and comes away with an attitude of "they aint so bad, were just as bad" hasn't been paying attention. Bizarre

What did they do that you are talking about? I looked through the last 10 years of Russian history, and the only things I could find were where Putin stepped on Oligarchs who were getting out of line (and those guys don't deserve their money anyway, since they basically stole it from the Russian people), and the nationalization of BPs assets.

I visited Russia in 2002 and 2003, and Putin is loved by the people - he is loved because he (at that time, anyway) is getting the nation back on track after the disastrous 1990s.

Georgia and Chechnya are no better or worse than Iraq and Afghanistan.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #46 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

What did they do that you are talking about? I looked through the last 10 years of Russian history, and the only things I could find were where Putin stepped on Oligarchs who were getting out of line (and those guys don't deserve their money anyway, since they basically stole it from the Russian people), and the nationalization of BPs assets.

I visited Russia in 2002 and 2003, and Putin is loved by the people - he is loved because he (at that time, anyway) is getting the nation back on track after the disastrous 1990s.

Georgia and Chechnya are no better or worse than Iraq and Afghanistan.

Assassination? Press Freedom? Free Elections? It's like you're intentionally ignorant. "Derrrr? Whatcha talkin' 'bout? My interweb searchin' found nuthin'"
post #47 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Assassination? Press Freedom? Free Elections? It's like you're intentionally ignorant. "Derrrr? Whatcha talkin' 'bout? My interweb searchin' found nuthin'"

Torture? Electronic voting machine fraud? Attempting to overthrow governments in South America? Outing CIA agents are political revenge?

They are the same as us.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #48 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Torture? Electronic voting machine fraud? Attempting to overthrow governments in South America? Outing CIA agents are political revenge?

They are the same as us.

What are you talking about? The bad actions of the US don't excuse the bad actions of Russia. Two wrongs don't make a right. You may have found people that love Putin but Bush is loved by many here. So was Churchill and Hitler and Ghandi. So that's all meaningless.

The US is wrong in Iraq and Gitmo and many other things. Russia is wrong in Georgia. Both countries can be wrong at the same time.

You people can fill volume of pages on Iraq but cant be bothered to see the wrong doing of Russia in Georgia
post #49 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

What are you talking about?

I think it was a response to this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo

Anyone that looks as the last decade of Russia and comes away with an attitude of "they aint so bad, were just as bad" hasn't been paying attention.

The point is that we're just as bad.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #50 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

... but Bush is loved by many here.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #51 of 93
If Georgia didn't start this...I'll eat my tie.

(wait for it... 1:00 in...)
post #52 of 93
mydo - which side did you back in the recent Israel/Lebanon war? It seems to me that the things that Georgia did to start this war are a lot worse than the things Lebanon did to start that one.

If you supported Israel then, and Georgia now, why?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #53 of 93
I just can't wait until John McCain is president and we can go to war with Russia over this.
post #54 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

mydo - which side did you back in the recent Israel/Lebanon war? It seems to me that the things that Georgia did to start this war are a lot worse than the things Lebanon did to start that one.

If you supported Israel then, and Georgia now, why?

It seems that mydo has been banned because of his "It's like you're intentionally ignorant." comment.
Perhaps you would like to comment on the personal attack ruling that caused this infraction.
Did you consider this a personal attack?
post #55 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

It seems that mydo has been banned because of his "It's like you're intentionally ignorant." comment.
Perhaps you would like to comment on the personal attack ruling that caused this infraction.
Did you consider this a personal attack?

Well, I didn't ask for him to be banned - and frankly, I am quite ignorant, it is true.
The phrase should be allowed for a short time, since it was put into popular use by Obama.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #56 of 93
I guess it could be argued that we are all a bit ignorant about most subjects.
post #57 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Well, I didn't ask for him to be banned - and frankly, I am quite ignorant, it is true.
The phrase should be allowed for a short time, since it was put into popular use by Obama.

New sheriff in town, new rules that I argued against,
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...t=89774&page=4
I agree with you and outsider but what are gonna do, ?

Maybe show your ignorance by making spelling mistakes, that can be pointed out without penalty
because the doctor enjoys pointing out certain types of ignorance.

If I don't respond, post again, look for the red banned under my screen name.
post #58 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Well, I didn't ask for him to be banned - and frankly, I am quite ignorant, it is true.
The phrase should be allowed for a short time, since it was put into popular use by Obama.

While I can see the point and to a degree even agree, I think that that kind of thing just leads to more assholish behavior around here. Frankly, I'd like to see the word "you" banned. Would make discussion interesting.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #59 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

While I can see the point and to a degree even agree, I think that that kind of thing just leads to more assholish behavior around here. Frankly, I'd like to see the word "you" banned. Would make discussion interesting.

Pointing out opinions that are just that, ignorance of the topic, without backup, like history, is not a personal attack.
It's a wake up call to being able to back up your argument, otherwise the forum will be a mess of opinion only.

Having to rely on the posters inability to spell to diminish an argument is to put it bluntly, asinine.
post #60 of 93
Back on topic,
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...542107,00.html
Quote:
Russia has escalated its showdown with its small, NATO-inclined neighbor of Georgia by closing all transport and postal communications. No trains, no flights, no ships, no vehicles, no mail money orders — nothing can cross the border. This time, it's much worse than just another Russian spat with a former satellite state. The Georgia standoff may soon create a major headache for the Bush Administration, because of U.S. support for Georgia's right to align itself with the West.

From 2006.
To put things in perspective.
post #61 of 93
Article from Mikhail Gorbachev, as it appeared in the Washington Post (!!), Monday, 18 Aug:

Quote:
MOSCOW -- The past week's events in South Ossetia are bound to shock and pain anyone. Already, thousands of people have died, tens of thousands have been turned into refugees, and towns and villages lie in ruins. Nothing can justify this loss of life and destruction. It is a warning to all.

The roots of this tragedy lie in the decision of Georgia's separatist leaders in 1991 to abolish South Ossetian autonomy. This turned out to be a time bomb for Georgia's territorial integrity. Each time successive Georgian leaders tried to impose their will by force -- both in South Ossetia and in Abkhazia, where the issues of autonomy are similar -- it only made the situation worse. New wounds aggravated old injuries.

Nevertheless, it was still possible to find a political solution. For some time, relative calm was maintained in South Ossetia. The peacekeeping force composed of Russians, Georgians and Ossetians fulfilled its mission, and ordinary Ossetians and Georgians, who live close to each other, found at least some common ground.

Through all these years, Russia has continued to recognize Georgia's territorial integrity. Clearly, the only way to solve the South Ossetian problem on that basis is through peaceful means. Indeed, in a civilized world, there is no other way.

The Georgian leadership flouted this key principle.

What happened on the night of Aug. 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas. Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against "small, defenseless Georgia" is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity.

Mounting a military assault against innocents was a reckless decision whose tragic consequences, for thousands of people of different nationalities, are now clear. The Georgian leadership could do this only with the perceived support and encouragement of a much more powerful force. Georgian armed forces were trained by hundreds of U.S. instructors, and its sophisticated military equipment was bought in a number of countries. This, coupled with the promise of NATO membership, emboldened Georgian leaders into thinking that they could get away with a "blitzkrieg" in South Ossetia.

In other words, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was expecting unconditional support from the West, and the West had given him reason to think he would have it. Now that the Georgian military assault has been routed, both the Georgian government and its supporters should rethink their position.

Hostilities must cease as soon as possible, and urgent steps must be taken to help the victims -- the humanitarian catastrophe, regretfully, received very little coverage in Western media this weekend -- and to rebuild the devastated towns and villages. It is equally important to start thinking about ways to solve the underlying problem, which is among the most painful and challenging issues in the Caucasus -- a region that should be approached with the greatest care.

When the problems of South Ossetia and Abkhazia first flared up, I proposed that they be settled through a federation that would grant broad autonomy to the two republics. This idea was dismissed, particularly by the Georgians. Attitudes gradually shifted, but after last week, it will be much more difficult to strike a deal even on such a basis.

Old grievances are a heavy burden. Healing is a long process that requires patience and dialogue, with non-use of force an indispensable precondition. It took decades to bring to an end similar conflicts in Europe and elsewhere, and other long-standing issues are still smoldering. In addition to patience, this situation requires wisdom.

Small nations of the Caucasus do have a history of living together. It has been demonstrated that a lasting peace is possible, that tolerance and cooperation can create conditions for normal life and development. Nothing is more important than that.

The region's political leaders need to realize this. Instead of flexing military muscle, they should devote their efforts to building the groundwork for durable peace.

Over the past few days, some Western nations have taken positions, particularly in the U.N. Security Council, that have been far from balanced. As a result, the Security Council was not able to act effectively from the very start of this conflict. By declaring the Caucasus, a region that is thousands of miles from the American continent, a sphere of its "national interest," the United States made a serious blunder. Of course, peace in the Caucasus is in everyone's interest. But it is simply common sense to recognize that Russia is rooted there by common geography and centuries of history. Russia is not seeking territorial expansion, but it has legitimate interests in this region.

The international community's long-term aim could be to create a sub-regional system of security and cooperation that would make any provocation, and the very possibility of crises such as this one, impossible. Building this type of system would be challenging and could only be accomplished with the cooperation of the region's countries themselves. Nations outside the region could perhaps help, too -- but only if they take a fair and objective stance. A lesson from recent events is that geopolitical games are dangerous anywhere, not just in the Caucasus.

The writer was the last president of the Soviet Union. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 and is president of the Gorbachev Foundation, a Moscow think tank. A version of this article, in Russian, will be published in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper tomorrow.

The $ multi-billion question, is why did Georgia do this, and who encouraged them to attack? Word is going around that the order/encouragement was issued from the office of the U.S. Vice President. Although this is being reported in a predictably tongue-in-cheek fashion by the mainstream media, its a plausible enough scenario. Some of the stuff thats come out of the VP's office in the last 8 years makes the Georgia invasion of S. Ossetia sound really rather tame by comparison.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #62 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Article from Mikhail Gorbachev, as it appeared in the Washington Post (!!), Monday, 18 Aug:



The $ multi-billion question, is why did Georgia do this, and who encouraged them to attack? Word is going around that the order/encouragement was issued from the office of the U.S. Vice President. Although this is being reported in a predictably tongue-in-cheek fashion by the mainstream media, its a plausible enough scenario. Some of the stuff thats come out of the VP's office in the last 8 years makes the Georgia invasion of S. Ossetia sound really rather tame by comparison.

Thanks for the article Sammi JO
Yes the problem is not as simple than "evil russia"
My opinion is : Georgia leaders did not had the rigth to fire rockets on ossetia. Russia find that it was a perfect occasion, for a little invasion of georgia,
Both are wrong, but both share the same heritage of lack of democracy and human rights ...
post #63 of 93
Russia will reject "artificial timetables" for Georgia withdraw, citing Bush's refusal to withdraw from Iraq.

Quote:
Russian legislator calls for conditions-based withdrawal from Georgia, rejecting artificial timetables:
Quote:
However, lawmaker Konstantin Kosachev, head of the Russian parliament’s foreign affairs committee, said Moscow will withdraw only when it is “assured that Georgians will not continue to use military force” in the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Russian troops will leave “sooner or later,” Kosachev said, saying the timetable depends “definitely on how Georgians will continue to behave.”

“If I would ask you in response to the same question how fast the American forces can leave Iraq, for example, the answer would be as soon as we have guarantees for peace and security there,” Kosachev said. “The same answer would be toward this situation.”

I'm starting to believe the whole point* of the Georgia war was to allow Russia to taunt the U.S. for its loss of moral authority. Also, Russia smells our weakness, and wants to move up in the geo-political world.

Well, America has officially made itself the laughing stock of the entire world. Congratulations Bush. Mission accomplished.

*there are plenty of real reasons for the war. But Russia being able to taunt the US over Iraq is like the icing on their sweet victory cake.
post #64 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I'm starting to believe the whole point* of the Georgia war was to allow Russia to taunt the U.S. for its loss of moral authority. Also, Russia smells our weakness, and wants to move up in the geo-political world.

Well yes.

Imagine if we had Kerry and had only gone into Afghanistan. We'd be lording it over the Russians about how we did with compassion, understanding and laser guided bombs what they could not with tanks, terror and torture.

This isn't me being a bleeding heart as much as a believer in Realpolitik. You are compassionate and understanding backed with real military strength because that is a much more reliable path to national power than brute force.

Oddly, the Chinese seem to understand this more than we do. Aligning with Theocracies is a very un-Communist thing to do. We've had 8 years of foreign policy based on conservative ideology much to our detriment. While we're about to swing toward liberal ideology I can't see it as being more harmful.

Bush and Carter are two extremes this country doesn't need. McCain is too much like Bush and Obama seems far enough away from Carter to be okay for the next Presidency.

If he sucks we can always vote him out.
post #65 of 93


>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
post #66 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I just can't wait until John McCain is president and we can go to war with Russia over this.

I think we should all stop and consider what might have happened had McCain, in fact, been president during this period.

It seems likely that we would be in a shooting war with Russia, at this point, does it not?

The liberal media certainly hasn't mentioned it, but McCain's response to the Georgian conflict should simply disqualify him for the presidency.

He has been, by turns, belligerent, incoherent, ignorant, suspiciously lobbied-up, and deeply, deeply ahistorical.

He's like Bush, but without the laziness: he'll be ready, eager and willing to commit America to the next war, no VP prodding needed, because, very clearly, war is what makes this guy come alive.

When you listen to McCain talk about the economy or energy policy or domestic issues in general, he seems tepid and lackluster. Listening to him these last few weeks, it's clear he feels he's in his element, kicking ass and taking names, declaring "we are all Georgians now" and sending off his surrogates to do a little ground work. His excitement at going mano a mano with the Russkies is palpable.

How hard would it be for the neocons who will inevitably be skulking about a Republican administration to steer McCain towards the next necessary war? Do we really want another president who works from his gut? Remember, Bush's gut told him that Putin was a good man.

Maybe we could use a brain?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #67 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I think we should all stop and consider what might have happened had McCain, in fact, been president during this period.

It seems likely that we would be in a shooting war with Russia, at this point, does it not?

The liberal media certainly hasn't mentioned it, but McCain's response to the Georgian conflict should simply disqualify him for the presidency.

He has been, by turns, belligerent, incoherent, ignorant, suspiciously lobbied-up, and deeply, deeply ahistorical.

He's like Bush, but without the laziness: he'll be ready, eager and willing to commit America to the next war, no VP prodding needed, because, very clearly, war is what makes this guy come alive.

When you listen to McCain talk about the economy or energy policy or domestic issues in general, he seems tepid and lackluster. Listening to him these last few weeks, it's clear he feels he's in his element, kicking ass and taking names, declaring "we are all Georgians now" and sending off his surrogates to do a little ground work. His excitement at going mano a mano with the Russkies is palpable.

How hard would it be for the neocons who will inevitably be skulking about a Republican administration to steer McCain towards the next necessary war? Do we really want another president who works from his gut? Remember, Bush's gut told him that Putin was a good man.

Maybe we could use a brain?

This guy is like a lit firecracker waiting to go off.

That 5.5 years of captivity while vacationing in North Vietnam certainly didn't help our little lit M-80 now did it?

PTSD is ugly and evil.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #68 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I think we should all stop and consider what might have happened had McCain, in fact, been president during this period.

It seems likely that we would be in a shooting war with Russia, at this point, does it not?

The liberal media certainly hasn't mentioned it, but McCain's response to the Georgian conflict should simply disqualify him for the presidency.

He has been, by turns, belligerent, incoherent, ignorant, suspiciously lobbied-up, and deeply, deeply ahistorical.

He's like Bush, but without the laziness: he'll be ready, eager and willing to commit America to the next war, no VP prodding needed, because, very clearly, war is what makes this guy come alive.

When you listen to McCain talk about the economy or energy policy or domestic issues in general, he seems tepid and lackluster. Listening to him these last few weeks, it's clear he feels he's in his element, kicking ass and taking names, declaring "we are all Georgians now" and sending off his surrogates to do a little ground work. His excitement at going mano a mano with the Russkies is palpable.

How hard would it be for the neocons who will inevitably be skulking about a Republican administration to steer McCain towards the next necessary war? Do we really want another president who works from his gut? Remember, Bush's gut told him that Putin was a good man.

Maybe we could use a brain?

Quote:
I think we should all stop and consider what might have happened had McCain, in fact, been president during this period.

It seems likely that we would be in a shooting war with Russia, at this point, does it not?

So from this perspective McCain isn't the same as Bush as so many conservative types have been saying.

He's worse!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #69 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I think we should all stop and consider what might have happened had McCain, in fact, been president during this period.

It seems likely that we would be in a shooting war with Russia, at this point, does it not?

The liberal media certainly hasn't mentioned it, but McCain's response to the Georgian conflict should simply disqualify him for the presidency.

He has been, by turns, belligerent, incoherent, ignorant, suspiciously lobbied-up, and deeply, deeply ahistorical.

He's like Bush, but without the laziness: he'll be ready, eager and willing to commit America to the next war, no VP prodding needed, because, very clearly, war is what makes this guy come alive.

When you listen to McCain talk about the economy or energy policy or domestic issues in general, he seems tepid and lackluster. Listening to him these last few weeks, it's clear he feels he's in his element, kicking ass and taking names, declaring "we are all Georgians now" and sending off his surrogates to do a little ground work. His excitement at going mano a mano with the Russkies is palpable.

How hard would it be for the neocons who will inevitably be skulking about a Republican administration to steer McCain towards the next necessary war? Do we really want another president who works from his gut? Remember, Bush's gut told him that Putin was a good man.

Maybe we could use a brain?

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

This guy is like a lit firecracker waiting to go off.

That 5.5 years of captivity while vacationing in North Vietnam certainly didn't help our little lit M-80 now did it?

PTSD is ugly and evil.


Let's see...McCain said that we should reevaluate our relationship with the Russians. Is that wrong? And what beyond your highly subjective interpretations of his rhetoric makes you think he wants to start WWIII?

Secondly, it seems you've forgotten that elections are really choices between two people. In that vein, what has Obama proposed? What makes you think he'd handle the situation any better? What's he going to do....charm the Russians? Ignore them? Let them do whatever they want?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #70 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

This has Zbigniew Brzezinski written all over it. Russia has been tarred as the villain of the piece in the US media, but it was Georgia, as the US mainstream press predictably failed to report, who was the aggressor, by attacking Russian forces in S. Ossetia... which have been there on peacekeeping duties for some 15 years. Then of course, its an oil issue...

Tell me...is there ANY issue you won't explain with some conspiracy theory...one that of course puts the US in the role of villain?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #71 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

You know, it's really easy for Russia to get away with doing a really nasty thing to Georgia because of Iraq. This is what happens when you surrender the moral high ground.

I'm with you until here. The two situations are not comparable in any sense.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #72 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Tell me...is there ANY issue you won't explain with some conspiracy theory...one that of course puts the US in the role of villain?

You have any other explanation? This violence is not the Russians' fault: their peacekeeping forces were attacked first by the Georgian military. The S. Ossetian capital lies in smoldering ruins and thousands, mostly civilians, are dead. The Russians had every right to respond. Who has been arming the Georgian military in recent years? Israel and the U.S. The probability that the US has actively engaged in, or have even initiated yet another bloodbath is depressingly familiar, especially since the Neocon agenda got its green light nearly 7 years ago. I understand why you cannot acknowledge the fact that our thugs and hoodlums are as capable of doing bad stuff in the world as much as any other nations' thugs and hoods ... I don't like the notion any more than you or anyone else.

From an article by Eric Margolis:
Quote:
On Aug. 8 Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin swiftly and deftly checkmated the United States on the Georgian strategic chessboard. Georgia's President, Mikheil Saakashvili, fell right into Moscow's trap. Georgia and Russia have been feuding since 1992 over two Georgian ethnic enclaves, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, whose people wanted to decamp Georgia and join Russia.

The young, U.S.-educated Saakashvili became Georgia's president in 2003 after an uprising, believed organized by the CIA and financed by U.S. money, overthrew the able former leader, Eduard Shevardnadze. I interviewed Shevardnadze in Moscow when he was Mikhail Gorbachev's
principal ally and architect of Soviet reform. Saakashvili quickly became the golden boy of U.S. right wing neocons, who saw him as a model of how to turn former Russian-dominated states
into "democratic" U.S. allies. Critics claim Saakashvili kept power by bribery and vote rigging.
U.S. money, military trainers, advisers, and spooks poured into the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. Israeli arms dealers, businessmen and intelligence agents quickly followed.

The Bush administration brazenly flouted agreements with Moscow made by presidents H.W Bush and Bill Clinton not to expand NATO into the former U.S.S.R. Russia's tough Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov sneeringly termed Georgia a "U.S. satellite." This former KGB elite foreign directorate agent certainly knows a satellite when he sees one. Georgia provided the U.S. with oil and gas pipeline routes from Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan that bypassed Russian territory. Russia was furious its Caspian Basin energy export monopoly had been broken and vowed revenge.

On Aug. 7 Saakashvili, his head swelled by Washington's promises of additional aid, arms and eventual membership in NATO, rashly sent his little army to invade the breakaway region of South Ossetia. Washington likely backed this attack or at least knew of it. Putin seized upon Saakashvili's disastrous blunder and unleashed two Russian divisions against the Georgians, who were quickly routed. Impudent Georgia and its American sponsors were humiliated. South Ossetia and Abkhazia likely will move into Russia's orbit. The West backed independence of Kosovo from Serbia. The peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia have as much right to secede from Georgia.

In one swift blow, Putin thwarted Bush's clumsy attempt to further advance U.S. influence into the Caucasus. He delivered a stark warning to Ukraine and the Central Asian states: Don't get too close to Washington. Putin put the U.S. on the strategic defensive and showed that NATO's new eastern reaches - the Baltic, Bulgaria, Romania, and the Caucasus - are largely indefensible.
It's a good thing Georgia was not admitted to NATO. Is the West really ready to be dragged into a potential nuclear war for the sake of South Ossetia?

President George W. Bush, VP Dick Cheney and Sen. John McCain all resorted to table pounding and Cold War rhetoric against Russia. McCain, whose senior foreign policy adviser is a rabid neocon and registered lobbyist for Georgia thundered, "the U.S. has important interests in Georgia." Interests that are barely a few years old, senator. Russia's go back two centuries.
The Caucasus is Russia's backyard. Imagine Washington's response if Russian troops were deployed to Quebec. Hypocrisy was thicker than shellfire. Bush, who ordered the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia, denounced Russia for invading "a sovereign nation." Putin, who crushed the life out of Chechnya, piously claimed his army was saving Ossetians from ethnic cleansing. The humiliated Bush is sending some U.S. troops to deliver "humanitarian" aid. Their response is dangerous, provocative and childish.

The West must accept that Russia has vital national interests in the Caucasus and former U.S.S.R. Russia is a great power and must be afforded respect. The days of treating Russia like a banana republic are over. The most important foreign policy concern for the U.S. is keeping
correct relations with Russia, which has thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at North America. Georgia is a sideshow.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #73 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let's see...McCain said that we should reevaluate our relationship with the Russians. Is that wrong? And what beyond your highly subjective interpretations of his rhetoric makes you think he wants to start WWIII?

Secondly, it seems you've forgotten that elections are really choices between two people. In that vein, what has Obama proposed? What makes you think he'd handle the situation any better? What's he going to do....charm the Russians? Ignore them? Let them do whatever they want?

... walk loudly and carry no stick.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #74 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm with you until here. The two situations are not comparable in any sense.

Afghanistan was not an invasion per se. Once the Northern Alliance had largely won, we were "invited" in by the winners of the civil war. US Marines didn't arrive until end of November after Kabul fell and Taliban resistance was shattered.

In any case, the attacks on the towers were casus belli for any action we took against the Taliban. OEF was a joint US Afghan operation.

Iraq was an invasion. There was very limited provocation on the part of Saddam. Mostly posturing that he completely caved on before the invasion...even on the score of full access for searching for WMDs. It was unjustified...and worse: a failure.
post #75 of 93
Russians play chess, Americans play Monopoly:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle20551.htm

I have to say that this really rings true to me, and if it is accurate then McCain will be a another disaster for the world.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #76 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Afghanistan was not an invasion per se. Once the Northern Alliance had largely won, we were "invited" in by the winners of the civil war. US Marines didn't arrive until end of November after Kabul fell and Taliban resistance was shattered.

In any case, the attacks on the towers were casus belli for any action we took against the Taliban. OEF was a joint US Afghan operation.

Bogus. Utter claptrap. If you believe the White House propaganda and lies spin machine, maybe. The reality is 180º in opposition: The invasion of Afghanistan was in preparation long before the 9/11 attacks. Link. Link. Link. Link

OEF my a$$.

Quote:
Iraq was an invasion. There was very limited provocation on the part of Saddam. Mostly posturing that he completely caved on before the invasion...even on the score of full access for searching for WMDs. It was unjustified...and worse: a failure.

Cheney still maintains that Saddam Hussein had a part to play in 9/11, hence the invasion. Isn't the Iraq war a centerpiece in the so-called war on terror? What terrorist incidents did the Iraqi people get involved in to precipitate a fullblown US invasion, under the pretext of curbing global terrorism? Its all BS and lies from the current psycho-pack in the White House, with the asslicking media in fullblown whore mode, and the overworked, overstressed folk of Dumbfuckistan believing it all.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #77 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Bogus. Utter claptrap.

Yes, and Bush staged the whole WTC attack...

The fact is we didn't have significant troop presence until after Kabul fell to the Northern Alliance. Our contribution was mostly air strikes in an ongoing civil war so it's really hard to contend that we "invaded" when 99.9% of the ground troops were Afghan.

They bombed us...we replied a thousand fold. As it should be.
post #78 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Yes, and Bush staged the whole WTC attack...

I don't believe this either. But, there has been the inclination that a "New Pearl Harbor" would set off the neo-con agenda. Look up the "unofficial" Wolfowitz's doctrine.

I believe that the door was wide open in 2001 for an attack to occur. No doubt about it.

Also, look how the whole anthrax attack investigation has totally unraveled. Also the forged 9|11/Saddam memo...I could go on...

Interesting and also on topic...

Quote:
The doctrine highlighted the possible threat posed by a resurgent Russia.

Quote:
"We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others....We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States."

This was removed from the April 16 release in favour of a more diplomatic approach.

Quote:
"The U.S. has a significant stake in promoting democratic consolidation and peaceful relations between Russia, Ukraine and the other republics of the former Soviet Union."

Quote:
The fact is we didn't have significant troop presence until after Kabul fell to the Northern Alliance. Our contribution was mostly air strikes in an ongoing civil war so it's really hard to contend that we "invaded" when 99.9% of the ground troops were Afghan.

Well, it also was convenient that the leader of the Northern Alliance was taken out by a suicide bomber disguised as a cameraman, two days before 9|11.

Quote:
They bombed us...we replied a thousand fold. As it should be.

...And, we have the Pentagon now wanting 15,000 more troops to go in too.

Quote:
The Pentagon will be sending 12,000 to 15,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, possibly as soon as the end of this year, with planning underway for a further force buildup in 2009.

Welcome to the new Surge™, same as the old Surge™...\
post #79 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Yes, and Bush staged the whole WTC attack...

Bush? You gotta be kidding me..That's a really idiotic statement. He was like a clueless, frightened little boy that morning, in way over his head. He reacted like a deer in the headlamps. Commander in Chief, my ass.

Quote:
The fact is we didn't have significant troop presence until after Kabul fell to the Northern Alliance. Our contribution was mostly air strikes in an ongoing civil war so it's really hard to contend that we "invaded" when 99.9% of the ground troops were Afghan.

They bombed us..

Who, is "they"? The Afghans, ie the ones you say we were fighting *with* on the ground?

Quote:
we replied a thousand fold. As it should be.

I guess its OK for the US to do that, but not the Russians... even when they were attacked first, and by a US ally?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #80 of 93
It's been interesting watching the left's reaction to Russia's 'war for an oil pipeline'. Very interesting.

However, anyone who thinks the U.S. told Georgia that they would be backed militarily against nuclear-armed Russia is living in a dream world. Even if Cheney had said it, nobody is dumb enough to believe it.

Adda, I'm thoroughly surprised that you would take the insane view that McCain would lead the U.S. into a 'shooting war' with Russia. That's Sammi-Jo territory. McCain can play the hawk because he's not in a position to influence foreign policy.

Neither Obama nor McCain would be reckless enough to take the country to war with a nuclear power lightly. And while the U.S. was clearly trying to establish a base of influence in what Russia considers its backyard, the outbreak of hostilities is not the Americans fault.

Why the left constantly lets dictators off with a warning continues to escape me. They simply never learn.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Georgia, South Ossetia, Russia, NATO, Israel, etc.