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

Originally Posted by mydo

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

Originally Posted by mydo

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

Originally Posted by e1618978

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.

Originally Posted by mydo

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

Originally Posted by e1618978

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

They are the same as us.

Originally Posted by mydo

What are you talking about?

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.

Originally Posted by mydo

... but Bush is loved by many here.

Originally Posted by e1618978

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?

Originally Posted by screener

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?

Originally Posted by e1618978

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.

Originally Posted by e1618978

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.

Originally Posted by midwinter

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

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.

Russian legislator calls for conditions-based withdrawal from Georgia, rejecting artificial timetables:

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

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.

Originally Posted by BRussell

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

Originally Posted by addabox

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?

Originally Posted by addabox

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?

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?

Originally Posted by addabox

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?

Originally Posted by franksargent

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.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

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...

Originally Posted by vinea

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.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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?

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.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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

Originally Posted by vinea

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.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

Bogus. Utter claptrap.

Originally Posted by vinea

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

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


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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by vinea

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.