Terrific headline on this New York Times story: "Georgia Says Accord Broken as Russia Occupies City". Do we really need to question Georgia's claim that the accord has been broken? I mean, I'm no diplomat. But I feel like when a country signs a ceasefire, and then hours later occupies a city with a tank battalion, then no matter how hard that country denies that the tank battalion exists, they have pretty clearly broken the ceasefire.
Russia is denying that it is occupying Gori. On the other hand, only several hours ago they were denying that they had any tanks there. If they don't, then some other nation seems to have lost an armored column somewhere. I can only presume that they allowed one of my ex-boyfriends to drive the lead tank. They were probably headed for America, and accidentally turned right at Greenland.
Several commenters have expressed disappointment that I have not expressed any outrage about this. Well, I'm outraged. Also, not a fan of a resurgent Russian empire. I think we should do something about it, not that I think we will. But we could certainly do more than we are, which is nothing. George Bush appears to think of this as an unwelcome distraction from the main job of any US president, which is watching Olympic swimming.
Other than pulling out some vapid threats of economic sanctions, what can a lame duck morally-crippled loser like Dumbya do here?
"Roth played this beautifully."
I actually think the President is pursuing the right strategy, if he continues on the course I think he is.
Gather a lot of international support, calling on Russian to stop, or there will be serious consequences.
If Russian continues, keep insisting they stop.
If Russian continues come in and throw them out like we did to Iraq with a joint coalition.
The question is will it come down to that last bit, and can it at all (haven't looked closely at a map and how we could possibly get troops in there).
But the Russians have invaded a democratic country that has provided help to the US and the international community when we asked for it.
Russia is gambling it won't come to this and is perfectly happy to have sanctions, support, etc cut off, especially in times when whatever sanctions we throw up will be offset by the high price of oil.
sam writes: "Gather a lot of international support, calling on Russian to stop, or there will be serious consequences."
Such as?
Since he can't say and he won't be able to follow through anyway, Putin is just going to laugh at him.
So US is staying in Iraq liberating them, with partner in crime Britain...and maybe some little help from Georgia. The world is looking...and find this ironic. Who go and tickle the Bear foot?
The United States will not be engaging in open armed conflict with a nation that controls several thousand nuclear warheads, in order to toss them out of Georgia, unless it is the Georgia which borders South Carolina, instead of the Georgia which borders Turkey.
Looking at a map, prior to speculating about where the Unites States military will wage war, is strongly recommended.
Will,
In case you missed the press conference, Bush is ordering U.S. military planes and ships to Georgia to provide humanitarian assistance. If this war is still going on when they get there, that could very well lead to open armed conflict with the Russians. Which is one reason I'm surprised Megan and other commenters haven't questioned the merits of sending U.S. forces there. Then again, Megan apparently thinks Bush is still watching the Olympics in Beijing, and probably missed the press conference (from her home town of D.C.) too.
Fred, unless the humanitarian assistance is being delivered by bombers or fighters, or the Bush Administration has gone completely nuts, and has loaded weapons and ammo on the transports, and called it humanitarian assistance, the Russains will not be firing on American forces, unless they have gone completely nuts as well. I suspect that neither party has gone completely nuts, and the U.S. military will not be engaged in armed conflict with the Russian military.
Will Allen's still a wingnut, but he's not as wingnutty as Fred. If this thread has accomplished establishing that and nothing more, it was worth it.
Will Allen,
I hope you're right, but when you send armed forces into a war zone, accidents happen. That's one reason neutral parties generally don't do it.
"I suspect that neither party has gone completely nuts, and the U.S. military will not be engaged in armed conflict with the Russian military."
That is a good point. All of the handwringing over whether the US want to have a nuclear war over Georgia doesn't consider that the question goes the other way to. Does the USSR want to have a nuclear war over Georgia? The answer is equally no in both cases.
I am starting to feel better about this. The Georgian military is still in tact and has smartly retreated and traded space for time and inflicted some pretty serious casualties on the Russian military. What are the Russians going to do now? If they drive on and annex Georgia, they will take big casualties and even Europe would have to brand them an outlaw nation for that. Further, how many troops and billions of dollars will it tie down to occupy a hostile country or prop up a puppet government? At the same time, if the Russians retreat and the Georgian Army is still in tact, it looks like they got waxed by a US backed fifth rate banana republic and for what? A useless province split by ethnic divisions? I am not really sure what the Russians exit strategy for this is or how they get out of Georgia and still save face.
Moe, when you can write a paragraph that demonstrates a grasp of the world which exceeds that of the typical middle schooler's, then what you think has worth will begin to have value. Now, if all you wish to do is post insults on the level of middle schooler's, why don't you just stop cutting Home Economics class instead?
Other than pulling out some vapid threats of economic sanctions, what can a lame duck morally-crippled loser like Dumbya do here?
It's an accurate statement but let's be fair Moe. Your comment really doesn't need the Bush character assassination that you never fail to insert. That just makes the comment petty.
In fact, you could replace the last few words of your post with "what would a wannabe,pandering,cynical loser like BHO do here" and it would be equally accurate.
John writes: "At the same time, if the Russians retreat and the Georgian Army is still in tact, it looks like they got waxed by a US backed fifth rate banana republic and for what? A useless province split by ethnic divisions? I am not really sure what the Russians exit strategy for this is or how they get out of Georgia and still save face."
Intact is one word, and don't claim it's a typo because you did it twice.
Russia can leave whenever they want. There's a brokered truce already, and they've spanked Georgia. The fact that Dumbya never had an exit strategy for Iraq (and still doesn't) shouldn't convince you that Putin is a similar moron.
And, uh, "got waxed"? They ran through that country like a hot knife through butter. Waxing is what's happening to the US in Afghanistan.
I think we should do something about it, not that I think we will. But we could certainly do more than we are, which is nothing.
What is it that you think we could do? Besides act indignant, I'm not sure that we have any real ways to affect the situation.
John Mc quotes and replies: "Other than pulling out some vapid threats of economic sanctions, what can a lame duck morally-crippled loser like Dumbya do here?
It's an accurate statement but let's be fair Moe. Your comment really doesn't need the Bush character assassination that you never fail to insert. That just makes the comment petty."
Ill decide what my comments need, chuckles. And I can't assassinate Dumbya's character, because he killed it himself.
"In fact, you could replace the last few words of your post with "what would a wannabe,pandering,cynical loser like BHO do here" and it would be equally accurate."
Obama's incompetence and loserhood hasn't been established yet. Bush's has. It will take a real all-out effort for another president to rack up a record as dismal as Dumbya's.
MoeLarryandJesus,
Good to hear you learned something in first period English this morning. Now get off your parents' computer and go read a book or something.
The Russians haven't "spanked Georgia". They have suffered heavily casualties and accomplished nothing beyond taking territory they don't want and killing a few thousand civilians. Putin doesn't have an exit plan and I suspect didn't know his generals were going to overract and invade the country. It is being reported he turned white at the Olympics upon being informed of the invasion.
Now go and read some Howard Zinn or Chomsky about the evil yankee imperialism and leave the big kids to talk.
The Wit Of Will Allen: "Moe, when you can write a paragraph that demonstrates a grasp of the world which exceeds that of the typical middle schooler's, then what you think has worth will begin to have value. Now, if all you wish to do is post insults on the level of middle schooler's, why don't you just stop cutting Home Economics class instead?"
Is calling someone a middle schooler an insult above the level of a middle schooler? Can you possibly be as stupid as you appear to be here?
Also, genius, it's early AUGUST. Exactly what Home Ec class am I supposed to be "cutting"?
Conservatives. They just never get any smarter, do they?
John replies: "Good to hear you learned something in first period English this morning. Now get off your parents' computer and go read a book or something.
The Russians haven't "spanked Georgia". They have suffered heavily casualties and accomplished nothing beyond taking territory they don't want and killing a few thousand civilians."
I like being told about how I'm still in school learning English by a nitwit who thinks intact is two words and that "suffered heavily casualties" makes sense.
Taking territory and killing a few thousand people may not count as "spanking" in your house, John, but I guess you have a lot of bodies buried in your basement.
Putin "turned white"? What was he before, chartreuse? You wingnuts need to stop taking the stuff you read on World Nut Daily seriously.
Also, genius, it's early AUGUST. Exactly what Home Ec class am I supposed to be "cutting"?
Summer school Moe. You know. The place where your parents hope you can catch up to the other children.
Actually, I don't think the Russians have a plan here (despite what Fred Thompson thinks:~). Go too far into Georgia, and you get yourself stuck- can't withdraw without looking weak- or take lots of casualties(as the US responds by secreting guerilla type arms to the Georgians) if you stay. At this point, I doubt the Russians even know what their objective is beyond the desire to humiliate the Georgians.
Will Allen has it right- the US will not openly oppose Russia, and for the very good reason that it does not need to. The Georgians can do their own fighting, whether they have a standing army or not. Arms will be easy to infiltrate into Georgia as it needs them.
Also, genius, it's early AUGUST. Exactly what Home Ec class am I supposed to be "cutting"?
Well, in some parts of the country, such as Arizona, public schools are already in session. Or, you could be cutting the class you were forced to take over the summer, having failed the class last term.
It is a long shot, but if the Georgians could lay in a strike on the Roki tunnel (maybe give them some slightly used Tomahawks - and yes there is a land-based launcher for them around somewhere) then the Russians would lack an exit route, let alone strategy. They could then try to re-supply by sea, but of course, Ukraine controls the Black Sea ports. The Russians would be a bit like the Egyptian 3rd Army in 1973 - I don't know that the Georgians would "win", but they might get a decent settlement, or at least get their own villages back.
I wonder what the US did with all those EFPs we captured in Iraq?
Also, genius, it's early AUGUST. Exactly what Home Ec class am I supposed to be "cutting"?
Well, in some parts of the country, such as Arizona, public schools are already in session. Or, you could be cutting the class you were forced to take over the summer, having failed the class last term.
M&M says:
"and then hours later occupies a city with a tank battalion, then no matter how hard that country denies that the tank battalion exists, they have pretty clearly broken the ceasefire"
Guess if the Georgians were smarter they should have negotiated a cease-occupation instead then eh?
What was the point of Russia invading if not to get rid of Saakashvili and put a pro Russian satellite government in his place? Right now Saakashvili is more popular than ever. What does Russia do now? They can go ahead to Trablisi and forcibly depose Saakashvili and be tried down there keeping his replacement in power. They can retreat and leave Georgia with the same leader and an intact army and have accomplished nothing besides killing a bunch of Georgians and effectively uniting the old Soviet satellites. Neither option is very good.
Compare this option to the US in Kosovo. Serbia without any prospect of international aide was forced to change its government. Georgia faces no such dilemma. Only occupation can accomplish that. Again, I don't think this is working out the way the Russians planned.
Georgia is getting its comeuppance for attacking a region with Russian peacekeepers in it. Putin is evil, but the Georgians presented him with a situation where he simply could not fail to act. The real test will be how he disengages, and the longer term issue of what happens with South Ossetia. The US should limit its involvement to diplomacy, and perhaps some humanitarian aid.
Yes, Megan, we do need to question everything. We needed to question whether Saddam really had WMD, remember?
Journalists are supposed to be the questioning class.
Apparently, Moe, I overestimated you. You are so unfamiliar with any sort of schooling that you don't realize that, yes, their are children right now, in the first half of August, who are benefitting from that which was obviously denied you.
If you guys are actually interested in understanding this conflict, here's some suggested reading:
Stratfor -- good explanation of the geopolitics:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0808/S00170.htm
The War Nerd -- comedic, but extremely insightful:
http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-south-ossetia-the-war-of-my-dreams/
Why the dig at Bush?
FYI - Bush spoke to Putin personally at the Olympics. That's where both men were.
He spoke on the issue in firm terms. This is much more than Obama did (at least until his initial response didn't poll that well).
US troops are on their way over to "provide aid".
Not every thing Bush does is wrong... He gets a few things right. So far, he's on the right track here.
Will:
"their are"?
Don't cast stones
That's a pretty good piece in Stratfor, Clay, although I'd take issue with the implied notion that there was ever any non-psychotic thinking anywhere which supposed that the U.S. ever had an interest in Caucasus which came within light years of matching in importance the interest the U.S. has in the Persian Gulf. I do think it is possible that a lot of parties underestimated the degree to which the Russian military's capacity and willingness for offensive operations has been rebuilt under Putin.
Megan, what, exactly, should we do about this? Presuming, of course, we can do anything significant. Better yet, why should I care?
Will, Sorry for being up front and stating that I will not be spending the time to closely examine the best way to get troops and arms into Georgia.
I suppose I shouldn't support US involvement in WW2 without diagrams demonstrating how the US could have effectively fought a 2 front war.
We also fought Saddam the first time around, kicked him out of Kuwait, even though he DID have WMD at the time.
The worse policy the United States could possibly have is for us to allow nations with nuclear weapons to engage in conventional warfare wherever and however they like because we don't want to risk hurting them too badly that they resort to nukes.
I didn't say the US will bomb Moscow. I said the US could get enough world leaders on record strongly against Russia, and then get a coalition of those nations to send in a force to remove the Russians from Georgia. Anyone who thinks the Russians will launch nukes over this has a lot to fear, because surely if the Russians will use nuclear weapons over expelling them from George they will use them for any and all other reasons in the future (so we're pretty much screwed either way). If we don't remove the Russians from Georgia because of their nukes, then we can count on not removing the Russians from Ukraine because of their nukes. Then maybe we can witness the Russians move on to overthrowing governments of various other allies from within, instead of threw direct force.
Where did your spine go? Putin knows it's missing. Which is why they'll continue these actions and others as long as they can.
What was the point of Russia invading if not to get rid of Saakashvili and put a pro Russian satellite government in his place? Right now Saakashvili is more popular than ever. What does Russia do now? They can go ahead to Trablisi and forcibly depose Saakashvili and be tried down there keeping his replacement in power. They can retreat and leave Georgia with the same leader and an intact army and have accomplished nothing besides killing a bunch of Georgians and effectively uniting the old Soviet satellites. Neither option is very good.
Compare this option to the US in Kosovo. Serbia without any prospect of international aide was forced to change its government. Georgia faces no such dilemma. Only occupation can accomplish that. Again, I don't think this is working out the way the Russians planned.
shecky: "Megan, what, exactly, should we do about this? Presuming, of course, we can do anything significant. Better yet, why should I care?"
We should start sending blankets to Western Europe ASAP! And you should care, if you have any decency, because in some parts of Europe wintertime temperatures can get very cold, especially at night.
Also, since very small age we got used to our country, good ol' US of A, always getting its way in the world.
Russia has a clear plan here, and they can follow it without looking weak at all: smack the crap out of Georgia, and leave it without South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Then withdraw its troops back to those two regions and out of the rest of Georgia. Russia will have decisively settled the disputes with Georgia over those regions militarily, and it will have sent a shot across the bow of every other former Soviet Republic.
Holdfast,
Bombing the tunnel would have been a smart thing for Georgia to do before Russia invaded. If the bombed it now, Russia would resupply its forces by sea.
randy, mea culpa on excessive vowel use, but I must say that moe's entire participation in this forum is predicated on stone throwing. That's all he does. I suppose simply ignoring him may be a better option, but one of my character defects is the tendency to mirror the tone of those I interact with.
Sam, since supporting a war which has already taken place, and has been over for decades, is a rather different thing than speculating on one that has not taken place, no, your analogy does not hold. I apologize for my tone, I suppose, but gosh, one cannot even speculate in the most uninformed fashion without first looking at a map. Also to speak of Baathist capability in regards to WMD, circa 1991, in the same context as Russian nuclear capability in 2008 is either ignorant or disingenuous. Yes, the Russians are very unlikely to ever resort to nuclear weapons if the U.S. were to try to expel the Russians from Georgia by force. Unfortunately, when it comes to strategic nuclear weapons, "very unlikely" isn't good enough. One doesn't risk even the very unlikely use of strategic nuclear weapons unless the one's most vital interests are gravely threatened. Sorry, but the Georgia that borders Turkey in 2008 isn't the same as Bonn in 1955.
Also, your implied assumption that once open warfare between the U.S. military and the Russian military began, the conflict would be limited to Georgian soil, is breathtaking. Where did Eisenhower's spine go? After all, he didn't respond with military action when the Soviets invaded Hungary, did he?
John Mc quotes and writes: "Also, genius, it's early AUGUST. Exactly what Home Ec class am I supposed to be "cutting"?
Summer school Moe. You know. The place where your parents hope you can catch up to the other children."
And they have Home Ec classes in summer school? What a waste of time and money, if true.
I guess if I'd ever been stupid enough to have to go to summer school I'd be familiar with such things, like "their are" and "benefitting" Will Allen and "in tact" John are.
Moe, you moron (by the way, idiot, "benefitting" is an acceptable, if less common, spelling of the word), there are all manner of school systems across the land who have begun their normal sessions.
Do you have any knowledge of anything? Anything at all?
Will writes, "I must say that moe's entire participation in this forum is predicated on stone throwing. That's all he does."
That's not true, chuckles. I also share my sexual fantasies.
MoeLarryAndJesus - Obama's incompetence and loserhood hasn't been established yet
Russia has a seat on the UN security council, so they have veto power over such a resolution.Is Obama trying to play on the fact that Russia is being deceptive about its intentions in the area? Does he want to make them squirm by forcing them to veto the cease-fire and show their (already tranparent) hand? Or was he just being ignorant?
I agree with Fred@4:07 regarding Russia's purpose, (and in contrast to John at 254). Russia never had any intention of "taking" Georgia. Put yourself in their shoes and see if that's worthwhile. Totally outrage the buyers (Europe) of all of your oil? Nope. Just reinforcing their claims in the country, however shaky and returning to the status quo (except a better armed status quo).
Moe is not incorrect in suggesting there is little we can do. I would add that there is little we really want to do, or little we have standing to do, and any aid we bring to Georgia will not lead to conflict.
Being in Iraq, and having supported independence for every sub group in the former Yugoslavia, (and everyplace else on the planet, which is gonna bite us in the ass about 10 years from now in Texas, Cali and Arizona) leaves us little logical argument for denying same to Ossetia and the other area, and when Georgia made the first military move.
Also, in reading the papers today you see that the President of Georgia is proving increasingly imprecise and frantic in his assertions, with independent observers contradicting what he claims is happening.
Echoing Will Allen @150, there is virtually NO likelihood of military conflict between the U.S. and Russia on this, by virtue of us having our hands full, and by virtue of the fact that Russia is NOT entirely wrong on the details.
I love how all of the Bush-slurpers are declaring Georgia a disaster for Russia and claiming Putin has no exit plan after a couple of days when they still can't even bring themselves to admit that maybe invading Iraq was a not-so-swift idea after 5+ years.
Bush voters - Getting A Head Start On Idiocracy Since The Year 2000!
Finn writes: "Being in Iraq, and having supported independence for every sub group in the former Yugoslavia, (and everyplace else on the planet, which is gonna bite us in the ass about 10 years from now in Texas, Cali and Arizona) leaves us little logical argument for denying same to Ossetia and the other area, and when Georgia made the first military move."
Texas is welcome to independence NOW. I'll even help them pack.
Finn,
It's likely the President of Georgia is passing on the information he's given. Which in a war zone is very imprecise, especially if you don't have satellites. And yes, you would be damn frantic too if your country were in his position, which is.
His nation is over run.
His people are running for their lives
His army is in retreat
He was helping out an (hopefuly) ally in a country where Georgia had no strategic interest, and likely only much to lose through increasing terrorist activity (easier for a terrorist to target Georgia than the US).
And all of the sudden was not getting much help other than a return flight home for some troops and some stern words.
You'd be pretty frantic too.
And Will, just because I freely admitted I wasn't going to stare at maps and charts does not mean I'm not educated in the area. I'm quite confident I can find George on the map as fast if not faster than you, because I've done so several times.
But what I glibly referred to was the fact that I have no intention of breaking down the means and hows and whats of the type of military support we could bring to bare in a timely fashion.
It should suffice to say, for the both of us, that the military is quite confident on its ability to get a decent amount of deadly effective soldiers and weapons into virtually any area in the world. Especially we already have much of our military stationed near that area of world in Iraq and Afghanistan.
My position is simple. If Russia invades allies of the United States we will come to their aid. If we will not come to their aid, we should not be their ally and should not have requested their help to begin with.
But at this point, I don't think it is wise for political parties to start playing games with the credit of the United States. What nation in a rough part of the world will ever be on our side if the response from the 'next' president will be, "-My- administration never asked for your help in Iraq, so don't expect my help in return."
, I don't think it is wise for political parties to start playing games with the credit of the United States.
"Start"? "The US: no better enemy, no worse friend" has been our motto for more than 30 years now. It's amazing anyone puts up with us.
Why can't people understand that criticizing American hypocrisy and asking that America abide by the same rules we are asking Russia to is not, in any way shape or form, the same as excusing what Russia is doing and has done? Russia's aggression is indefensible; so is sending rocket attacks against your own people. Condemning one does nothing to excuse the other.
People are incredibly angry that Russia has invaded a sovereign nation; they have no similar derision for America doing the same. They're incredibly angry that Russia exerts a sphere of influence, manipulation and intimidation to it's nearby neighbors; they are staunch supporters of the Monroe doctrine and American Cuban policy. This is a cognitive dissonance so profound I don't know how to adequately address it. What Russia is doing is wrong. It's wrong to unduly influence other sovereign nations, it's wrong to intimidate them and wage economic warfare on them, and it's wrong to invade them. It's equally wrong for the United States to do so to Cuba, Grenada, Guatemala or Nicaragua. Saying that doesn't excuse Russian misdeeds. But it does beg a certain degree of intellectual consistency and integrity. (You know, mote/beam, all that jazz).
There will be a chorus of people insisting that I'm failing to see the deep nuance and complexity that, of course, removes any blame whatsoever in any situation from America. I always find this funny; nuance rarely leads to situations where one country is always and only right, or at least morally superior to every other nation. As I've written about in the past on my own blog (I'd link but the spam filter would eat me), people use vastly different standards of evidence to evaluate the actions of the United States and those of "bad" countries. Are the US's actions ever exactly analogous to those of any other country? No. But deriding hypocrisy and insisting on similar standards for righteous action for all countries don't require perfect analogs. Nuance doesn't tend to always lead in the same direction.
I wish Russia hadn't invaded Georgia but our options here are limited, and they are severely limited if you believe as I do that we have an ethical obligation to not get involved in affairs that aren't our business. I would remind everyone that Putin's government is using precisely the same justifications for this aggression that the neoconservatives have used in Iraq, appeals to security and appeals to humanitarianism. That's the sad consequence of empowering foreign powers to invade other nations if they feel that they can "do good". You've elevated statements of intent above pragmatics and given ruthless authoritarians like Vladimir Putin the perfect excuse to engage in aggression, whatever his genuine motives.
Freddie wonders: "Why can't people understand that criticizing American hypocrisy and asking that America abide by the same rules we are asking Russia to is not, in any way shape or form, the same as excusing what Russia is doing and has done?"
Most people can understand it easily, Freddie. It's the cult members who don't get it. There are people posting here who would actually cry if they woke up tomorrow and heard that Dick Cheney suffered The Big One during the night... and they're not even his family members or the mobsters who sell him his beloved snuff films.
Go figure.
I've heard a deafening silence from the whole "peace activist" community.
I've heard a deafening silence from the whole "peace activist" community.
Freddie:
"...our options here are limited, and they are severely limited if you believe as I do that we have an ethical obligation to not get involved in affairs that aren't our business."
Wow! Wow for the quoted sentence and wow for the rest of your post. I should start reading your blog.
Freddie,
Your comments are a post-modern plea for inaction. Moral equivalence between Russian and the US. Did Russia approach the UN first? Did Georgia violate UN protocols? There is a litany of reasons why Georgia is different and your main argument seems to be that since Russia can make a defense for what they did and the US can make a defense for what we did and are doing, it is therefore the same.
It doesn't add up.
At the same time I also feel like saying to hell with the rest of the world we're going to button up and only get involved when you attempt to attack America. But it's not that simple. And we'll be yielding the rest of the world to whatever nation carries the biggest stick.
I do not believe that just because we've given Putin a reason to point at the US and say "you did it to" is a valid reason for our inaction. Putin will throw up whatever propaganda he can. It doesn't make it true.
And we'll be yielding the rest of the world to whatever nation carries the biggest stick.
That's only the case if US inaction in the face of the attack on Georgia leads the Russian government to assume it can act similarly in other parts of the world. But it can't act similarly against Turkey, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic, etc. Those countries are members of NATO. Their security is guaranteed by an alliance armed with nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, history's most powerful fleet, the world's most powerful air force, a large, well-led and well-equipped ground force, etc.
NATO's credibility is threatened when NATO fails to act in accordance with its charter, not when member states fail to gallivant around the world getting involved in other countries' wars. To the extent that US credibility has taken a hit, it's because the US implied to the Georgian government that it cared about Georgia's fate enough to risk a serious confrontation with Russia, when that was clearly never the case. Compounding that error by risking a war with Russia, just because we have to continue doing the foolish thing in the name of our "credibility", seems like a poor way to move forward.
Charlie says: "Compounding that error by risking a war with Russia, just because we have to continue doing the foolish thing in the name of our "credibility", seems like a poor way to move forward."
McBush is jumping all over this. The poor sad old bastard actually thinks he can ride Russian War Fever to the White House!
Can the electorate be that stupid?
Interesting statement from Bush. The C17’s are on the way delivering supplies and will continue to do so. Also those US naval vessels will be used to deliver supplies. This is a message that under the rubric of delivering humanitarian supplies that we are sending air and naval support. Russian forces would be well advised not to contest US navy going to Poti and that port blockage will be lifted. Also with Secretary Rice going to Tbilisi they will stop any drive to the capital since we have the excuse to defend our Secretary of State. These moves are to prevent Russia from completing a drive to Tbilisi and to regain control of the east west highway.
Russia has been advised in this manner to withdraw its forces and not get in the way. This protects the BZC pipeline, which is south of Tbilisi.
Russia uses the excuse of demilitarization to continue its operations and the US will use humanitarian supplies to gain access and prevent Russia domination.
"Speaking to reporters about the situation in Georgia, Sen. John McCain denounced the aggressive posture of Russia by claiming that:"in the 21st century nations don't invade other nations.""
Is this the dumbest man ever to run for president?
(Dumbya excepted, of course.)
Freddie, I don't give a good goddamn about the sovereignity of nations which have governments which operate in the fashion that the Iraqi Baathists did. I do care quite a bit about the sovereignity of nations which have governments which rule with the consent of a substantial part of the population, consent which is voiced on a regular, formal, and somewhat precisely measurable basis. That isn't to say that I support violating the sovereignity of every nation which is ruled in the manner that the Iraqi Baathists ruled Iraq.
Sam, please precisely define "decent amount". If decent amount includes armor in substantial quantities, no, that can't be done quickly. I also think it is a mistake for the U.S. to enter into alliances which include the backing of the U.S. military to repel hostile military forces which have strategic nuclear weapons, absent a formal treaty which has been debated openly and formally ratified. Glad to see you agree with me.
Will Allen writes: "I don't give a good goddamn about the sovereignity of nations which have governments which operate in the fashion that the Iraqi Baathists did. I do care quite a bit about the sovereignity of nations which have governments which rule with the consent of a substantial part of the population, consent which is voiced on a regular, formal, and somewhat precisely measurable basis. That isn't to say that I support violating the sovereignity of every nation which is ruled in the manner that the Iraqi Baathists ruled Iraq."
No, of course not. You only support violating the sovereignty of nations that your owners tell you to support violating the sovereignty of. You're a good boy! Have another Snausage!
Several months ago, The subject of the Financial Times's "Lunch with the FT" interview was the president of Georgia. Here is the link: "Lunch with the FT: Mikheil Saakashvili". The current conflict with Russia prompted me to re-read it, and this sentence by Gideon Rachman, the FT's foreign affairs columnist, caught my eye:
You may find the rest of the article of interest.
Freddie - People are incredibly angry that Russia has invaded a sovereign nation
It seems like they're angrier that it has invaded a democracy. Of course, if Georgia had not been a democracy I'd still be worried for other reasons since Russia has a tendency of assimilating those nations that it invades.
MoeLarryAndJesus - No, of course not. You only support violating the sovereignty of nations that your owners tell you to support violating the sovereignty of.
If you want to claim Will Allen is a hypocrite, could you give some evidence that he actually violates his own standards here? If you're fine with jumping to conclusions with no evidence at all, then your own standards are clear enough. Anger, sarcasm and condescension are not substitutes for evidence.
Forget it, Ryan. Moe is a liar who derives pleasure from lying itself. I grew irritated with his pastime, so I made the mistake of engaging him. Irritation has developed into boredom, however, as it became apparent that Moe was not only a liar, but a rather dim one at that.
Every nation that is not a member of NATO is watching and learning from this.
One of the handful of nations that stood by us to help us in Iraq is being run over. It really doesn't make much sense to me that you'd be willing to use force to expel the Russians from Poland, but not from Georgia. Is a Georgian life worse less than a Polish one?
Why would we use force to remove the Russians from Czech? Is the Czech Republic more important than George?
Why would we come to the aid of the British? Is a British life more important than Georgia?
If you're our friend, and you are surprise attacked in such a manner then we should come to your aid.
Yes, we can do the cowardly thing, maybe the "cheapest" thing if you want to look at the costs, and say, oh well, Georgia doesn't matter. All those other small little countries don't matter either.
But then we shouldn't be asking for their help.
I'm glad at lease the President is escalating things to some degree with the humanitarian help.
But it's very clear what Putin's goal is. Increasing Russian hegemony. What neighbor states to Russia can count on our help if Georgia can't? This sends a clear message to the rest of them. Putin won't have to invade. He'll just have to ask them to remember Georgia and our inaction. The land, the sea port, and the oil line are all an extra bonus on top of that (if Russia gets control over them).
Will Allen writes: "Moe is a liar who derives pleasure from lying itself. I grew irritated with his pastime, so I made the mistake of engaging him. Irritation has developed into boredom, however, as it became apparent that Moe was not only a liar, but a rather dim one at that."
Will Allen has the propagandic organ of the GOP in his mouth at all times. He never takes it out. So when he's typing his posts you're getting pure GOP malarkey.
Here was Ryan W's question: "If you want to claim Will Allen is a hypocrite, could you give some evidence that he actually violates his own standards here? "
The answer is that Will Allen has no real standards. His only standard is that anything his party leader does is right. If you think that makes him immune from a charge of hypocrisy I can only shake my head in wonder.
Hey, Moe, what percentage of the time must I vote for a party in order for it to be "my party"? 60%? 50%?
Sheesh, what a dunce you are. How do you feed yourself?
Yes, Sam, the Czech Republic is more important than Georgia in 2008, just like West Berlin or London were more important than Prague in 1945. You aren't really proposing that the United States should commit it's military to the protection of every human being on earth equally, because all human life has equal value, are you? With all due respect, that's just plumb crazy. If I really need to explain to you why the freedom and prosperity of Great Britain is monumentally more important and valueable to a citizen of the United States than the freedom and prosperity of Georgia, well, continuing this dialogue is likely pointless, although I will point out the obvious, which is that nations don't have friends, nations have interests.
MoeLarryAndJesus - The answer is that Will Allen has no real standards. His only standard is that anything his party leader does is right.
If you think that makes him immune from a charge of hypocrisy I can only shake my head in wonder.
Which part of that assertion was evidence?
I have no dog in this fight, Moe. I just think that conclusions are usually preceded by objective observations. Otherwise, what's the point of having a conversation? Letting off steam and feeling superior to other people? Working towards groupthink via peer pressure and insults? Who needs that?
In my mind, the purpose of arguing is one of two things; to reach a resolution/learn something or to find the holes in the argument of one side or another. The second can only really be done with actual evidence. i.e. In post x you said blah and in post y you said blah. How do you reconcile those two? And wait, honestly, for their answer.
The fact is, it's easy for us not to understand people with value system different than our own, and to assume they must be acting they way they do because they're bad people or similar nonsense. But if a person is rational, they'll respond to rational argument. If they're not, then the people around them will see that, even if the irrational person does not. Does that make sense?
Will,
That's a pretty calloused thing to say. Nations do have friends. I think you could find every single president in the history of this nation agreeing with that statement, and pull up quotes from everyone of them if you were so inclined.
I didn't say we should be fighting wherever life is threatened.
But to use your terminology, we do have an interest in democracy in Georgia and other former Soviet Republics, as well as other places around the world.
And it's certainly debatable as to whether Georgia or Czech or Poland is of more interest to the US.
You never address my other points anyway, only twisted my words as to imply I think we should help Georgia in this time of crisis to mean that we now have to help everyone anytime someone is being hurt.
If you can't see the difference between sending troops to help a nation that they themselves sent troops to help us you are completely lost. Or you can see the point in doing it and just don't want to because you find it unpleasant which promotes no faith/trust in the actions and support of the US.
And I'm not talking about other nations feeling happy about taking our word. The actions of the United States have an impact in who nations befriend, what they do about perceived threats, etc. If the only thing you can count on the US for is to use you when its convenient and abandon you (other than some moral support) when you need their help you can be certain those nations will be run differently and more dangerously.
I think we should do something about it, not that I think we will. But we could certainly do more than we are, which is nothing.
You think we should do something. What? Get into a shooting war with the Russians and start World War III? Impose economic sanctions? What's that going to do? Cut off diplomatic relations with the Russians? Also not a good idea.
So we're stuck with whining, which is not a great option, but I don't see any better ones.
Sam, I didn't twist anything. You put forth a series of rhetorical questions which implied that deciding where to commit the United States military is a matter of weighing the relative value of an individual human life in location x, as opposed to location y. If you really think that the condition of Georgia has equal value to the U.S. as the condition of Poland, I would submit that you really do need to examine a map more closely.
Yes, yes, I know various Presidents have indulged in sentimental claptrap about nations as friends. Any of them with an ounce of sense, however, knows that Washington's view of other nations has been correct all along, even if a global economy makes Washington's preferred policy no longer tenable.
Will Allen writes: "I know various Presidents have indulged in sentimental claptrap about nations as friends. "
Translation: Will Allen would like to see the US kick Canada's ass. There's nothing he likes more than dead furriners.
Uh, no, idiot, since the United States and Canada overwhelmingly have compatible interests, and even if they didn't, war is very seldom in the interest of the U.S.
You really cannot be as stupid as you present yourself, can you?
MoeLarryAndJesus is a chubby middle-age man from Massachusetts named Jim Keane. He is the guy who forced Ross Douthat to close comments. Now that he's here, I anticipate Megan shutting down comments within a month.
MoeLarryAndJesus - The answer is that Will Allen has no real standards. His only standard is that anything his party leader does is right.
If you think that makes him immune from a charge of hypocrisy I can only shake my head in wonder.
Which part of that assertion was evidence?
I have no dog in this fight, Moe. I just think that conclusions are usually preceded by objective observations. Otherwise, what's the point of having a conversation? Letting off steam and feeling superior to other people? Working towards groupthink via peer pressure and insults? Who needs that?
In my mind, the purpose of arguing is one of two things; to reach a resolution/learn something or to find the holes in the argument of one side or another. The second can only really be done with actual evidence. i.e. In post x you said blah and in post y you said blah. How do you reconcile those two? And wait, honestly, for their answer.
The fact is, it's easy for us not to understand people with value system different than our own, and to assume they must be acting they way they do because they're bad people or similar nonsense. But if a person is rational, they'll respond to rational argument. If they're not, then the people around them will see that, even if the irrational person does not. Does that make sense?
Ryan W writes: "I have no dog in this fight, Moe. I just think that conclusions are usually preceded by objective observations. Otherwise, what's the point of having a conversation? Letting off steam and feeling superior to other people? Working towards groupthink via peer pressure and insults? Who needs that?"
I've seen hundreds of Will Allen posts, Ryan. I know what he is - he's a paleocon and a Macaca Allen-level fool. I don't need to present "evidence" for that every time I react to his inane posts just because you feel that would meet your standards of decorum. I don't care even a little bit about posting in order to please you.
So play hall monitor with someone else, I'm not interested.
I don't need to present "evidence" for that every time I react to his inane posts just because you feel that would meet your standards of decorum. I don't care even a little bit about posting in order to please you.
So play hall monitor with someone else, I'm not interested.
Who said anything about "decorum?" I'm talking about providing evidence to support your beliefs.
That's the second time in this thread you've read something I've written and completely failed to catch the meaning. If you can't parse a simple online posting, why should anyone expect you to rationally address anything else?
Look, I don't care if you curse or are rude or sarcastic. This has nothing to do with "decorum." The thing is, you use that kind of tone instead of presenting arguments to support your beliefs. Over and over again. It's the swap-out that concerns me. How do you hope people will react to that? Succumb to peer pressure based on the sheer force of your emotion? Is there any reason to believe Will Allen cares what you think any more than you care what I think?
If you don't care about persuading others, then why post at all? Honest question. Why talk to others if you seriously don't give two shits about their opinion? Just trolling for a reaction? Shits and giggles? Why waste your time?
I know what he is - he's a paleocon and a Macaca Allen-level fool.I don't need to present "evidence" for that every time I react to his inane posts
So lets say just for the sake of argument that you're right. ... what do you think he'll be after you finish posting? A new man, righteous and pure, baptised in the rant-spittle of MoeLarryAndJesus? Is that how you form your opinions? By who rants against you the most sarcastically and reframes your arguments the best?
Moe, you really have no better grasp of vocabulary than a chimpanzee on meth. From "hypocrisy" to "paleocon", to many other examples, you pound away on the keyboard like a such a primate, without the slightest notion of what the combinations of letters mean. Well, actually, it would be a tremendous coincidence for a chimp on meth to randomly strike keys, in a manner that produced actual words, even as the chimp remained completely oblvious to the meaning of the words. More proof of the Divine, I suppose. How were the bananas at breakfast?
I don't need to present "evidence" for that every time I react to his inane posts just because you feel that would meet your standards of decorum. I don't care even a little bit about posting in order to please you.
So play hall monitor with someone else, I'm not interested.
Who said anything about "decorum?" I'm talking about providing evidence to support your beliefs.
That's the second time in this thread you've read something I've written and completely failed to catch the meaning. If you can't parse a simple online posting, why should anyone expect you to rationally address anything else?
Look, I don't care if you curse or are rude or sarcastic. This has nothing to do with "decorum." The thing is, you use that kind of tone instead of presenting arguments to support your beliefs. Over and over again. It's the swap-out that concerns me. How do you hope people will react to that? Succumb to peer pressure based on the sheer force of your emotion? Is there any reason to believe Will Allen cares what you think any more than you care what I think?
If you don't care about persuading others, then why post at all? Honest question. Why talk to others if you seriously don't give two shits about their opinion? Just trolling for a reaction? Shits and giggles? Why waste your time?
I know what he is - he's a paleocon and a Macaca Allen-level fool.I don't need to present "evidence" for that every time I react to his inane posts
So lets say just for the sake of argument that you're right. ... what do you think he'll be after you finish posting? A new man, righteous and pure, baptised in the rant-spittle of MoeLarryAndJesus? Is that how you form your opinions? By who rants against you the most sarcastically and reframes your arguments the best?
Ryan W posts a couple of times: "Who said anything about "decorum?" I'm talking about providing evidence to support your beliefs.
That's the second time in this thread you've read something I've written and completely failed to catch the meaning. If you can't parse a simple online posting, why should anyone expect you to rationally address anything else?
Look, I don't care if you curse or are rude or sarcastic. This has nothing to do with "decorum." The thing is, you use that kind of tone instead of presenting arguments to support your beliefs."
You must be very new at this.
First of all, your initial questions to me asked me for evidence about Will Allen's hypocrisy and so forth, not "evidence to support [my] beliefs." Which beliefs of mine should I have supplied evidence for, exactly? That the Dumbya administration has been run by morons and sadists? Really? If you're talking about my opinion of Will Allen's posts, I've already answered you. I truly have no idea what you're complaining about here.
"So lets say just for the sake of argument that you're right. ... what do you think he'll be after you finish posting? A new man, righteous and pure, baptised in the rant-spittle of MoeLarryAndJesus?"
No, most likely he'll always be the same bloodthirsty amoral animal he is today. But you never know. I've got a few ex-fundie scalps on my belt. And there's always the value of showing mute onlookers that the pure offal offered by the Will Allens of the world isn't unopposed.
By the way, do you think you're accomplishing anything more with your be-nice-and-cuddle-them techniques? Seriously? Because I've seen the reasonable approach fail with Gore and Kerry and I think being willing to kick the morons in the balls is worth trying for once. And it's not like they don't deserve it. Remember what they support and what it has cost this country. Then tell me I'm wrong to despise them.