home

Bush, Rice, Are "Georgians Now" Too

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:26:26 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

With 5 months to go in the term of the worst President in the history of the Nation, a question must be asked - has the Bush Administration ceded control of U.S. foreign policy to John McCain? Which leads to the next question, is it really possible that John McCain could be a worse President than George W. Bush? The answer seems to be yes and yes imo. Condoleeza Rice, acting on behalf of the interim McCain Administration, talks tough to Russia in Georgia:

With Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice standing by, the Georgian president signed a cease-fire agreement with Russia on Friday. Ms. Rice then declared that all Russian troops must leave Georgian territory immediately. Ms. Rice, who was in Tbilisi to show support for President Mikheil Saakashvili, said that “with this signature” there had to be “the immediate and orderly withdrawal of Russian armed forces and the return of those forces to Russia.”

More....

(Emphasis supplied.) Rice has taken John McCain's statement "we are all Georgians now" to heart. The idea of the US as an honest broker is demolished. The US is now a partisan for Georgia. This is sheer madness. What happens if the Russians say no? What does Dr. Rice suggest?

In a news conference in Tbilisi that was dominated by Mr. Saakashvili, who bitterly criticized Russia, Ms. Rice warned of “consequences” for Russia over its military offensive in Georgia. Earlier, in Washington, President Bush condemned as unacceptable what he called Russia’s “bullying and intimidation.” He also said Friday that Russia must withdraw its troops from all of Georgian territory and said the United States would stand with Georgia in the conflict.

(Emphasis supplied.) It seems John McCain will be Acting President for the duration of the Bush Administration.

Speaking for me only

< Friday Open Thread | Are You Coming to Invesco for Obama's Speech? Here's The Rules >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bush, Rice, Are "Georgians Now" Too | 154 comments (154 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by CST on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:30:11 PM EST
    Instead of McCain being Bush's third term, maybe we should worry about Bush acting out McCain's first term.  Hopefully there will only be 4 months of this rather than 4 years...

    good comment (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:18:43 PM EST
    but scary as hell

    Parent
    Problem is (none / 0) (#79)
    by seeker on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:23:59 PM EST
    many prominent Democrats are saying similar things (see Holbrook, Richard).  That, too, is scary

    Parent
    That's why they are called Good Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:16:11 PM EST
    Holbrooke, of course, being the guy who negotiated the Dayton Accords. I think he understands the situation rather better than you, wouldn't you say?

    Parent
    Words in the wind. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:36:22 PM EST


    Maybe Rice can take a page from (none / 0) (#138)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:41:49 PM EST
    Andrey Gromyko and demand "peaceful co-existence". Christ, she is a student of international relations and of the history of Soviet Union and a Master of Political Science... she knows better then this.

    Oh, and she's actively courting the VP spot under McCain, but that is immaterial of course. Of course.

    Maybe she's planning to go down in history with Gromyko.

    Parent

    There is something about the way (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:16:39 PM EST
    this situation in S Osseta is being handled that worries me.  It seems to me that what I get from the administration, the press, as well as some of the comments I read here, is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  Personally I have never believed this is a good position to take both in Politics as well as in international matters.  Just because Russia has horrid policy towards is neighbors does not necessarily make their neighbors good.  BTW the attitude that might makes right is one that has governed politics in Europe for centuries.  Having been raised in a Ukrainian family I was taught to distrust not just Russian actions but Polish actions as well they have not always been the victims.

    Heh (none / 0) (#40)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:43:29 PM EST
    How can you go wrong with policy positions that net you great friends like Saddam Hussein who turn out to be such good leaders? The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend is just too hard to get our brains around I guess. We have been punked so many times at this point it ain't even funny.

    Parent
    I agree and disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:18:18 PM EST
    On foreign policy I think the current Bush II is better than McCain because he is humbled, and because Mccain is acting like a teenage cowboy looking for a fight.

    However Bush II in 2001....he is probably still worse.

    When I read stuff like this... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by lentinel on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:25:07 PM EST
    Here goes Bush, Gates and Rice - telling us that we're Georgians... talking about dire consequences, selling Poland this dumb missile system on Russia's border...

    And the "opposition" party is silent...

    The congress as a whole is silent.

    Bush, madman, lunatic or not, is still free to do whatever he wishes.

    Our democracy, our form of government, is in complete shambles... and nobody much cares.

    I'm sure they will break out the pom poms (none / 0) (#35)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:39:51 PM EST
    after the opinion polls come out that Americans identify with the Georgians(mainly because they only get to hear half the story and it makes good ratings to make Russia the bad guys and Georgians the good guys.)

    Parent
    Foriegn Policy (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by mikemi on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:50:49 PM EST
    Pat Buchannan has written an excellent discription of this misguided policy concerning Russia. I don't have the link. It seems to me the Georgians over played their hand and now remind me of the tough guy in the bar who is getting his ass kicked and says, "I've had enough". The other fella says, "I'll tell ya when you have had enough". Cowboy diplomacy from McCain/Bush not getting it done

    And (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by bocajeff on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:56:07 PM EST
    The U.S. is the friend to the guy getting his a*s kicked and we should just sit there and say, "you asked for it" or should we do something to stop the a*s kicking?

    Parent
    I agree with BTD on this (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:06:04 PM EST
    we should act in our own interests here.

    The pipeline argumanet is a canard, since Russia is at the other end of the pipline.

    Parent

    Uh, which pipeline? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Addison on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:16:26 PM EST
    Gas that goes through the pipeline in Georgia comes from the Caspian fields off Azerbaijan, not Russia. And it goes to Turkey.

    Map

    Additionally, Georgia buys some gas form Turkmenistan, and ships it over via ferry, of all things.

    Parent

    my mistake. (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:40:15 PM EST


    Parent
    And why (none / 0) (#67)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:11:32 PM EST
    isn't the US a friend to Russia? It's amazing how quickly the 'peace dividend' that came from the ending of the Cold War is forgotten for no apparent reason and the media, the establishment, the democratic party, and so many so-called progressives unquestioningly jump onto the Russia-is-evil bandwagon because the Bush admin decided for its own purposes to portray Putin as the second coming of Stalin.

    Except for that brief period where Russia was referred to as an 'ally in the war on terror'. But that's gone down the memory hole now, we have always been at war with Russia, we have always been allied with Georgia. And so it goes.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#80)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:26:14 PM EST
    Of course, since Georgia has a lobbyist working for John McCain we ALL must be Georgians(and if we are all Georgians than it stands to reason Russia is Evil). The GOP just can not ignore lobbyists for cripes sake(and we all know how well those lobbyists have fared under the GOP, the average American not so much. The golden rule with the GOP is lobbyists fall slightly before a gay marriage ban and slightly after God.

    Obama is daft if he doesn't use this opportunity. I'd be pounding McCain and I'd be pointing out that it didn't seem like it was just months ago that Bush had peered into Putin's eyes and seen a soul mate. My how time has passed.

    Parent

    Is Russia a friend to the US? (none / 0) (#82)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:29:19 PM EST
    That relationship began to break down even before Clinton office, witness the brief standoff in Kosovo between NATO and Russian forces.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#111)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:04:30 PM EST
    A 'brief standoff' a decade ago over Kosovo makes Russia 'the enemy'. You'd make a good neocon.

    Parent
    Symptom, not cause (none / 0) (#122)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:13:46 PM EST
    US and Russian interests simply are difficult to reconcile. There was a brief romance after the end of the Cold War, but harsh reality intervened. We saw the first sign of that breakdown in 1999.

    Parent
    You must be new here (none / 0) (#114)
    by bocajeff on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:05:37 PM EST
    Never let facts get in the way of a good Republican or Obama smackdown...

    Parent
    Good enough friends in 2001 (none / 0) (#121)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:13:07 PM EST
    that Bush called him a "soulmate" and described him as "trustworthy and straight forward." Apparently also good enough that when 9/11 occurred Putin voiced his support for the US.

    Nowadays not so much. Apparently Russia needs to send a lobbyist on its behalf to the McCain camp so we can get a little objectivity back.

    Parent

    Putin was hoping for a quid pro quo (none / 0) (#124)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:15:02 PM EST
    You waste as many Muslims as you want (in Afghanistan, and elsewhere), and we get to waste as many Muslims as we want (in Chechnya). That was Putin's idea of joint effort against terrorism.

    Parent
    Oh really (none / 0) (#132)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:24:55 PM EST
    From where I am sitting it appears George Bush was the one who took his eye off the ball on the war on terror.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/a/2002/11/23/MN145915.DTL

     

    Parent

    Worst President (1.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Redtom100 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:17:57 PM EST
    Those who know what happens in history will never call Bush the worst President. He will be judged for winning a war, fighting another war, all while Democrats did their best to lose the war they allowed. For those who know history, it is like Lincoln. Most Union soldiers called the Democrats Damocrats. They were fighting Democrats from the south. Democrats were the copperheads. John Wikes Booth was a Democrat. After the war, the south still voted Democrat. History will prove you all wrong. If you want to comment, please comment with intelligence. I know it is hard, but I will not pay attention to rubbish. This is why Clinton was angry that he was never given a war for his history. He could have had one, but he did not want to stop terrorism in the bud.

    Blowhard twits, posturing for their base (none / 0) (#3)
    by wurman on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:39:44 PM EST


    Now? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Addison on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:41:22 PM EST
    The US is now a partisan for Georgia.

    Has been for well over a decade.

    Absurd (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:49:57 PM EST
    Not like this and you know it. This is insanity. The Sec. of State went and stood by a Mad Man (the President of Georgia) who insulted all of our European Allies and then issued the most provocative of statements herself.

    This is lunacy. I have no idea how you can not see this.

    Parent

    No, not like this... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Addison on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:53:57 PM EST
    ...but a partisan for sure. Which is what I said.

    Parent
    What is your alternative? (none / 0) (#53)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:59:50 PM EST
    I mean, do you think the Russian military should remain encamped in the middle of Georgia and not at the earliest possible date leave Georgia's territory? What statements Bush et al. should be issuing at this stage?

    Parent
    What do you propose the US do about it? (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:16:35 PM EST
    Fire some nukes?

    Are you a lunatic?

    Parent

    I don't recall... (none / 0) (#84)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:31:14 PM EST
    ...mentioning a nuclear war anywhere. And you have conspicuously failed to address my question: do you believe Russian forces ought to be allowed to remain on Georgia's territory, in effect ending its existence as an independent state?

    Parent
    In fact (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:34:05 PM EST
    You did not mention anything at all.

    That was my point.

    Parent

    "ought to be allowed" (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:34:40 PM EST
    implies doing something about it.

    WHAT do you propose? WHAT?

    Parent

    Am I correct in assuming, therefore... (none / 0) (#92)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:40:39 PM EST
    ...that your position is to do NOTHING? No protest, no calling on Russia to withdraw, no "lines in the sand" of any kind, no security guarantees to other potential victims, in effect giving Russia a carte blanche to do as it pleases in whatever parts of the world it considers its sphere of influence?

     

    Parent

    I would have done something regarding (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:50:19 PM EST
    the Georgian President before he decided to try an reannex South Ossetia, namely, told him in the strongest terms NOT to do it.

    Now, I would not be taking sides in the dispute but rather, instead be looking to a facilitator in negotiating a settlement.

    It seems clear now that Georgia will FORMALLY lose South Ossetia and Azhbakia.

    They need to learn to live with that now. In exchange, the Russians need to give assurances that they will retreat to those provinces and be made to understand that any attempt to topple the Georgian government will be met with the most serious of non-military consequences.

    This should occur BEHIND closed doors, not in press conferences in Tbilisi with the lunatic who is the Georgian President.

    I also would have tabled the announcement of any missile  deal with Poland until such time as this Georgian situation was resolved.

    That, my friend, is called, international diplomacy, the tool of choice in this situation.

    Bluster and threats that the US has no intention or ability to carry out is lunacy and incompetence.

    Perhaps you do not understand that.

    Parent

    Mainly; just wanted this posted again. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by dead dancer on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:14:58 PM EST
    the Georgian President before he decided to try an reannex South Ossetia, namely, told him in the strongest terms NOT to do it.

    Now, I would not be taking sides in the dispute but rather, instead be looking to a facilitator in negotiating a settlement.

    It seems clear now that Georgia will FORMALLY lose South Ossetia and Azhbakia.

    They need to learn to live with that now. In exchange, the Russians need to give assurances that they will retreat to those provinces and be made to understand that any attempt to topple the Georgian government will be met with the most serious of non-military consequences.

    This should occur BEHIND closed doors, not in press conferences in Tbilisi with the lunatic who is the Georgian President.

    I also would have tabled the announcement of any missile  deal with Poland until such time as this Georgian situation was resolved.

    That, my friend, is called, international diplomacy, the tool of choice in this situation.

    Bluster and threats that the US has no intention or ability to carry out is lunacy and incompetence.

    Condi; put this in your cup and drink. Read it to Georgie and McCain.

    Parent

    Georgia's loss of these provinces... (none / 0) (#108)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:59:01 PM EST
    ...would amount to ratifying Russia's aggression against Georgia in the early 1990s. That, of course, would in no way encourage similar adventures elsewhere on Russia's periphery, right?

    And, of course, if the US tables the missile agreement, exactly what message does that send? That all Russia needs to do is rattle a few sabers, drop a few bombs on one of its hapless neighbors, and the US will quickly abandon its allies?

    So please, no more lectures on international diplomacy. I think of us two, I am the only one to have carried a US diplomatic passport, and have served on a diplomatic assignment in Moscow. If your expertise trumps that, I'll bow before it. But I doubt it will come to that.

    Parent

    No sh*t (none / 0) (#143)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:23:08 PM EST
    announcing the missile deal NOW? WTF?

    Parent
    What is something, what is nothing (none / 0) (#93)
    by Addison on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:43:38 PM EST
    No protest, no calling on Russia to withdraw, no "lines in the sand" of any kind, no security guarantees to other potential victims

    Protest, calling Russia to withdraw, "lines in the sand," and security guarantees are all meaningless unless you intend to do something if the calls are ignored, the lines crossed, the security guarantees invoked.

    Those are somethings.

    Those are nothings.

    You are advocating nothings that might lead to having to do something.

    What are your somethings?

    Parent

    Love those mistakes with negatives... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Addison on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:11:36 PM EST
    Those are[n't] somethings.

    Those are nothings.



    Parent
    Russia did what (none / 0) (#140)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:45:01 PM EST
    the US should have done.

    Parent
    American progressives (none / 0) (#76)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:19:06 PM EST
    can't even get their own government to cease its occupation of Iraq which followed on the heels of an illegal and immoral invasion.

    But we are expected to come up with a plan to get RUSSIA to leave GEORGIA? Uh huh.

    Parent

    Well, there is a difference between (none / 0) (#9)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:52:49 PM EST
    being a ref and calling a foul on an offending team; and getting into the dispute by threatening to foul the other team back if they don't stop.  In diplomatic terms there is quite a big difference between those two approaches actually.

    Not to mention the issue that Bush, McCain and the rest would rather no Americans key into which is that Georgia's behavior in this situation has been less than stellar.

    If a brawl broke out at a bar, you could bet that after the cowardly NeoCons in the room got themselves safely outside, they'd all be talking about how they "woulda" punched somebody out rather than how they could have stopped the brawl.

    Parent

    The Americans have not been in the ref role... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Addison on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:55:02 PM EST
    ...vis-a-vis Russia and Georgia.

    Parent
    There has never been a conflict... (none / 0) (#59)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:06:05 PM EST
    ...where even the victim of aggression was behaving in a "stellar" way. Regardless of how this started (and I am far from willing to subscribe to the "Georgia provoked Russia" theory here), right now it is Russia that is in the wrong by continuing to maintain a large military force in Georgia itself. Its actions are well beyond the bounds of self defense.

    Parent
    What a silly comment (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:23:09 PM EST
    "Regardless of how this started"? You've got to be kidding.

    Wrong by continuing a large military force in Georgia well beyond the bounds of self defence? Ever heard of a little thing called the US occupation of Iraq? What do you expect Bush to do that has any credibility? He has none.


    Parent

    As I noted elsewhere... (none / 0) (#89)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:37:01 PM EST
    ...two wrongs don't make a right. The circumstances of US invasion of Iraq do not justify current Russian actions. The US actions have certainly contributed to the Russian aggression against Georgia by weakening the international non-aggression norm, but making excuses for Russia on basis of US behavior that one acknowledges to be wrong is a logical fallacy.

    Parent
    And where (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:50:33 PM EST
    am I 'excusing' Russian behavior based on US misbehavior? I am saying that US misbehavior means the US has NO CREDIBILITY in calling out Russia for its actions in Georgia. None whatsoever.

    Now, if you want to make 'two wrongs don't make a right' as the basis of your argument, how about the wrong of Georgia opening fire on South Ossetia without provocation? That is a wrong, and yet you completely ignore it and call for full support for Georgia in its wrong-doing, but full condemnation of Russian for its alleged wrong-doing.

    Your position lacks any moral or logical principle other than 'what my government's chosen enemies do is, by definition bad, what my government's chosen friends do is, by definition, good.'

    This entire situation is a major foreign policy BLUNDER for the United States. The rhetoric and saber rattling coming from both Dems and the GOP is only making it worse. A shameful episode for the US.

    Parent

    This is easy. (none / 0) (#112)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:05:31 PM EST
    There was provocation on the part of South Ossetian paramilitaries. Even the Russian news media acknowledges this.

    Of course, you don't read Russian, do you?

    Parent

    You read some propaganda in Russian (none / 0) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:08:18 PM EST
    and took it as gospel.

    You chose to believe what you wanted to believe.

    But forget all that, you seem to expect the Russians to topple  the Georgian government. Assume you are right, what then? Does the US try to reconquer Georgia? If not, what then?

    Parent

    Do you support the Iraq war? (none / 0) (#145)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:28:40 PM EST
    Answer BTD's question

    Parent
    It's not about (none / 0) (#94)
    by CST on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:45:13 PM EST
    defending or making excuses for Russia.  It's acknowledging that we have over-stepped are bounds and have no credibility here, and are just escalating the situation.  Regardless if Russia is right or wrong, we aren't making anything better by interfering and are actually making things worse.
    Imagine if Putin made a speech demanding the U.S. leave Iraq, while putting missles in Cuba to intimidate us.  I guarantee that would make every American less likely to want to leave Iraq, even though the Russians were right.

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#98)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:49:07 PM EST
    ...he has made such a speech, and while no missiles in Cuba, the Russian strategic bomber patrols have resumed. There's even talk of making Cuba a refuelling stop for these aircraft.

    On the other hand, I agree that the US credibility is badly damaged by earlier Bush Administration actions, no question about it. But it doesn't matter. Very similar arguments were trotted out as to why the US should not intervene in the Balkans in the 1990s. And, when the US and NATO did intervene, Russia was not happy about that either.

    Parent

    There's even talk . . . (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:53:54 PM EST
    Omigawd.

    You want a war with Russia.

    This is the neocon Iraq crap all over again and you love it.

    Let's get to brass tacks - did you support the Iraq invasion?

    Parent

    No... (none / 0) (#110)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:04:24 PM EST
    ...I do not want a war with Russia. I just want to make sure Russia does not want a war with us.

    Parent
    All right (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:10:27 PM EST
    That's it for you. You are positing that Russia wants a war with the US and this South Ossetia adventure is their ploy to start a war with the US.

    Sorry, you are an idiot and a waste of time.

    I also noticed you did not answer my question about the Iraq War.

    In any event, I am done with you and I am contemplating what to do with you as a commenter. I do not enjoy my threads devolving into idiocies - and you just went there.

    Parent

    And you propose "making sure" by (none / 0) (#164)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:49:11 PM EST
    taunting them?  

    Sheesh.

    Some "diplomat" you would make.

    Parent

    The Roanoke Times had (none / 0) (#127)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:16:58 PM EST
    an editorial pic depicting just this. It was quite amusing. Sigh. Can we have a candidate that nabs opportunities like this instead fo ceding the debate to the GOP? Pretty please.

    Parent
    And what Army do you propose (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:17:11 PM EST
    push the Russians out?

    Parent
    There are other courses of action (none / 0) (#87)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:34:16 PM EST
    that are open here. Nobody suggests going to war with Russia, contrary to what you might be thinking. But a price can, and should, be extracted if Russia intends to deprive Georgia of its independence. How, when, and where is a separate question.

    Parent
    What other course of action? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:39:06 PM EST
    Again, what do you propose be done?

    Parent
    If the government of Georgia asks for it... (none / 0) (#95)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:45:42 PM EST
    ...if I were president I would be sending arms to Georgia by now, mainly portable AA or AT systems to offset Russia's superiority in materiel. A US naval presence in the Black Sea to prevent a Russian amphibious landings. Maybe even a few F-15 squadrons maintaining a no-fly zone over Georgia.

    Naturally, I would also go to the UN Security Council to authorize action against Russia. Naturally, Russia would veto the resolution, but not  before a nice, spirited public and international discussion of the crisis which would force Russia to publicly defend its actions.

    Of course, I would warn the Russian leadership in advance so that they could back down without losing face, but I would also make it clear I was going to follow through on my offers of aid to Georgia.

    Parent

    Good plan (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:52:08 PM EST
    Let's escalate the situation militarily, and provoke Russia to actually topple the Georgian government BEFORE the US gets to do any of that.

    Remind me to never vote for anyone who listens to you on foreign policy. That would be McCain from what I can tell.

    Parent

    If the situation escalated... (none / 0) (#109)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:02:55 PM EST
    ...it would be because the Russian leadership chose to. I would merely give them a choice--declare victory and leave Georgia, or up the ante.

    Parent
    You are being ignored now (none / 0) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:11:18 PM EST
    by me at least.

    I do not engage with fools. Not after I find out they are fools anyway.

    Parent

    Concession graciously accepted! (1.00 / 1) (#130)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:20:53 PM EST
    Usually when folks resort to ad hominem attacks against me, for lack of a more substantive line of argument, I take it as an admission of defeat.

    Next time you want to argue with me, at least pick a topic you know something about, OK?

    Parent

    You are (none / 0) (#129)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:18:49 PM EST
    a lunatic. Such an offer would merely compel Russia to occupy all of Georgia before such aid arrived. Game over.

    I'm glad you don't run US foreign policy, because you would be almost as bad at is as McBush.

    Parent

    Negative (1.00 / 1) (#131)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:22:42 PM EST
    Russian leadership is a free agent, they are responsible for their actions. If they occupied Georgia, it would be their choice and their responsibility. Then we'd know whom we are dealing with.

    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#133)
    by dead dancer on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:27:52 PM EST
    So up to now, you weren't sure who you were dealing with?

    Parent
    OK DUH (none / 0) (#144)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:27:04 PM EST
    Russia may be responsible for its actions, but who will make them pay for it?

    We are not in a position to do so, and your answers merely escalate this to the point where our lack of defenses are exposed....else we use the big guns.

    Parent

    UN Security Council (none / 0) (#149)
    by Politalkix on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:55:55 PM EST
    Your military "solutions" to the crisis seem so foolhardy that I will not even bother to comment on it. However, you did mention that you would take the matter to the UN Security council to force Russia to back down. The current UN security council members are USA, UK, Russia, China, France, Belgium, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, Indonesia, Italy, Libya, Panama, South Africa and Vietnam. How many of these countries do you expect to support the United States on this matter. Is there a possibility that the "spirited public and international discussion of the crisis" that you would like may not turn out the way you would want it to be?

    Parent
    As long as you don't call me (none / 0) (#163)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:46:41 PM EST
    a "hypocrite" with an "e" because that is actually in the dictionary.  lol

    Anyhow, I am not sure how you could characterize as many as one MILLION people dead as "stopping a brawl", but carry on trying.  It should be at the very least interesting no matter how depressing it is.  Thanks in advance for the show.

    Parent

    Isn't Rice (none / 0) (#5)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:43:09 PM EST
    supposed to be an expert in Russian history and politics?

    No incompetent can be an expert (none / 0) (#6)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:48:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes but her purpose in the Bush Administration (none / 0) (#12)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:54:23 PM EST
    is to guide US policy in emulating the worst authoritarian aspects of the former Soviet Union, not to broker peace with them or anything along those lines.

    Parent
    LOL - yes, yes and I am a (none / 0) (#165)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:06:04 PM EST
    "communist" too.  Thanks for the laugh.  Everytime any person in this country goes deeper than a BushCult interpretation of an international conflict - which is not all that deep given the fact that a simpleton would exhibit more depth in analysis - the Neville Chamberlain, Marx, Jane Fonda and other targets of the right are without fail evoked - even though you haven't a clue who they were or what they did - they are icons to you - you might as well accuse me of being Daffy Duck - they are all cartoons to you and your understanding of them is thin at best.  

    Trust me, Darlin', I am no Neville Chamberlain.  

    Parent

    What has Obama said? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:50:23 PM EST
    Anything?  

    I'm afraid Obama is going to look weak over National Security in the debates, if this issue is any test.  

    BO is body surfing (none / 0) (#10)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:53:04 PM EST
    BO has made it clear that he is a hands off person, like Bush.

    Parent
    hands off? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:23:52 PM EST
    you mean like attacking Iraq?

    Or are you referring to Bush's many vacations?

    I have news for you: Obama is not the current president, and frankly, McCain is being inapproriate by getting so involved.

    meanwhile Bush has just left for Crawford, again.

    There is no comparison between standing back as a candidate and standing back as a president.

    Parent

    Certainly not (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by CST on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:33:38 PM EST
    With regard to the Chancellor of Germany.  I'm sure she would've preferred if he were more "hands off" :)

    Parent
    Hands off (none / 0) (#34)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:37:34 PM EST
    just means someone else is doing the work.  In Bush's case is Cheney.  In BO's case is his campaign people.  Just listening to BO's reading of his statement on Russia and one can see BO did not put one word into that statement.

    Parent
    I know what you meant (none / 0) (#38)
    by CST on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:42:58 PM EST
    And don't really disagree.  I was just being snarky.  "Hands off" was just too good to pass up.

    Do you know about McCain's Wikipedia problem?  Apparently he didn't know anything about Georgia either...  He could've used an update on Russia too.  He's still stuck in the cold war.

    Parent

    I also notice that above (none / 0) (#44)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:46:53 PM EST
    you say that BO says the UN should deal with it.

    That is definitely not very Bush-like. Bush hired Bolton to be the US ambassador to the UN, and Bolton is anti-UN.

    Parent

    I mean like Cheney is the president (none / 0) (#29)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:25:36 PM EST


    Parent
    so you are interpreting his appropriate (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:41:26 PM EST
    behavior as a candidate to be what he will be like as president?

    I would not make that leap, personally.

    Parent

    Cheney is hiding in an (none / 0) (#32)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:31:46 PM EST
    undisclosed location.  He's still in control.  ;-)

    Parent
    also (none / 0) (#61)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:08:02 PM EST
    if Obama gets someone else to handle foreign policy, I can guarantee you they would be millions of times better than McCain.

    McCain is the party of Bush. he is Bush. They gain power by perpetuating war and using fear.

    Parent

    Isolationism and sanctions (carrots and sticks) (none / 0) (#74)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:17:38 PM EST
    don't exactly work.  There were lessons to be learned in WWII.  

    Parent
    Erm....they work better than hot wars (none / 0) (#136)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:38:14 PM EST
    as in Iraq vs Iraq with sanctions, the cold war vs the alternative.

    Your analysis is extremely simple, and therefore probably wrong.

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#31)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:30:20 PM EST
    I have news for you: Obama is not the current president, and frankly, McCain is being inapproriate by getting so involved.

    Maybe he is being inappropriate, but it makes him look a heck of a lot better than someone who is on vacation and can't really be bothered to make statements.  McCain looks like he is out in front of this (and many in the media were calling him "prescient" on this issue),and while we may not agree with the details, the fact is, the perception is that he is ready to be commander-in-chief, and Obama is ready to surf.

    Parent

    He needs to deal with it, yes (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:43:20 PM EST
    I agree with you about the perception danger, but McCain is messing with something he has no right to mess with, he has no right to say we are all Georgians, nor to promise Geogia anything.

    He should be condemned for it.

    I am outraged, and i am not alone.

    Parent

    Domestic politics (none / 0) (#14)
    by ks on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:04:24 PM EST
    Obama has issued some statements but it's remarkable for a campaign that is so image concious that they are being so tone deaf on this issue.  McCain is out front on an rapidly evolving serious international incident while Obama is on VACATION.  The crazy Georgian President is even using McCain quotes in his pleas to the world. If Obama is not careful this could be his Dukakis tank or Kerry windsurfing moment.

    Now, let's be clear.  McCain is blustering nonsense as is the Bush crew but I suspect the latter knows they hold no cards in the situation so thay are playing it for domestic consumption here.  

    Parent

    BO wants the UN Security Council to act (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:14:16 PM EST
    That's what he said 3 days ago.  BO's great idea was to have the UN Security Council (Russia has veto power) to condemn Russia.  You see, BO wants Russia to abstain or vote against itself.  Not very bright, but that's what he proposed.

    Parent
    What BO said about the conflict (none / 0) (#26)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:24:32 PM EST
    Youtube video posted by "thewarnews" and the video title is Obama on Russia 08/11/08.

    I don't know how to hide the link.

    Parent

    Bottom line (3.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:13:39 PM EST
    I think McCain and Bush are both saying "Don't mess with the USA."  

    I don't hear that coming from Obama.  

    I worry that Obama would be weak in foreign policy and that his approach would invite attacks rather than repell them.  

    Parent

    No one is messing with the USA (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:15:19 PM EST
    We really are not Georgians you know.

    Parent
    Do you suppose... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by lentinel on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:19:06 PM EST
    that Bush thinks that this is happening in Georgia - as in Atlanta?

    Parent
    Of course you're right ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:23:56 PM EST
    but that's not how it will play politically.

    As idiotic as this stunt is that the Bush admin is pulling it will help McCain.

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:30:04 PM EST
    I am pretty sure Americans know that are not Georgians.

    I think this is not really good politics for McCain, he can be portrayed as a Mad Man, if Obama has any guts, which we all know he does not.

    Parent

    It puts large geopolitical concerns ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:49:33 PM EST
    on the table.  And, in that, its a help to McCain.

    Another candidate could paint McCain's statement as ridiculous.  But we don't have another candidate, we have Obama.

    And, like it or not, saber rattling always plays well on the American political scene.

    Parent

    that's the CW (none / 0) (#146)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:31:48 PM EST
    but the CW may be wrong after BushCo stretched the limits of American's trust in the GOP.

    Or not.

    Parent

    this comment (none / 0) (#51)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:56:28 PM EST
    somehow does not comfort me at all.

    Parent
    I would prefer (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:16:01 PM EST
    If Bush was more "hands off" right now.  I liked him better as "cheerleader in chief".  He should've stayed in China where he couldn't eff' anything up.
    "Hands off" is exactly where the U.S. should be right now.  This is not our affair.

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#96)
    by ks on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:45:49 PM EST
    He could cut his vacation short.  I mean, wasn't he just on a world tour trying to show that he had foreign policy bonafides?  So now, a real foreign policy issue comes up and he can barely be bothered to make a few statements.  Meanwhile "McAcient" is out there with  appearing "presidential" and generally outworking a man 25 years? younger than him.  He's certainly winning the image battle right now.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#19)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:16:27 PM EST
    I wonder which faction of Georgians they are? It isn't like the two areas in question didn't break away from Georgia and weren't interested in being part of the Georgia which we are allied with. I guess those Georgians opinions don't count though.

    Scheunemann... (none / 0) (#27)
    by desertswine on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:24:44 PM EST
    is still lobbying for Georgia, I presume. There's big money to be had here.

    And didn't Karl Rove attend a meeting last month which Saakashvili (sp) also attended? I wonder if they had some private time.

    In other words, what the h. is really going on here?  

    Looks to me like we're angling ourselves into a continuation of the Old and Cold War.

    Just in time to manufacture a (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:52:28 PM EST
    "national security" crisis that the GOP can exploit and point out that voting that inexperienced rube Obama would lead to disasterous consequences. Be afraid. Be very, very afraid. Are you afraid yet? If so vote GOP.

    I'm John MCcain and I approve this message. Yada yada yada.

    The national security just never gets old for this bunch. It's the one card they consistently pull out of the deck and it'd be wise of Obama to point that out. I'd also get in a dig about our last "vital national security" issue which turned out to be a bunch of trumped up intelligence reports that have set us back thousands of lives and billions of dollars. If the GOP wants to make this about national security I'd bring it if I were him instead of missing the opportunity to get in a surf day.

    Parent

    OK, someone explain to me why (none / 0) (#36)
    by frankly0 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:41:25 PM EST
    a vigorous opposition to Russia on this matter is wrong, and obviously so -- assuming that that vigorous opposition does not include a military response (which, so far as I know, neither McCain nor Bush has advocated).

    I'll admit I don't know a vast amount about the history or context of this conflict. But is it really obvious that Georgia is either in the wrong here, or that they are on no better ground than Russia in this conflict?

    It certainly seems to me that, whatever the history to the current conflict, Russia has invaded the territory of another sovereign nation. It seems to me that such invasions should generally be vigorously opposed, particularly by a party like the US, which alone among nations -- or organizations of nations -- at least might be listened to by the Russians.

    So where is my reasoning wrong here?

    Seriously, I'd like to know -- I'm just not getting the exact crux of the problem here, though it appears to be obvious to other people.

    Military Response (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CST on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:52:43 PM EST
    Putting missles in Poland is a "military response".  Remember Cuba?

    Parent
    Actually the territory (none / 0) (#42)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:45:01 PM EST
    has been Russia's for 17 years, and Georgia started it.

    Parent
    So are you claiming that Russia (none / 0) (#43)
    by frankly0 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:46:31 PM EST
    has only "invaded" territory that was already considered to be under its governance?

    Parent
    No. (none / 0) (#46)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:50:17 PM EST
    The war began after a ceasefire agreement between Georgia and South Ossetia broke down (each side accused the other of breaking the ceasefire), and Georgia sent a large military force into South Ossetia which reached the capital Tskhinvali. The head of Georgian forces in South Ossetia said the operation was intended to "restore constitutional order" to the region, while the government said the troops had been sent to end the shelling of Georgian civilians by South Ossetian separatists.[19]

    Russia responded the next day by large scale bombardment of Georgian military and civilian targets and by sending troops and armor into South Ossetia, quickly driving the Georgian troops out of Tskhinvali and later invading Georgia proper as well.

    Georgia invaded first, Russia responded, then went into Georgia proper.

    But there is no doubt that they were provoked.

    Parent

    Why is it only Russia... (none / 0) (#52)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:57:14 PM EST
    ...that keeps getting "provoked"? Might not the separatist shelling of Georgian positions be considered a provocation too?

    Parent
    Sure! (none / 0) (#55)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:02:42 PM EST
    My biggest question here is: Just what have McCain and Bush promised the President of Georgia?

    When did they promise this?

    What is the back story of our involvement?

    McCain is throwing all this out the window (much as Bush did with Iraq) and is using belligerent language trying to obfuscate the nuances here.

    It's disgusting

    Parent

    Not sure (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:18:17 PM EST
    Nonsense.

    Why would the South Ossetians shell "Georgian positions?"

    This is utter BS.

    Parent

    by sure I meant (none / 0) (#141)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:52:03 PM EST
    it's possible, but I don't know

    Parent
    What Georgian positions? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:15:23 PM EST
    Are you really arguing Georgia was not trying to reannex South Ossetia?

    Incredible.

    Parent

    Actually, look at the evidence (none / 0) (#142)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:07:56 PM EST
    the president of Georgia acts entitled to military response.

    there has been an effort to get Georgia into NATO IIRC from the discussions with Secy's Albright and Eagleburger (spelling?) and this is a threat to Russia. Put that with the nuclear defense shield in Poland and the words of the Georgian President, and you may have a situation of US provocation of Russia by proxy.

    Just a guess. I did not start to pay attention to this region until the initial flare-up.

    Parent

    Well, that (none / 0) (#54)
    by frankly0 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:00:23 PM EST
    makes it messier and messier.

    While you can say that Russia was provoked, it seems you can likewise say that Georgia was provoked by the separatists in South Ossetia, who were, apparently attacking Georgia and Georgians.

    I guess I'd have to know more about the motivations and history of the South Ossetia separatists, how they may have been tied to Russia, how Russia may or may not have chosen to constrain them, etc., before I'd declare who is really at fault here.

    Did Russia simply refuse to constrain the South Ossetians? Were they hoping for a provocation? Certainly it strikes me as odd in the extreme that Russia would allow people within its own boundaries to engage in military battles with a neighboring country.

    It seems to be getting pretty messy.

    Parent

    It is messy. (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:04:19 PM EST
    Which is why Mccain pisses me off by trying to make it a cut-and-dry case of us v them.

    His behavior here is outrageous and he refuses to fire his advisor who works as a lobbyist for Georgia.

    Parent

    Well, I'll grant that (none / 0) (#81)
    by frankly0 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:26:45 PM EST
    it is not obvious particularly who is at fault here ultimately, given what you've reported.

    But it's also quite true that it's at least consistent with what you've reported that Russia is, to a very significant degree, the real culprit here -- it strikes me as really very suspicious that the South Ossetians were allowed to shell the sovereign nation of Georgia without, apparently, any real repercussions from Russia itself, which supposedly is in control of that territory. Georgia at minimum has a right to self defense under such circumstances. Perhaps it was foolish of it to invade Russian territory to correct the problem, but it's hard to understand why it was not at least morally entitled to do so.

    Of course, it could also be that Georgia was indeed really at fault, and simply seized on a minor issue in order to launch an invasion to expand its territory -- which would put it clearly at fault.

    I don't know which of the two scenarios more accurately captures what went on. If the first scenario were closer to the truth, perhaps McCain's position is not unreasonable. If the second, then certainly his position is rash and deplorable.

    But that's exactly why we have experts on such affairs who can explain the true context, and can properly advise us.

    I'll agree that having an adviser who is a lobbyist for Georgia is not a good sign that disinterested advice is being dispensed.

    Parent

    I am ill-equipped to determine (none / 0) (#139)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:44:23 PM EST
    all the nuances of the situation, and given this conversation of yours and mine, you are in the same boat.

    I trust Madeline Albright, I don't trust Mccain. I think he is trying to gain an electoral advantage. Under these circumstances, it is better to learn more about the situation (not from Mccain) before assigning blame or coming to other conclusions.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:14:23 PM EST
    You can say a lot of things.

    Thinking before saying or writing is a wise policy.

    Parent

    Look, BTD, (none / 0) (#85)
    by frankly0 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:32:56 PM EST
    I'm not pretending to know everything about everything.

    Sometimes I just don't know the details of certain issues, and I pose arguments to figure out what the truth might be, inviting people to refute my argument.

    I frequently learn by having my arguments refuted -- in fact, it's often for me the best way to learn, because I determine the exact point of weakness in the otherwise plausible argument.

    You might try that sometime too.

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by Addison on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:37:13 PM EST
    You say:

    Sometimes I just don't know the details of certain issues, and I pose arguments to figure out what the truth might be, inviting people to refute my argument.

    Why on Earth wouldn't you research the topic before doing this? Even with your own endlessly irritating strategy for learning you would figure out more "truth" if you knew more to begin with.

    I cannot understand the selfishness of blindly going into a conversation w/o knowing what the facts are, somehow still having a strong opinion, and relying on everyone else to spend their time educating you.

    Parent

    Oh please, (none / 0) (#97)
    by frankly0 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:46:16 PM EST
    as if people who post here and elsewhere are actually one and all well informed on such subjects as the history of the conflict between Georgia and Russia?

    You know what I find "endless irritating"? People who pretend to know the context of issues such as the conflict between Georgia and Russia, when, in fact, they know virtually nothing about it, and they are only indulging their own need to bloviate and pretend that they are knowledgeable when they are not.

    A little honesty about one's own ignorance of subjects should, I think, be encouraged on blogs and elsewhere. We have only too many people pretending to know things they don't.

    People like you do nothing but attempt to shut down conversation and admissions of ignorance rather than to encourage it. Your attitude encourages nothing but more pompous bloviating.

    Parent

    Uh (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:54:51 PM EST
    You know what I find "endless irritating"? People who pretend to know the context of issues such as the conflict between Georgia and Russia, when, in fact, they know virtually nothing about it, and they are only indulging their own need to bloviate and pretend that they are knowledgeable when they are not.

    That would be you.

    Parent

    And just one more point (none / 0) (#101)
    by frankly0 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:51:18 PM EST
    You assert I "still have a strong opinion" even though I explicitly profess ignorance.

    That is simply false, if you can manage to look at what I wrote, and summon up some reading comprehension.

    I clearly was stating my argument and my conclusions as hypothetical, and inviting people to refute it.

    Could you try to be honest about that?

    Parent

    Yes... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Addison on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:53:21 PM EST
    ...I went too far in my statement and I apologize.

    Parent
    Are you claiming (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:13:40 PM EST
    Russia intends to annex that territory?

    Parent
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:11:20 PM EST
    you should get some facts first.

    Your comment seems ill informed.

    Parent

    RA, do you have any idea (none / 0) (#162)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:31:42 PM EST
    how foolish your comment is?

    Listen and learn.

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#41)
    by bocajeff on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:44:18 PM EST
    Should we take the Jimmy Carter approach and let Russian do what it wants and then boycott thei rOlympics in 2014? What if they decide to go into Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Moldava, etc...? Don't alliances mean anything?

    I'm not saying I agree with the Bush dministration but I'm just wondering what the right response is. The Europeans aren't going to help anyone - should we?

    So you think Russia is crazy? (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:03:14 PM EST
    Deal with THIS issue, not your paranoid fantasies of Russian invading all these other places -- WE are the ones who invade nations for no reason now, or have you forgotten the last three decades of our beligerent military history?  These two regions don't want to be part of Georgia and were occupied by a peacekeeping force GEORGIAN TROOPS ATTACKED FIRST!!

    Parent
    I read the South Ossetians (none / 0) (#60)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:07:19 PM EST
    fired first.  

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:10:45 PM EST
    You did, did you?

    Parent
    Two wrongs... (none / 0) (#62)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:09:15 PM EST
    ...don't make a right. What the US might have done earlier is not a reason to make excuses for Russia. If the US invasion of Iraq was wrong, this does not make Russian invasion of Georgia right.

    Parent
    Russia invaded Georgia? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:10:28 PM EST
    When? On TV today, Condi Rice was in Tbilisi.

    This is just the type of BS I find intolerable about this discussion.

    Parent

    The Russian military... (none / 0) (#102)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:51:58 PM EST
    ...is very much on Georgian territory, is it not? Russian bombs are falling on Georgia, are they not?

    I think we can stipulate these Russian activities are not occurring by Georgian invitation.

    Parent

    Who invaded semi-autonomous Ossetia? (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:58:32 PM EST
    A region that wants no part of Georgia and has been occupied by a peacekeeping force for almost two decades?  Can you not get past the propaganda of OUR media?  It does exist you know.  In order to make our hypocrisies and murderous f-ups look like freedom runs.
     

    Parent
    Excuse me... (none / 0) (#116)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:08:34 PM EST
    ...but exactly who and where recognized the international status of "semi-autonomous" Ossetia? The "peacekeeping force" you refer to is simply the Russian military which, surprise, surprise, is not a neutral actor here.

    If the South Ossetians really, truly don't want to be part of Georgia, let's have an internationally monitored plebiscite. Since we haven't had one yet, any statements on what South Ossetians want are conjecture.

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:05:37 PM EST
    you want to make a different argument - that Russia invaded Georgia in order to take over the country - but you would be called on such a lie.

    What Russia is doing, and you damn well know it - is sending a message. Its troops will not stay in Georgia, but they WILL stay in South Ossetia and Azhbekia.

    But let's assume your hyperbole and exaggerations correctl describe the situation. Let's asusme even more, Russia is going to Tibilisi to topple the Georgian President.

    Does the US use military force to stop that in your view?

    Parent

    Russia does appear interested... (none / 0) (#119)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:11:31 PM EST
    ...in replacing Georgia's government. Presumably with someone really sensitive to Russia's interests.   Not quite as brutal a scenario as Russian armor marching on Tbilisi (which might happen yet), but with a very similar end result of de facto ending Georgia's independence.

    But, of course, you'd be fine with that.

    Parent

    And you support all out war with Russia (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:17:01 PM EST
    Over Georgia?

    How many people have we murdered in Iraq?  

    What should happen to us as a result?

    Nothing, I assume you think.

    If you think starting a war with Russia over this is good, then send you family and children over there now.

    The stupidity never ends.

    Parent

    You mean in the same way (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:33:09 PM EST
    we want a government in Iraq that is "sensitive" to US interests? It's a little like the pot calling the kettle black to call Russia out for interfering in foreign interests when we are doing the same thing in the name of US interests.

    Parent
    excuse me but (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:38:22 PM EST
    are we in a position to be the world's policemen? Do we have the forces? Do we have the credibility? Do we have the money? Do we have the moral authority?

    To all, the answer is no.

    And ask yourself this: What are the consequences if all of those inadequacies are revealed while we are still trying to fight a war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Your thinking is from another age.

    Parent

    What if . . ? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:09:30 PM EST
    What if I just ignore your silly hypotheticals?

    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#125)
    by bocajeff on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:15:55 PM EST
    Is it possible for you to disagree with someone without being sn damn snaky about it? I remember a few months ago you were ready to pack up your keyboard and go running home...Just because you think you are right, or that you are right, doesn' make it wise to be so, well, snarky...

    Parent
    No I can't (none / 0) (#135)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:34:31 PM EST
    BTW, I am permanently banning you from my threads.

    I have stated for about a million times that commenting on ME is not permitted EVER in my threads.

    Do not comment anymore in my threads.

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#148)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:39:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Rice is a comedian? (none / 0) (#77)
    by miriam on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:22:43 PM EST
    Ms. Rice, who was in Tbilisi to show support for President Mikheil Saakashvili, said that "with this signature" there had to be "the immediate and orderly withdrawal of Russian armed forces and the return of those forces to Russia."

    Do you think Putin has stopped laughing yet?  Who on earth thinks Rice has a single ounce of credibility left?  Is she delusional?  Does she think the US has the power of right behind it anymore...or has she forgotten about the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, torture, rendition flights, Guantanamo, etc.  Where does she get off telling any nation to do anything?  

    If anyone is seriously thinking about voting for McCain, please remember the dangerous, incompetent clowns Bush has surrounded himself with.  Do you want to see these same faces popping up for the next four years in a McCain administration?  Obama could well be just as dangerous and incompetent but at least we'll have some new names to vilify.  I'm beginning to blame the American education system for producing a nation half full of morons.  Half (50%) of seniors in high school couldn't identify New York State on a map. And we expect democracy to survive when these people are voting?

     

    I don't know if it's me but (none / 0) (#150)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 06:21:31 PM EST
    a lot of the comments I am reading here are the same that right wing radio hosts are feeding their audience.

    Bush, Rice, Are "Georgians Now" Too | 154 comments (154 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment