home

Bush: On South Ossetia: "There Is No Room For Debate"

Russia signed the cease fire agreement, but basically said it was staying in its current position, stating "withdrawal would depend on the introduction of what he called additional security measures, without explaining what those were."

I think what Russia means is that Georgia has to give up its claims to South Ossetia and Abkhazia before they will withdraw. George Bush says:

The United States, though, has emphasized that Georgia’s territorial integrity must be preserved. Mr. Bush said Saturday, “There’s no room for debate on this matter.”

(Emphasis supplied.) I agree with Bush. There is no room for debate on this matter. Georgia blew it. It has to give up its claims to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. A face saver is needed. Something like a UN-monitored referendum in these two provinces. But make no mistake, Bush and the US are blustering now.

Speaking for me only

< What NATO Was And What It Should Be | DNCC Adds Nine More Speakers to Tuesday Night >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Is there ever any room for debate (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:33:12 PM EST
    with that dude? The oval office is certainly not a room for debate!  I must admit, at this time there is little room for Lame Duck debate about this on my social calendar.  One thing about our current President though is that whenever there is room for debate on something he can always go hang out at the ranch where the secret service won't even let you within five miles of him :)

    I can't get over how much people posting (1.00 / 2) (#18)
    by frankly0 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:32:30 PM EST
    here seem so certain of their beliefs here, given the murkiness of the situation.

    Look, as best I can gather, Georgia does have some legitimate claim to these two territories as part of their country. Perhaps they have been abusive of some people in those territories; perhaps most of the people in those territories -- but clearly not all -- want to form a separate state.

    Does that mean that we must uphold the "right" of the people in those territories to break away from Georgia? What if the likely consequence of doing so is that, in fact, those new territories are going to become vassal states of Russia, and/or real ethnic cleansing takes place in those territories after they are taken over by the people who want to break free (which already may be taking place, under Russian supervision)?

    (Here's a quote from the Wash Post editorial regarding this:

    Remarkably, the Russian-allied "president" of South Ossetia acknowledged the ethnic cleansing yesterday in an interview with the Russian newspaper Kommersant, although he did not acknowledge the killings of Georgian civilians that others have documented. Eduard Kokoity said that his forces "offered them a corridor and gave the peaceful population the chance to leave" and that "we do not intend to allow" their return.

    How proud will our posters be when such ethnic cleansing is continued if South Ossetia becomes independent?)

    And, forgetting about the "liberation" of South Ossetia, and Russia's noble interest in pursuing democracy, what about the larger picture, in which Russia is only encouraged to believe that there will be no real penalties if it finds some provocation to invade other countries? What about the likely consequences of that?

    Any way one looks at it, and ignoring the "moral" issues involved in this local conflict, the far more dangerous player in this whole affair is obviously Russia. In the larger scheme of things, Georgia's own treatment of South Ossetia, right or wrong, pales by comparison to the consequences of a Russia that once again, under the leadership that only too much resembles and is even based on the previous Soviet leadership, starts to bully its neighbors and, perhaps, attempts to assemble a empire of vassal states -- or states that are entirely intimidated by the Russian presence, knowing that on the slightest provocation, real or invented, Russia might invade.

    Now I'm not going to say that the correct action for the US under these circumstances is the fairly confrontational stance suggested by Wesley Clark -- though if there's literally anybody on earth who might know more about this and from the best vantage point, I don't know who it might be. But acting as if it's obvious that Russia is just doing the right thing here, and should not be opposed, is just insupportable.

    I can not get over (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:35:55 PM EST
    how you still choose to ignore the facts that anyone who really wants to know about this know.

    You choose to be ignorant and insult those of us who know what we are talking about.

    You best cool it with your attitude. I am sick of it.

    Parent

    I'm supposed to believe that (none / 0) (#35)
    by frankly0 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:54:19 PM EST
    you know what you're talking about and Wes Clark doesn't?

    Sorry, that doesn't work for me.

    Parent

    Typical (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 03:34:33 PM EST
    You know nothing about the subject and trust the "experts." You supported the Iraq War didn't you?

    Parent
    And just one other point about (none / 0) (#26)
    by frankly0 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:39:11 PM EST
    Wesley Clark.

    Wesley Clark absolutely did not hesitate to criticize the Bush administration before the run up to the Iraq war on its clear desire to engage that war.

    Do you really think that if he thinks vigorous opposition to Russia were a far too aggressive, counterproductive step, that he would hesitate to say so?

    Don't you think that he, of all people, should have some real credibility when it comes to assessing the real strategic, political, and moral issues involved in this conflict?

    Parent

    Just one more thing (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:44:11 PM EST
    I said Clark was wrong, not afraid to criticize Bush.

    Stop the BS.

    Parent

    Excuse me, (none / 0) (#36)
    by frankly0 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:02:14 PM EST