BS: War in Georgia (2008)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 08:31 AM

"Fer Chrissake, they don't trust you now! ;-D (Except maybe for Israel.)"


                  Weren't the last few moles unearthed in the CIA working for Israel?


                  And I think you're right about Serbia, Carol, their biggest problem was they just happened to be in the wrong place at the right time for Bill Clinton and NATO.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 10:17 AM

Until Jimmy Carter's presidency, we (the US) were strongly allied with Turkey, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Lebanon and Israel. Three different religions and lots of animosity between them, but all good friends to us.

We most certainly could be allied with Serbia (and Croatia) after the breakup of the old Yugoslavia, and still be at odds with Russia and their tendency for expansionism. For someone to put out the simplistic statement "Anyone who is an enemy of our enemy is our friend." and suggest that is the depth and breadth of the US foreign policy does not deserve to be given the time of day.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 10:42 AM

Have we all concluded that Bush done it yet?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 10:45 AM

Yes. He did it in the library with a candlestick!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 12:48 PM

. . . and seven people here offered to light it for him.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 01:00 PM

Iran wasn't our friend. The Shah was our friend. Clearly much of Iran didn't appreciate our meddling in that country, and that's why the Shah was chased out of there. Iran could have been our friend had we not crushed their fledgling democracy because of oil and had we not propped up the despotic Shah.

And while my synopsis of our foreign relations looks simplistic because it didn't take very many words to communicate it, it's not at all simplistic when one examines the particulars of how we go about it.

But it's still entirely about empire and not wanting to allow the existence of any other superpowers that could challenge our hegemony.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 01:51 PM

Okay, pdq, fine then...Israel doesn't trust you either. ;-)

By the way, have you got the time?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 05:17 PM

Pdq,

I think there make be some confusion. I don't doubt that we could be allies with Serbia. I simply question that we are or recently have been.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 06:35 PM

Bill Clinton authorized NATO forces to bomb Serbia back to the Srone Age if they tried to stop Kosovo from being taken away by Albanians. Madeleine Albright was the architect of the plan. We blasted our friend Serbia with more ordinance (including most of our depleted Uranium on hand at the time) than George Bush (#41) used to win the Gulf War (1991). They are not our friends anymore. Oh, let's not forget that no UN resolution was voted on authorizing this attack. There was also no vote in the US Congress. The 2003 Iraq conflict (see George W. Bush, #43), on the other hand, had numerous UN-voted mandates starting in 1990 and a very specific approval by the US Congress, in addition to a voted general approval fthrough the War on Terrorism vote in OCT 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 06:41 PM

How was Serbia our friend? They came out of the collapse of communism as and authoritarians, suppressing other ethnic groups with close ties to Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 07:21 PM

Why is it that you can clearly recognize American aggression against Serbia but not against Iraq, pdq? Might it have something to do with your partisan viewpoint?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 07:28 PM

The best way to have handled Iraq would have been to kill Hussein. One against tens of thousands. He deserved a bullet in the brain anyway due to what he ordered be done to the Kurds. But war generates lotsa dollars--just ask Mr Halliburton and the folks in the arms industry. But folks get all fuzzy when they have to think of that instaed of war. Retail killing as opposed to wholesale
slaughter. Besides, if some leaders started thinking that way, the arms manufactureres would apply the logic to them.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 07:32 PM

Get enough folks to say, "I'll be right behind you Bush (or Putin or whatever other warmongers you care to name)" and war would freakin' well end soon enough. imo

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 07:35 PM

But, hey, man...Saddam Hussein was an American ally when he was killing Iranians. Remember? He was "our boy in Baghdad".

Sort of like Noriega. He was an American ally for many years too.

Oh, and Osama Bin Laden used to work in harmony with the CIA to kill Russians in Afghanistan.

I see a common thread running through all of this.


You are quite right that a war suits the arms industry far better than an assassination of one man does.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 07:40 PM

Yes, and it doesn't seem to matter which country is on who's side. Whatever it takes to start the bullets flying seems to be perfectly acceptable to the arms industry, where ever you find it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 08:05 PM

Iraq broke off diplomatic relations with the US over the 1967 Arab-Israel War. They were our enemies under Saddam Hussein from 1979 until we put a big US combat boot up his ass. Don't re-write history. Mudcat has some standard opinions that must be adhered to for purposes of getting along. They ain't true, but that don't matter here.

Iraq never was our ally and they never received a "wink" from the US ambassador to invade Kuwait. They had less than 2.5% US arms going into the Kuwait invasion, none of that material was authorized by the US government (read: from illegal arms deals). The nerve gas and biological agents Reagan authorized in about 1986 consisted of small samples (vials carried in one briefcase) and came with technical help. The purpose was to identify the chemical and biological agents that Iran was using against the Iraqi army and civilians. And we gave spy plane photos but only after repulsed the Iraqi aggression and moved into Iranian territory to conquer Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 08:09 PM

pdq, you need to start getting your history from more historians and fewer hacks.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 08:26 PM

I don't understand the last sentence in the second paragraph in the 17 Aug 08 - 08:05 PM post. Who moved into Iranian territory to conquer Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 08:50 PM

A bit more proofreading...Yes, Iran moved into Iraqi territory in the latter stages of the Iran-Iraq War. Reagan maintained a strict neutrality until Iran became the aggressors. He gave Iraqi diplomats sophisticated spy plane photographs showing the location of Iranian troop movements. He gave them no weapons and made it clear that when hostilites ended, the original borders were going to stand. Compare that to Kosovo, Bosnia and Geargia. Inconsistent foreign policy as I have already stated.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 09:51 PM

If the US only stepped in when Iran entered Iraqi territory, it really can't be said that the US was maintaining strict neutrality, since Iraq invaded Iran in the first place. Clearly, the US wanted Iraq to invade Iran, and it did not want Iran to enter Iraqi territory. Had the US maintained neutrality, it would not have interfered in any way at any time, and certainly not after it had already allowed Iraq to invade Iran.

Iraq was our proxy against the Iranian revolutionaries in the Iran Iraq war.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 09:58 PM

And it's just too bad Shakespeare wasn't around to write the play about the insanity that he certainly would have deduced from the hypocisy related to the Iran-Contra affair.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 11:55 PM

As usual, pdq, you are mesmerized by the outer form of the law (official treaties, alliances, U.N. declarations, whatever), and can't seem to see what is actually going on between the lines.

The outer form of the law, when it applies to international relations, is often intended simply to mislead those who are mesemerized by it while the real program goes forward, and the real program was this:

The USA wanted revenge on Iran for the Iran hostage crisis that crippled Jimmy Carter's presidency and humiliated and frustrated America. They wanted to bring down the Iranian regime. They encouraged Saddam Hussein to use Iraq as their instrument to punish Iran. They helped finance his war effort. Their hope was that Saddam's invasion would break the back of the Iranian regime for good, following which the USA could establish a compliant regime in Iran, thus controlling Iranian oil and getting revenge on Iran at the same time.

Saddam did well at first, because he had the intial advantage of surprise and he had better modern weaponry. He did not do well in the long run. The Iranians defeated his invasion. If you call their eventual advances across the border into Iraq "aggression" under that circumstance, then perhaps you would call the Allied invasions of occupied Europe under the Third Reich aggression as well?

Saddam had failed miserably as America's hired gun to punish Iran, but he still was armed to the teeth...and he had nowhere to go...

He had become an embarrassment and a liability at that point. So the next thing to do was wait for Saddam to make his next serious mistake or help him to make it...then pull his teeth. As it turned out, that didn't take too long.

None of this has anything to do with the official out-front propaganda BS, pdq, it has to do with the real strategic moves behind the scenes. Actions speak louder than words.

The USA and UK have been playing a Great Game in the Middle East ever since the end of WWII. That game is aimed at controlling Middle Eastern oil and the marketing of that oil. They used Saddam while it was convenient, they dumped him when it wasn't anymore. They blew it totally when it came to dealing with Iran, though....so Iran is still on the hit list. If there is another war there soon it will be Iran which is targeted. Syria is also on the hit list, but much secondary, I'd say.

The excuse again, just like in Iraq, will be the rumored presence or the rumored danger of WMDs.

It is the excuse most likely to be believed by the American public, despite the fact that Iran and Iraq are both utterly physically and technically incapable of attacking the USA...and they would not attack Israel either unless they had decided on committing national suicide.

Thus, those who already HAVE the WMDs by the hundreds and/or thousands...Israel, the USA, and the UK...pretend to be living in fear of those who don't have them...and who wouldn't even dare use them if they did have them, for the most painfully obvious reasons.

It's ridiculous, but a majority of Americans will probably believe it once again, because you seem inclined to believe anything you are told by Big Brother as long as it places evil somewhere else in the world....and not at home.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:51 AM

That's IT exactly Hawk...one has to read between the lines.

What seems obvious, is totally incomprehensible to folks like pdq, Teribus , or Bearded Bruce.
I wonder though, is this really the case, or do they have the powers required to deduce and are just afraid to use them?

I don't think I've ever heard any of them actually question Western foreign policy, other than as a weapon against a rival in domestic politics.
There seems to be some sort of denial at work here.

"I won't think for myself.....Iwon't....I won't...and no fuckin' leftie is gonna make me"...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 06:53 AM

Well I've read this thread through and done some thinking.

I started off (like most people) caught up in the wole "aaahhh the cold war is starting again" hysteria.

I've come round though, thanks to the sound reasoning of folks like CarolC, to a point where I am disgusted and revolted by the sycophancy of David Cameron and the opportunism of Bush, but most of all by the Audacity of Sakashvilli.

I have a name for the new world ideology - cynical egotism.

The Russians are no angels, but the world is not well served by the distortion of truth that we are seeing around us.

Vote "cynical egotist" at the next election ... or if that ain't your cup of tea, go for Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 07:52 AM

Obama - I don't know how you could get more egotistical than that.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: folk1e
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 07:52 AM

One of the problems with playing with the "brown and smelly" is that you end up covered in it!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 09:15 AM

Lox, I don't see how Bush escapes blame in this. Form seeing Putin's soul to the combination of bluster and neglect in foreign policy, to the cancellation of Russian oil contracts in Iraq, to the "missile defense", to the offer of a NATO seat to Georgia, which Bush does not have authority to give. The man is a perfect storm of diplomatic fuckups and the negation of power.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 11:03 AM

bottom line: Russia wins.

The US is 54 Trillion dollars in debt with a stop lost military and is not the mythological undenied supreme super power.

Jack when you (quoted) "Iraq never was our ally and they never received a "wink" from the US ambassador to invade Kuwait"
you probably did not intend to revise history but that statement is dead wrong. I watched the ambassador speak of her involvment and she said she was ordered to say "we have no intention to intervene."

Under Reagan we sent GHW Bush to Iraq for Saddams birthday. Bush was taped kissing Saddam on each cheek. ITs a much more powerful video than Rumsfeld sahking hands with Saddam.

Isn't it amaking how quickly we lose touch with accurate history?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 11:45 AM

It was another poster (not JtS) who said that about Iraq not ever being our ally or receiving a "wink" from us.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:23 PM

sorry , typical forum mistake due to not reading every post.

thanks

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:28 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/17/AR2008081702076.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:29 PM

The time will come when the sequence of events and responsibilities can be established in an indisputable and impartial manner: several weeks of provocations and skirmishes along the lines separating South Ossetia from the rest of Georgia; the thoughtless Georgian military intervention in South Ossetia the night of Aug. 7-8; the brutal and disproportionate response of Russian troops, driving the small Georgian army from South Ossetia and dislodging it from Abkhazia -- the other separatist province, where it had regained a foothold in 2006 -- before occupying part of the rest of Georgian territory.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/17/AR2008081702078.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:34 PM

Thoughtless of Georgia to kill more than a thousand South Ossetian civilians, and brutal of Russia to kill less than two hundred Georgian civilians?

I guess this assertion doesn't surprise me considering the source.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:47 PM

CarolC,

Did you read the article. and even see who the source WAS?

And tour numbers are slightly biased- YOU need to look at more than one side to get a real idea of the numbers killed. Or even look for a NEUTRAL party... Like France???

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:48 PM

I don't blame bush - I see him as taking a golden opportuity to capitalise on circumstances.

Sakashvilli is a little trouble maker trying to play the powers off against each other and using his own people as well as the south ossetians as cannon fodder to further his own spiteful self aggrandizing agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:49 PM

Just had a naughty little risque giggle at the idea of Genocide in Chicken Valley ...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:51 PM

Sorry, I very seldom trust any information coming from the Washington Post.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:52 PM

the thoughtless Georgian military intervention in South Ossetia the night of Aug. 7-8; the brutal and disproportionate response of Russian troops

I've no brief for the Russians- in fact, I believe that Putin is a fascist dicator in preparation, and in 5 years time, we'll see what a fascist nuclear power looks like- but nobody has offered any explanation why Saakashvili behaved as he did. Why take your trousers off and stick your dick in a wasp's nest? And, though one's concern must be for the civilians of either side, and for the poor benighted soldiers too, just for a moment imagine the USA's response if Cuba invaded Florida, and the Russians put military equipment in Mexico. What sort of "proportionate response" would be appropriate?

Remember that the USA is sponsoring some vile dictatorships in former Soviet states on Russia's southern border, and can't claim any democratic moral high ground.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:53 PM

From bb's 12:28 link:



By Fred Hiatt

Monday, August 18, 2008; Page A11

As Russian forces loot and occupy a neighboring state, conscripting Georgian civilians at gunpoint to sweep their city streets, it's not uncommon, in Moscow or in Washington, to find America at fault.

Russia has gone over to the dark side -- or, in the Moscow version, has finally stood up for itself -- in understandable reaction to U.S. disrespect, according to this view. And the next president should learn a lesson from this: that there are limits to how far Russia can or should be pushed.

This narrative of American provocation cites a long list of grievances, but the principal and original sin is NATO expansion. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States encouraged the newly free nations of Central and Eastern Europe to join a military alliance whose founding purpose had been containment of the U.S.S.R. Russia hated the idea from the start, and the United States should have known that Moscow, once it recovered its strength, would exact retribution.

But was this really something that was done to, or even against, Russia? The vision behind NATO expansion under both President Bill Clinton and President Bush was a Europe whole and free. The carrot of NATO membership was dangled, first of all, to ease the dangers of transition. Applicant countries had to promise civilian control of their militaries, fair treatment of ethnic minorities and respect for international borders. Given the terrible things that might have accompanied the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact and Czechoslovakia -- Yugoslavia on a far greater scale -- the policy was amazingly successful.

Of course, applicant nations had an additional motive: They wanted an insurance policy against the possibility that Russia might eventually revert to its old form and seek hegemony over them. America sympathized but also hoped that Russia would cooperate with and someday even join NATO -- that it would recognize the potential benefits of living as part of a neighborhood of prosperous, freely trading, democratic nations. It did not seem crazy to hope that Russians themselves would notice how much better off Germans are today, for example, living in respectful peace with smaller neighbors such as Denmark and Belgium than they were when Germany sought domination.

But Vladimir Putin, who came to power in 2000, had a different vision of Russia's place in the world. Russia "has tended to feel absolutely secure only when everybody else, particularly those around its borders, feels absolutely insecure," Russia hand Strobe Talbott noted last week, and Putin fell squarely in that tradition. At home, he quashed political opposition and independent media. He brought Russia's mineral riches back under state control and then began using them -- oil and natural gas in particular -- to enforce obeisance abroad.

And he viewed NATO expansion as an affront, as something done to Russia, not because he imagined that Estonia or Georgia or even NATO itself ever would attack Russia, but because it complicated Russia's drive for hegemony. Seeing the world as a contest among spheres of influence, he could not imagine that the leaders behind NATO might see things differently.

So NATO expansion is an affront only to the kind of Russia that the West would find unacceptable in any case. But, even if America has not sought to encircle or strangle Russia, should it not have been more sensitive to Russia's wounded pride? Might Russia have evolved more democratically if Washington had been more deferential?

Maybe so, but there's not much evidence to support such a theory. The West spent a good part of the past 17 years worrying about Russia's dignity -- expanding the Group of Seven industrial nations to the G-8, for example -- and it's not clear such therapy had any effect. Putin had his own reasons for stifling democracy, and, to quote Talbott again, the "more authoritarian or totalitarian" Russia has been, "the more aggressively it asserts its interests overseas." The unhealthy cycle is on display now: Hearing only about Georgian "genocide" and aggression on state-controlled television, Russians cannot understand Western criticism of Russia's actions as anything but further evidence of unfairness, which could be used to justify more aggressive behavior.

What does all this mean for the next president? By all means he should cooperate with Russia when possible, and he should remain open to the idea that Russia might one day join NATO and other international arrangements on terms of mutual respect.

But if the hope is that greater understanding of and deference to Russia's imperial ambitions would tame those ambitions, the historical analogies are not encouraging.

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:54 PM

...or Nicolas Sarkozy, for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:03 PM

"but nobody has offered any explanation why Saakashvili behaved as he did. "

Actually, there have been several explainations.

Georgia was reacting to the South Ossetian shelling of the Gerogian posts, after the ceasefire of Aug 7.


Can I start shelling your house, and expect you to do nothing about it?

BTW, the RUSSIANs has been bulding up their forces for the previsous several weeks, and had already spent two weeks in cyberattacks against Georgia, shutting down the Georgian government internet capability.

BEFORE the Georgian attack of 8 August.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:05 PM

So, who besides Putin would you trust?


Names please.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:08 PM

We can click the links as well as you can pdq.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:12 PM

another 'explanation' of how the current dispute originated

'Here in Tskhinvali, residents have no doubt that Georgia started the war with Russia and there is much bitterness about the rain of artillery and rockets that the government of President Mikhail Saakashvili used in its efforts to capture the city.

The Georgian government said much of the destruction of Tskhinvali was caused by a Russian counteroffensive, but that argument carries no weight with residents.

People insist that a terrible barrage struck the city late Aug. 7 and continued into the morning - accounts supported by Western monitors who were also forced into their cellars. Even buildings used by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe were damaged, one severely.'

from the Boston Globe

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:21 PM

I don't particularly trust putin, but it is becoming increasingly clear to me that Sakashvilli's motivation is and has always been the subjugation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to unwelcome Georgian control.

I have a family member who worked in Abkhazia with the red cross in about 2001 and I remember him describing Georgian policy towards Abkhazia in pretty scathing terms.

The days of Shevrednadze are sadly long gone and have been replaced by yet another ambitious reckless nationalist in the form of Sakashvilli.

His foray into Chicken Valley was something he has been looking for an excuse to do for years.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:21 PM

I would tend to trust the South Ossetians in this particular case.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:25 PM

I don't particularly trust sakashvilli, but it is becoming increasingly clear to me that putin's motivation is and has always been the subjugation of Georgia to unwelcome Russian control.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:26 PM

CarolC,

Why?


How are they any different than Georgia, or Russia? Don't they have a vested point of view, and wouldn't they lie to put it forward?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:30 PM

The difference between South Ossetia and the group consisting USA Russia and Europe is that they have no illusions of international dominance or power.

The best they can hope for is a big friend to look after them and trade with them. If they can have independance that is a bonus.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:32 PM

I forgot to include Georgia in that group.

Sakashvilli wants to be *taken seriously*.



Yeah right!