BS: War in Georgia (2008)

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: akenaton
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 04:35 AM

I'm begining to feel quite optimistic about this forum.
I sense a new confidence from the old much maligned rebels.


"Mighty oaks from little acorns grow." Maybe its just coincidence but whenever Peter turns up we become "inspired"....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 07:02 PM

"we will gradually lose our alies because they will not trust us."

Huh????? Fer Chrissake, they don't trust you now! ;-D (Except maybe for Israel.) The USA is one of the least trusted nations in the world, and I mean just about everywhere. Your allies are not allies out of a sense of trust, pdq, they are allies due to various almost inextricable financial and business ties that have been around ever since the end of WWII, if not longer. It's sheer pragmatism and the weight of the status quo, not trust.

Nor, of course, do they trust Russia. Nobody has much reason to trust either the USA or Russia.

Nobody trusted the Romans either...for the same reason. They were not trustworthy.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 07:00 PM

I think our foreign policy is perfectly consistent. Any country that the US sees as being a threat to our hegemony is our enemy. Anyone who is a friend of our enemy is our enemy. Serbia was a friend of Russia, and therefore our enemy. Anyone who is an enemy of our enemy is our friend. Georgia is an enemy of Russia, so they are our friend. It's as consistent and as predictable as it could possibly be.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 06:51 PM

>>>BTW, if the US continues to have such an inconsistent foreign policy, we will gradually lose our alies because they will not trust us. Many need military and economic support and often get a lecture in "human rights" instead. It is quite difficult to insure everybody's "human rights" when your country isbeing invaded or your children are being killed in bomb attacks on their way to grade school.

Amen to that.

With reference to the current situation in Georgia; Bush has been Promising them NATO membership; McCain is threatening to drop Russia from the G8. The President of the US, especially a presumptuous nominee such as McCain, has the authority to do neither. So these promises and threats are causing a lot of consternation among America's best allies.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 06:38 PM

Peter K (Fionn),

Thank you for returning and reading my clarification.

BTW, if the US continues to have such an inconsistent foreign policy, we will gradually lose our alies because they will not trust us. Many need military and economic support and often get a lecture in "human rights" instead. It is quite difficult to insure everybody's "human rights" when your country isbeing invaded or your children are being killed in bomb attacks on their way to grade school.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 06:24 PM

Er, pdq

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 06:18 PM

Oh, sorry odq. I just assumed. My apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 02:25 AM

Sorry. Was having a case of Deja Vu,


all over again!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 02:23 AM

"Massive amounts of infrastructure will need to be rebuilt. Prices have already gone up significantly over the past two years, and inflation will likely increase as a result of the war."


Tell me, doesn't this sound like a job for










no, not Superman







no, not Batman and Robin







no not Spiderman









no, not Superwoman








but







bot









a Halliburton subsidiary?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 01:53 AM

Saakashvili is purported to have won the election with 98% of the popular vote. I believe that. Right. Much like I believe that Hussein won with 100%. And Castro. And Stalin.

Democracy my ass. He's another fu#kin' dictator. But in this case, he's a dictator who is in Bush and Cheney's pocket.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 01:44 AM

Here's another excerpt from the article I posted earlier that I think bears reading...

"The question we must ask is: Are we willing to risk war, including nuclear holocaust, in order to fulfill the aspirations of Mikhail Saakashvili? While Bush and McCain speak of Saakashvili as if he's a combination of Thomas Jefferson and Nelson Mandela, he's seen by his own people as increasingly authoritarian and unbalanced. Last year, Saakashvili sent in his special forces to violently disperse opposition protesters in the capital city, followed by a declaration of martial law. He sacked the opposition television station (partly owned by Rupert Murdoch), exiled or jailed his political opponents, and stacked the courts with his own judges while removing neutral observers, leaving even onetime neocon cheerleaders like Bruce Jackson and Anne Applebaum feeling queasy. Hardly the image of the "small democratic nation" that everyone today touts."


Hell, the US government and media tried to tear Hugo Chavez a new one just for not renewing the license of one of the TV stations in his country, and here we are propping up a guy who sacked the opposition TV station and exiled or jailed his political opponents.

In what way is this guy different from Putin? (Oh, yeah... he's willing to be our puppet.)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 01:38 AM

In so far as it is echoed in "Every Grain of Sand", yes.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 01:29 AM

Yeah.

But do you understand what the song "Angelina" is about? Not "Farewell Angelina". Just "Angelina".

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 01:15 AM

I now understand what Bob meant when he said

"Oh God said to abraham kill me a son
Abe said man you must be puttin me on
God said no, abe said what
God say you can do what you wanna but
The next time you see me comin you better run
Well abe said where dyou want this killin done
God said out on highway 61
Well georgia sam he had a bloody nose
Welfare department wouldnt give him no clothes
They asked poor howard where can I go
Howard said theres only one place I know
Sam said tell me quick man I got to run
Oh howard just pointed with his gun
And said that way down highway 61
Well mack the finger said to louie the king
i got 40 red white and blue shoestrings
And a thousand telephone that dont ring.
Do you know where I can get rid of these things?
And louie the king said let me think for a minute son
Then he said yes I think it can be easily done
Just take everything down to highway 61
Now the 5th daughter on the 12th night
Told the first father that things werent right
my complexion, she says, is much too white
He said come here and step into the light
He said hmm youre right let me tell the 2nd mother this has been done
But the 2nd mother was with the 7th son
And they were both out on highway 61
Now the roving gambler he was very bored
Trying to create a next world war
He found a promoter who nearly fell off the floor
He said i never engaged in this kind of thing before
But yes, i think it can be very easily done
Well just put some bleachers out in the sun
And have it on highway 61"

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 01:09 AM

"Rig, that promise is the entire appeal of the republican party."


                Tina Turner would say: "What's the Republican Party got to do with it?"

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 01:08 AM

Okay, pdq, if you are gonna call me "Liberal Squawk", then I shall have to come up with a catchy nickname for you also. ;-) I'm thinkin'...

plainly demented qualifier...

partially dessicated quim...

pathetically deranged questioner...

perpendicularly delineated quartermaster...

Hmmm. Or how about something simple like...

"pigs don't quack"

I think Clinton was in the wrong. I think Bush is in the wrong. I think Georgia is in the wrong. And I think you're wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 11:53 PM

And you do it well, Carol. Based on your view.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 11:43 PM

I definitely have a bias. I always come down on the side of the people who are fighting for their freedom, and against those who seek to subjugate them.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 11:30 PM

Rig, that promise is the entire appeal of the republican party.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 11:04 PM

I suppose these things would be easy if somebody was 100% right, and the other party was 100% wrong, but...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 10:51 PM

Interesting to read this thread because what should be a simple matter of fact is resurrected as fact influenced by interpretation tinged with political 'view point' (read bias). And yes, I'm as guilty as the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 10:47 PM

...in fact!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 10:26 PM

mystery.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 10:23 PM

"Albania stealing Kosovo from the rightful owner, Serbia, is equivalent to Russia stealing South Ossetia from the rightful owner, Georgia. Unhappy inhabitants who were given Russian citizenship should move to Russia."


                      pdq - I remember trying to make this point in a previous thread and was shouted off the internet.

                      I think the Kosovo example was even more sinister in that a huge number of Albanians moved to Kosovo for the specific purpose of wresting it away from Serbia.
                      When Serbia tried to chase the Albanians out, Bill Clinton, desparately needing an international event to change the dialogue in the American press, jumped in on the side of Albania. The rest is...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:46 PM

LOL akenaton

Is this conversation is starting to border on the oxymoronic?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:42 PM

Its also rare to see a "sharp scientific mind" supporting the neocons, Jack!