[Kerrigan]

One never knows if a small conflict will trigger a larger global war, and there are certainly some similarities between our current situation and the early 1910s... but the idea that this is part of some US conspiracy is taking it a bit far.

[7TH SFG]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I don't think many aggressors that have triggered larger conflicts thought that's where it would end up. While Russia may not be figuring on a global conflict, there's always a possibility that something larger could erupt.

If Russia makes a move to seize that US-backed pipeline (one that enables the bypassing of Russia and/or Iran as middlemen, I think the chances of a larger conflict would go up.

I guess it all depends on where Russia stops. If they move to take over Georgia, we'll have some decisions to make. Then again, The US hasn't really made the "we'll protect" statements regarding Georgia like we have Israel. But Georgia is an ally who has contributed a few thousand troops to our Iraq theater, and knowing that we'll need allies in the future, it's never a good thing to let an ally hang to dry when they need us most.

As 25 year veteran of The U.S. Army I'm always reminded of the fact ... there are plenty of occasions in history which can be pointed to where a military operation by the time it ends had gone in directions the participants didnt want or plan. WW1 is a pretty good example of that, so for that matter was Iraq. When the US entered Iraq The clueless politicians with ZERO post-war plan, never imagined fighting a long brutal COIN campaign .


According to reports (Western and local), the Russian forces are now assaulting the city of Gori, which lies in Georgia proper. It's apparent that their intentions lie beyond simply securing Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and are intended to occupy at least a portion of Georgia or possibly the entirety of it. In conversations with Condie Rice, the Russian foreign minister implied that Russia will not stop until Saakashvili is removed from power. The Russians are also refusing to receive Georgian cease-fire proposals.

To me, this suggests in part a clear message to the US - "We're going to take out one of your allies, and you're going to sit there and smile." Russia has it's own natural resources, it's own manufacturing base, balanced budget, now produces most of it's own food and is an exporter of some food stuffs, petro chemicals AND they supply and control most of the natural gas to heat the homes, business', schools and industries of the E.U. The EU probably won't do squat...irregardless of their dependence on Russian natural gas...they just don't have the sack for confrontation anymore. It really is sad. There's just nothing The U.S.A CAN do outside of a direct confrontation with Russia...and that's an unacceptable alternative.


The more this goes on, the more it looks like Russia wants the whole shabang, and they're even willing to change the terms of their cease fire to get it. At this point they want Saakashvili to resign go on TV and basically agree publicly to Russian peace plan and to allow independence for S Ossetia and Abkhazia . If Russia moves to actually topple Georgia, then we have a case that Dictator Putin is pulling a Hitler-esque Sudetenland type move on our hands.


The merits of S. Ossetia can be debated all day with both sides coming up with equally good arguments, it is now just plain flagrant aggression.It is also becoming obvious that Georgia may well have been intentionally provoked into moving into S.O. thus creating a situation calling for its "Liberation".

[stevesnj]

also....the US doesn't have the resources to get involved in this...if we went to Afghanistan instead of Iraq...we would be done and have plenty of troops available elswhere...another Dubayah blunder!

[7TH SFG]

With 7th Group, I performed training and operations missions in Central and South America.Some of these missions were presented officially to the public as counter-narcotics in the War on Drugs.in fact, what we were doing was we were delivering very high quality counter-insurgency training to the host nation's forces. Peru and Colombia, they were taking quite a beating in the field. And they'd lost the confidence of their own indigenous populations, because of the way that they were headed. But, you know, each different type of deployment required a different pot of money, and so there were so bureaucratic reasons also for covering a lot of these operations. Special Forces, who I worked for then, didn't know a doggone thing about counter-narcotics. We weren't cops, and what we were trying to get people to do when I was down there -- my particular mission was to train them to do night air mobile operations. We were trying to integrate the staffs of their air force with the army, so they could coordinate night air operations more effectively

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You're pretty misinformed there on a number of fronts. The US has been deeply involved in political change throughout the Americas ever since we declared it our playground, and ours alone, with the Monroe Doctrine. You mention Mexico. The US has been heavily involved in controlling Mexico's politics with everything from wars to annex territory, occupying ports to influence internal politics and supporting military coups. The same is true throughout Latin America. Hell, do you know where the term "banana republic" comes from?

Oh, yeah, we did invade Mexico, it's just been a while. We took quite a bit of territory from them, like oh, 1/3 of the United States.

[vmarks]

O. Henry's book of linked short stories Cabbages and Kings (1904), in which the term "banana republic" first appeared, is set in the fictional republic of Anchuria—a thinly disguised Honduras.

[Snow-i]

so what happens if Russia does not stop and takes all of Georgia?

The EU and US sits with its thumbs in its Ass?
What if Russia continues this plot with other former satellites?

Could it be possible to see another cold war?
could it be possible to see another world war?
Could this also have anything to do with the US missile defense program...sort of a well if you're going to do that then we're going to take out your ally while you watch helplessly?

Is Russia simply excersizing its military and other influence within the region?
Russia's so called moral high ground is quite ironic...

I'm sure as we speak our military is at least coming up with contingency plans in case the aggression continues...

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

also....the US doesn't have the resources to get involved in this...if we went to Afghanistan instead of Iraq...we would be done and have plenty of troops available elswhere...another Dubayah blunder!

Yeah, we know that's your template, but it's just not true.

We've got 60,000 troops in Germany, 35,000 in Japan, 25,000 in Korea, 10,000 in the UK, and another 10,000 in Italy. We also have about a million active duty personnel still here in the states. We've also got plenty of planes and ships for the challenge. Missiles, too. Plenty. Europe has a good amount of resources as well, little of which is being utilized in Iraq.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

...to cite Iraq as an example of international cooperation is ludicrous. Almost all of the "coalition of the willing" were bribed into their minimal participation in the invasion and occupation. Yes, the Bush administration put up a show of seeking out "authorizations" but when international consensus was not forthcoming they said "screw it all" and invaded anyway.

You misunderstood my point, which was that Russia cares so little about international institutions that it didn't even try to put on a dog-and-pony show.

For Iraq, had 6-9 months of diplomatic efforts going on. Russia didn't spend 5 minutes. Did you hear any of Russia's complaints about Georgia in the form of UN debate whatsoever? How many resolutions were passed regarding Georgia. Was there a big presentation made before the UN regarding Georgia's "ethnic cleansing"?

You clearly have a recollection of the UN involvement regarding USA-Iraq. Please, tell me your recollections of UN involvement regarding Russia-Georgia.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

For Iraq, had 6-9 months of diplomatic efforts going on.

More like 11 years and 6-9 months.

You clearly have a recollection of the UN involvement regarding USA-Iraq. Please, tell me your recollections of UN involvement regarding Russia-Georgia.

This is where it's no fun anymore. You may or may not hear back.

[goMac]

The US won't do anything because it's not worth risking a World War over a ridiculously tiny piece of land. Period.

If Russia invades Turkey, then it's a different story.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

You misunderstood my point, which was that Russia cares so little about international institutions that it didn't even try to put on a dog-and-pony show.

For Iraq, had 6-9 months of diplomatic efforts going on. Russia didn't spend 5 minutes. Did you hear any of Russia's complaints about Georgia in the form of UN debate whatsoever? How many resolutions were passed regarding Georgia. Was there a big presentation made before the UN regarding Georgia's "ethnic cleansing"?

You clearly have a recollection of the UN involvement regarding USA-Iraq. Please, tell me your recollections of UN involvement regarding Russia-Georgia.

Just so we're clear that the U.S.'s diplomatic efforts in Iraq were indeed a "dog and pony" show.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by subego 

CW... If you're on the line and don't see this as too much of a topic drift, I was wondering if you could answer a question for me.

I always saw the invasion of Iraq as a huge opportunity for the US and Russia to work together that was sadly missed. If you'll forgive my crassness for brevity's sake, would the idea of bribing Russia to get on board have had merit at the time (i.e. would Russia have been interested)?

The root of the problem goes back to influence -- Russia opposes an increase in US influence in any region, including the Middle East. Cooperation from the beginning (on the Security Council) may have made it easier for the US to topple Saddam and enhanced US power in the region. The Russians know that once entrenched with forces on the ground, the US is not prone to leaving strategic positions (Germany, Japan, South Korea, Kuwait, etc.). With ground forces in the region, the US could have pressured a number of other countries and established another sphere of influence with the most strategic country -- Iraq -- as its base. The Russians bet against the US in the interest of itself -- a distracted and bruised US -- and are happy to see it bogged down in a fight. Even though the US does control Iraqi territory, it's not in a position to influence any neighboring nation through military might. Its forces are worn thin from tough conflicts in two theaters and there is zero political capital left to start another one. That could change in 5-10 years, but that was the geopolitical reality in 2003 and it's still true today.

[Kerrigan]

I like how Russia suddenly attacks a democratic country without any sort of conditions and it's OK, but when the US spends the better part of a year attempting to work with a dictator and then invades, the US is the most wicked nation on earth--and how the latter incident is twisted around to justify Russia's actions by the very people who claimed Iraq was a huge injustice.

You can spin the morality for both sides however you wish, but it goes to show you that the American chattering classes have neither the willpower nor the collective brainpower to defend the actions of its own state, and instead accept as gospel the argumentation of its foreign detractors.

[Cold Warrior]

Going back to grand strategy and reclaiming influence in the Near Abroad -- the reason Russian won't let go of Georgian territory.

Russia won't stop at Georgia. If it has to rely on military action, it'll pick another time and place, in another country, to emphasize the point that its tanks and soldiers could be back on a FSU/WP street with little effort and no real help from the West. To insulate itself from meaningful NATO (which operates by consensus) and EU response, it needs to tighten its grip on energy. Most remaining military action in Georgia will be designed to ensure that Russia -- or its proxies in Abkhazia -- control the flow of energy westward from the Caspian to the Black Sea. Other Caucasus nations such as Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, which are West-friendly and support alternate pipelines (proposed by the West to bypass Russia), will have to come to terms with Russian control of their oil and gas outlets. If they don't like it, the Russians are in a position to sink their ships and, from Georgia, bomb their infrastructure.

Russian control over European energy imports will be solidified -- not for military action against the EU, but to ensure EU and NATO inaction as Russia reasserts control over the FSU.

For infrastructure (present and proposed) reference, examine these two links:
[decent] http://www.inogate.org/en/images/maps/gas_map_big.gif
[very good] http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/majo...eline-projects

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

You can spin the morality for both sides however you wish, but it goes to show you that the American chattering classes have neither the willpower nor the collective brainpower to defend the actions of its own state, and instead accept as gospel the argumentation of its foreign detractors.

No one is letting Russia off the hook here. What Russia did is inexcusable.

However, Georgia is not a big enough fish to risk a large scale war over. Russia is not a little nation in the middle east. It's a large nuclear armed state. This isn't a time to play cowboy.

Unless you're volunteering to be the one to deal with war with a nuclear armed state in attack range.

In the same way, Russia didn't go to war with us when we invaded Iraq, because while they were very much against the Iraq war, getting their nose in our matters wasn't worth risking a large scale war for.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

You misunderstood my point, which was that Russia cares so little about international institutions that it didn't even try to put on a dog-and-pony show.

For Iraq, had 6-9 months of diplomatic efforts going on. Russia didn't spend 5 minutes. Did you hear any of Russia's complaints about Georgia in the form of UN debate whatsoever? How many resolutions were passed regarding Georgia. Was there a big presentation made before the UN regarding Georgia's "ethnic cleansing"?

You clearly have a recollection of the UN involvement regarding USA-Iraq. Please, tell me your recollections of UN involvement regarding Russia-Georgia.

Double-post, I guess...

[7TH SFG]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

so what happens if Russia does not stop and takes all of Georgia?

The EU and US sits with its thumbs in its Ass?
..

With their thumbs up their asses and tough talk, backed with ZERO words of specific threats of consequences for Russian actions coming out their mouths.

For the EU, it gets cold in winter, and the Russians turning off the gas will make the EU a lot colder. We're stuck, and it's facing up to the implications that's tough. Military strength is a trade off. Do we spend double the current budget to maintain a million man Army
If high taxes and a draft are necessary , how many are willing to pay?

The Army has serious problems we have an undersized stretched thin fighting on two fronts stop loss Army. In Iraq The Army has used Combat Support and Combat Service Support personnel in direct combat roles. Cooks, REMF admin types, etc. pulling convoy duty. Not to mention the combat arms, most of which were doing Infantry duty. This is a mistake and shows how much stress the Army is facing. We have outsourced many of the non-combat jobs to make up for our lack of troop strength in the field. I'm not trying to denigrate those in the support fields, but I believe the combat troops should be the ones in the heaviest combat, because that is what they were trained to do.


The untold story is the looming need to replace fleets of vehicles, helicopters, weapons, etc as we wear them out or suffer battle damage that a depo cannot repair. Somewhere, the decision makers never saw the movies "Pearl Harbor" and "Tora, Tora, Tora". History forgotten will be history repeated

Withdrawal from Iraq will not alleviate our future military problems. There is as we know not only resurgent Russia, but China, and GWOT did not begin and will not end with Iraq.

Much of the warfare we face in the future will not be “kill 'em and let God sort 'em out" conflicts, in the future terms like “COIN “. Operations Other than War" "Low-Intensity Conflict" and "Stability Operations." These are the terms that define many of the future wars we will face ...and it takes decades of time, trillions of treasure, and most important ... hero's blood. Future wars in the GWOT will be won by embracing nation-building and peace-making, as key military objectives. And these exercises involve heavy lifting - even more so when the population is not friendly.

Full size, self contained combat brigades are the ONLY viable means to ensure force effectiveness. We will have a significant military presence in BOTH Iraq and A\Stan for at least a decade or more. No matter who wins the 2008 presidential election, pulling ALL our troops out IS NOT an option for regional stability & security, we’re there FOR A LONG TIME.

It’s past time for strategic planning on a massive scale

[Kerrigan]

goMac: I never said or suggested that the US go to war with Russia. What I said is that the American media and chattering classes have uncritically accepted the Kremlin's versions of events, as though Russia can do no wrong, and America continues to be cast as a villain in world affairs.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

goMac: I never said or suggested that the US go to war with Russia. What I said is that the American media and chattering classes have uncritically accepted the Kremlin's versions of events, as though Russia can do no wrong, and America continues to be cast as a villain in world affairs.

Do you watch American media at all?

If anything, they have been far overly sympathetic to Georgia IMO. I haven't heard the American media say one nice thing about Russia.

What reports are you talking about exactly?

[stevesnj]

Sorry Repubs. no World War III maybe next time

[Chongo]

WW III no, the war of Ezekiel 38-39, maybe?
The "hook in Magog's jaw?"
Israel has been selling arms to Georgia(Georgians claim to be descendants of Japheth, father of Magog.)

Israel Wants to Avoid Taking Sides in Georgia-Russia Conflict

Monday, August 11, 2008
By Julie Stahl

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) – Israel recently scaled back its weapons sales to Georgia out of concern that Russia would retaliate by selling more advanced weapons to Syria and Iran, reports said on Monday.

Although the U.S. and France are said to be Georgia’s largest arms suppliers, the Israeli Ministry of Defense reportedly has sold some $300-$500 million in weapons and military training to Georgia over the past ten years.

According to the Jerusalem Post, Israel rejected frequent requests from Georgia to buy weapons in the months leading up to the conflict that erupted last week. The newspaper also said Georgia wanted to buy missiles from Israel but it didn’t happen.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

Sorry Repubs. no World War III maybe next time

You think this is over?

We're watching Georgia, the victim, attempt to cease-fire, while the Russians continue to bear down on it in their attacks. Russia is 15 miles from taking the capital of Georgia as I write this.

That's right, Russia is attacking a democratic freedom-based society that broke away from it not so many years ago. What will happen? Russia will install a Kremlin-friendly ruler?

The UN is toothless, because Russia has veto in the UNSC. And the world is standing idle, watching it happen.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

also....the US doesn't have the resources to get involved in this...if we went to Afghanistan instead of Iraq...we would be done and have plenty of troops available elswhere...a

Yes, that's the talking point.

Nevermind the talking points. The US is sending Navy vessels and US aircraft to Georgia under the heading 'humanitarian aid and medical supplies.'

[7TH SFG]

The bottom line is that everyone's known Russia was resurgent, it's just now going public with it's prowess.It is fast approaching we loseing our freedom, as a country, to make money and be a player in the world market the way we used to be, a debtor to other nations with no viable infrastructure available to recoup that debt.In the last five years, we have taken it on the chin, and Russia is resurgent. Civil liberties have been lost and freedoms have been curtailed in both the USA and Russia. The difference is that what's happened (over the last five years) in Russia has made them stronger, and in the USA has made us weaker. Interesting that at the outset of this paradigm shift, Medvedev and Putin rallied their nation and turned that ship around. And our leaders presided over this sea change while not only playing all of our cards wrong, but mortgaging our future to get those cards


Anyone with true patriotic feelings (not dogma) on either side should take note.


It's about leadership- This is the most disastrous presidency of my lifetime. and I served under both Johnson and Carter.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The UN is toothless, because Russia has veto in the UNSC. And the world is standing idle, watching it happen.

The Olympics is more interesting... they give out medals and play anthems.

[Helmling]

But this seems not to be winding down as we'd hoped. The rhetoric between the US and Russia is heating up. Dammit. Only a few more months in office and this dingbat's cowboy diplomacy is going to ruin our relationship with Russia. This is exactly the kind of moment where we need an even-tempered diplomatic voice like Obama's.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Nevermind the talking points. The US is sending Navy vessels and US aircraft to Georgia under the heading 'humanitarian aid and medical supplies.'

Do you know what C17s are?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You think this is over?

We're watching Georgia, the victim, attempt to cease-fire, while the Russians continue to bear down on it in their attacks. Russia is 15 miles from taking the capital of Georgia as I write this.

That's right, Russia is attacking a democratic freedom-based society that broke away from it not so many years ago. What will happen? Russia will install a Kremlin-friendly ruler?

The UN is toothless, because Russia has veto in the UNSC. And the world is standing idle, watching it happen.

I think it's overly simplistic (and that's being charitable) to call Georgia the "victim" in all this. They launched the assault on South Ossettia that started all this because it was a region that, seeking self-determination, had aligned itself with Russia and they did this the very week they signed a deal acknowledging their autonomy.

Russia and Georgia have both crossed the lines and we should be trying to maintain neutrality so we can mediate and save lives--instead we're picking sides.

[Chuckit]

When has maintaining neutrality ever won a war?

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You think this is over?

We're watching Georgia, the victim, attempt to cease-fire, while the Russians continue to bear down on it in their attacks. Russia is 15 miles from taking the capital of Georgia as I write this.

That's right, Russia is attacking a democratic freedom-based society that broke away from it not so many years ago. What will happen? Russia will install a Kremlin-friendly ruler?

The UN is toothless, because Russia has veto in the UNSC. And the world is standing idle, watching it happen.

Georgia is not the victim. Georgia attacked South Ossetia, levelling entire villages and most of the Ossetian capital Tskhinvali, leaving ‘piles of corpses’ in the streets, over 1,000 by some counts. Among the dead were at least ten Russian peacekeepers, who fell after their base was attacked by Georgian forces. Reports also say that Georgian forces destroyed a hotel where Russian journalists were staying.

Democracy, my arse. Saakashvili is an American puppet and a dictator, who has a history of arresting opposition leaders, cracking down violently on peaceful demonstrators, and is oppressing an ethnically distinct minority.

If the Americans gave a damn about democracy, they would be supporting the South Ossetians’ struggle for independence, not their Georgian oppressors.

[Chuckit]

What was the reason for Georgia's attacks on the Ossetians?

[red rocket]

You tell me.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What was the reason for Georgia's attacks on the Ossetians?

Everyone knows that's what American puppets do. They attack South Osettia.

[Chongo]

Mother Russia can do no wrong
(BTW, Ukraine is the next target)

[zombie punk]

I guess it's just hard for the US to speak out against countries invading other smaller countries for dubious reasons these days.

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You think this is over?

We're watching Georgia, the victim, attempt to cease-fire, while the Russians continue to bear down on it in their attacks. Russia is 15 miles from taking the capital of Georgia as I write this.

That's right, Russia is attacking a democratic freedom-based society that broke away from it not so many years ago. What will happen? Russia will install a Kremlin-friendly ruler?

The UN is toothless, because Russia has veto in the UNSC. And the world is standing idle, watching it happen.

Sorry but we cant save every Democratic nation in need...Georgia is not worth a larger conflict and the US won't go any further than spew objections and send humanitarian aide.

This is not a World War worthy incident....Russia can have Georgia.

[vmarks]

If the principle is that we support and defend freedom-based societies,

Is that a worthy principle?

At what cost do we abandon our principles?

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

If the principle is that we support and defend freedom-based societies,

Is that a worthy principle?

At what cost do we abandon our principles?

We (US) have no interest in Georgia other than their entry into NATO. It's great they want democracy but they have no major exports other than an oil pipeline going thru their country. Have Britan help out Georgia. The US has their hands full.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

We (US) have no interest in Georgia

That's bloody awful. While I'm not enthused with the possibility of another conflict, I'd sure as hell be more supportive of defending a country from being eaten up into Russia than I ever was of the Iraq war.

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

That's bloody awful. While I'm not enthused with the possibility of another conflict, I'd sure as hell be more supportive of defending a country from being eaten up into Russia than I ever was of the Iraq war.

I'm supportive of US troops not dying for a country that would cause a larger conflict if the US got involved. We lost enough troops in Iraq. Georgia is not worth more US troops lives.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

I'm supportive of US troops not dying for a country that would cause a larger conflict if the US got involved. We lost enough troops in Iraq. Georgia is not worth more US troops lives.

It's not Georgia I'm so concerned with, as much as thwarting Russia.

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

It's not Georgia I'm so concerned with, as much as thwarting Russia.

Yeh I understand your point...but any military conflict with Russia and US is not good...thus I feel Georgia maybe a pawn that the US has to let go in order to stay out of any Russian conflict. If it was Turkey...thats a different story.

[zombie punk]

Allowing Russia to do what it wants in it's back yard to US allies is the price for recent foreign policy stupidity. This is Russia's prize for the US loosing the last four years.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

This is Russia's prize for the US loosing the last four years.

Your right. We should tighten up.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Your right. We should tighten up.

Indeed - stop clowning around invading irrelevant places for the wrong reasons and focus on trying to do the right thing.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by stevesnj

I feel Georgia maybe a pawn that the US has to let go in order to stay out of any Russian conflict.

The only reason there’s a conflict here in the first place is that the Americans are buying up former East Bloc countries in order to position their weapons on Russia’s doorstep.

Wake up Americans, the Cold War is over. If your neofascist masters are mental enough to start it up again, don’t be surprised if Europe, and the rest of the world that hasn’t been brainwashed by your psychotic propaganda, sides with the other guys. I know I will.

America doesn’t own the world, she ought to mind her own business instead of making other people suffer for her megalomaniac delusions.

[Snow-i]

Right.

This conflict is about the US.

Nevermind the Ruskies invading a sovereign nation. Its the US's fault. South Ossetia is part of georgia. But because rebels want to go join the russians they get a free pass on artillery fire further into Georgia?

Do you hear yourself?
Do you understand how you're arguing a strawman here?
Do you see that Europe doesn't want this at all?
Or are you just too anti-US to see the right thing?

If these countries really are better off with Russia, don't you think they would stay aligned with them?

It has become far too trendy to hate the US these days. Its as fashionable as gucci and just as purposeful.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Right.

This conflict is about the US.

It's not about the US, the issue is that the US is powerless to do anything about Russia's territorial ambition because it squandered it's moral and physical muscle on it's own petty bullying. The reward for that stupidity is to have to sit and do nothing while Russia does the same thing.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

It's not about the US, the issue is that the US is powerless to do anything about Russia's territorial ambition because it squandered it's moral and physical muscle on it's own petty bullying. The reward for that stupidity is to have to sit and do nothing while Russia does the same thing.

Pretty much dead on. When President Bush said that "the cold war was over and that Russia had damaged its credibility and standing in the international order" he is being quite the hypocrite. The US has no grounds to judge any other nation on its "standing in the international order" after our hyper-aggressive efforts to invade Iraq when the "international order" was so consistently opposed to that action. President Bush can't thumb his nose at the idea of there being inherent value for a nation by being respected in the international order (vis a vis his actions in the run-up to the Iraq war) and then turn around and claim other countries shouldn't thumb their nose at that idea as well.

For all of President Bush's talk about how "bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century" pretty much every other country* on the planet can turn around and throw that accusation back at the US in regards to our actions in Iraq. All the collective international goodwill earned by the US after the 9/11 attacks was squandered when our focus turned from going after those responsible for the attack (the country of Afghanistan and the Taliban-backed government that provided support to al Qaeda) to invading Iraq (a country that had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks). The "international order" spoken of so highly by President Bush now was not even a consideration to him when it came to Iraq. So, it is pretty much laughable that he feels inclined to invoke that sentiment now.


*except for a few minor despots here and there like Robert Mugabe, the late leader of Turkmenistan et al.