Posted on 09/06/2008 9:40:07 AM PDT by Schnucki
In combative mood the US Vice-President stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the besieged Georgian President
Dick Cheney delivered a bellicose warning to Russia yesterday during a brief visit to war-torn Georgia, promising that America's small Caucasus ally would one day join the Nato alliance .
In combative mood, the US Vice-President stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Mikhail Saakashvili, the Georgian President, and bluntly reinforced Russia's worst fears — that Washington would not stop pushing for Georgian membership in Nato. He also attacked Moscow for trying to redraw the country's borders by force. “Georgia will be in our alliance,” he said, in defiance of the Kremlin, which has blamed the military alliance's expansion into Russia's traditional sphere of influence as one of the triggers for last month's five-day war in Georgia.
“Russia's actions have cast grave doubts on Russia's intentions and on its reliability as an international partner,” Mr Cheney said, a day after the US pledged $1billion (£564million) to help Georgia to repair the damage inflicted by its huge neighbour.
Mr Cheney's warm words for Georgia's Nato aspirations are likely to cause consternation in several European capitals, particularly Berlin and Paris. Chancellor Merkel of Germany and Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, have argued strongly against letting the former Soviet republic into Nato too hastily. America's hawkish stance threatens to sour December's crucial Nato summit, where the membership attempts by Ukraine and Georgia will top the agenda.
Mr Cheney also denounced last month's Russian invasion of Georgia as “an illegitimate, unilateral attempt to change your country's borders by force, that has been universally condemned by the free world”.
As the Vice-President spoke, the USS Mount Whitney, the flagship of the Navy's 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean, was steaming through the Dardanelles, heading for the Georgian port of Batumi with a cargo of humanitarian aid.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Too bad it won’t be Cheney/Palin. Damn.
I wonder how the “withdrawal to pre-conflict borders” is going?
Bellicose: having or showing a ready disposition to fight
Can someone translate this word usage into English for me please? Just what is "bellicose" about Dick Cheney's remarks? Have we come to a place with our NATO allies that to merely invite a nation into our alliance betrays a "disposition to fight" presumably against the Russians?
Are our Western European NATO allies so pusillanimous that they must corrupt the language as well as betray every honorable impulse?
Go get ‘em Cheney! Was he wearing his Darth Vader outfit ?
That Euroweenie Sarkozy is still asking the Russians,
“Uh, have you left yet? Are you withdrawing yet? Are you leaving? Oh, puhleeze, pretty please? Simon Sez take 2 steps back.”
Mt. Whitney actually put in at Poti, the "contested" port a city still partly occupied by hundreds of Russian troops, who also maintain checkpoints outside the city. Poti is way outside the breakaway provinces and the 10 Km buffer zone.
She unloaded from offshore, rather than at dockside.
Mt. Whitney unloading at Poti.
Yes. The guy's name who wrote this is James Hider. Here's (james.hider@thetimes.co.uk) his email address.
I can help you here. The word was precisely chosen. For some reason you appear to regard it as a smear on Dick Cheney. It is not.
Cheney called the Russian invasion “an illegitimate, unilateral attempt to change your country’s borders by force, that has been universally condemned by the free world”. That’s bellicose. That’s “don’t push me around” language.
Do you believe that being bellicose is a bad thing when dealing with the Russians? It is absolutely the only thing they respond to. Remember: “the Russians always advance until they meet steel.”
I loved Cheney and his declaration about NATO.
Rubbish. There is nothing bellicose about the language at all if language has any meaning. The words do not betray "a ready disposition to fight". In fact it does not even mention fighting. To the contrary, it employs euphemisms-"unilateral attempt to change your country's borders by force" - rather than more loaded expressions such as, "aggression."
I repeat, there is nothing bellicose about Cheney's remarks.
Nor do I think that the article is a "smear" against Cheney, nor would I care even if I thought it were, despite the fact that Dick Cheney remains a hero of mine. I regard it as an attempt to preempt the vocabulary, the language, of the diplomacy in the Crimea area to prevent United States getting Georgia into NATO. I do care if my country's diplomacy is frustrated by left-wing journalists who seek to set the predicate for appeasement of an aggressor by blaming America.
One last observation: Dick Cheney is too careful a veteran to be injudicious in his language when it comes to an extremely delicate diplomatic matter which might cost us our allies on the one hand or even precipitate war on the other hand. Cheney knew exactly what he was saying, he knew he was using euphemisms, if it had occurred to him he would be confident that he was not being "bellicose." There is no question that Cheney was selected to utter this statement rather than the president because, diplomatically, it was deemed undesirable to have it connected to the chief of state. It was probably thought necessary to have Cheney say it rather than the Secretary of State in order to give the words gravity when analyzed by the Russians.
I have no doubt that Cheney was sent out to utter these words and they were calculated to send a message to the Russians that was not belligerent because a manifestly belligerent formulation would give the left wing in Europe the excuse they seek to break off the NATO alliance.
http: //www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2076456/posts:
Wow, it sounds like you hate Europe more than your real enemies. You don’t want any of the nations of Western Europe in your ‘NATO’?
No Germans?
No French?
No Nordics and Scandanavians?
No British?
So you want a NATO full of little former Soviet Republics, who can’t do anything for themselves and are reliant on US military to protect them? Well, you certainly wouldn’t have as much disagreement within the club. Might not be as effective though. Do you really want Georgia in NATO? If the Russians attack again, then the US would be legally obliged to come to its aid, sparking a full blown war. Is Georgia WORTH getting into a war over? No, not by a long shot. The Georgian President played the ‘please help USA’ card and was rewarded, to the tune of $1bn. Wouldn’t you rather that was spent on stuff the US needs? No Georgia should have stayed its hand, and not gone into the breakaway territories when they knew full well what Russia would do, after all this whole war was planned years in advance. And there is very little ‘North Atlantic’ about the geographical location of Georgia, so why do they get to join NATO?
About the ‘bellicose’ thing; agerecontra was just saying what the common modern interpretation of the word is. Anyone in the UK who hears ‘bellicose’ thinks of a strong and robust position, confident in bearing. Don’t get on your high horse about a word.
BTW, its really, really hard to call The Times journalists a bunch of lefty liberals. Right of centre, it is very far removed from Labour. Don’t jump to conclusions so readily.
I thought you Yanks loved Sarkozy? Or is that only when the headline tells you too?
In you infinite wisdom, what would you have done if you were in Sarkozys shoes?
Russia Warns West Against Georgia Support
Monday, September 01, 2008 12:17:24 PM · 8 of 20 nathanbedford to ought-six
America should act only in its best interests in Georgia.
There are two interests which we have: First, we have an interest in discouraging unprovoked invasion of sovereign nations; Second, we have a strong national interest in the unimpeded flow of natural gas and oil through the Georgian pipeline to Europe. One of the very good reasons to go to war is for oil.
We do not have much of a national interest in protecting the territorial integrity of Georgia, that is, restoring its break away areas to Georgian sovereignty.
We can expect virtually no help from Europe, especially from Germany which is greatly dependent on other pipelines controlled by Russian which supply it with petroleum and gas. Whatever America does vis-à-vis Russian with respect to Georgia it must be willing and indeed expect to do so alone. In fact, if America pushes the European Union or NATO too hard on this issue it risks a public breach and the beginning of the unraveling of NATO.
We must have a care lest we give scope to other nations, such as Georgia, which could by their unilateral actions commit the United States to war or to a cold war. We had a taste of that in Iraq and in Vietnam.
Our policymakers must calculate whether Russia is bent on expansion and especially whether it is moving toward a very dangerous relationship with Iran. Our policymakers must conclude whether the Russians can be mollified to the degree that they will desist from arming Iraq with high-tech anti- aircraft weapons and even nuclear weapons. My gut tells me such policy will fail. If our policymakers conclude that we can succeed in mollifying Russia by giving in on Georgia, should we do so? We ought to make a clearheaded decision whether support of Georgia is worth the risk of a nuclearized Iran. If our policymakers conclude that there is nothing we can do to forestall a military alliance with Iran, should we strike Iran before the technical difficulties become insurmountable?
We should carefully consider how much risk we are willing to take on behalf of Russia's newly freed near abroad neighbors.
What I am advocating here is cold and unemotional calculation of America's best strategic national interests and not an emotional reaction which would make us feel good in our indignation over Russia's return to her old cold war methods.
Buchanan on the Russian invasion of Georgia (Paddy shills for Putin)
Saturday, August 23, 2008 11:48:54 AM · 3 of 15 nathanbedford to robert david
I question Buchanan's judgment about appearing on Russia today under these circumstances.
But there is much in what he said to agree with.
First, who provoked this war? Buchanan flatly declares that Georgia is at fault. Other reports argue that the Russians cynically provoked George's incursion into its own breakaway provinces with a flood of passports and armed attacks against Georgian nationals and actual bombardments of Georgia proper. What is the case? Even if all of this is the case, did Georgia overreact? If Georgia overreacted, does that justify the Russians who clearly overreacted. What uses all of this analysis anyway? Should we base our foreign policy and risk another Cold War on our assessment of who overreacted?
Second, what role did America play in unleashing Georgia? Was the CIA asleep again? Seems hard to believe that we were not aware of Russia's buildup. What assurances, or rather, what admonitions did we give to the Georgians?
Third, what are our national interests? This is a key question that paleo-conservative's want answered and neoconservatives tend to gloss over. Are 3 million Georgians worth a new Cold War? Incidentally, this is exactly the same question Buchanan has been asking about Israel in the context of the war against terrorism. I think the question is legitimate when asked about both countries.
Fourth, Russia is now an autocracy, Russia has unilaterally invaded another country-which has not been done since the end of the Cold War-does this mean that Russia has global expansionist ambitions, or is Russia merely reacting to developments in its "near abroad" much as we would react (and in fact did react in 1962) in the Caribbean basin? Can I Cold War be avoided if we appease the Russians and withdraw from Ukrainians, the Poles, and the Balts?
I have recently posted a response to Victor David Hanson's remarks and one can see that my belief is pessimistic, that we are facing an entire new world paradigm with Russia embarked on a course of adventurism because it has turned autocratic, not in response to American fifth column activities in its "near abroad."
Nevertheless, we do ourselves a disservice if we fail to deal with the real hard questions raised by Pat Buchanan and only content ourselves with shooting the messenger. That is, after all, what the Libs are doing to Jerome Corsi. Let us not Bork Buchanan.
Victor Davis Hanson: Blame Everyone Except Russia!
Saturday, August 23, 2008 9:50:27 AM · 10 of 76
nathanbedford to neverdem; elhombrelibre; SeeRushToldU_So
Victor David Hanson's review of the various players reactions to the Georgian crisis is absolutely brilliant. I offer the following amplifications:
The neoconservatives
The idea of extending NATO was sound and still achievable. Half of Georgia might still be saved and a ring extending up to the Baltics can be established.
The paleoconservatives
They are wrong that Putin is only protecting his rightful national interests. He is protecting the natural interests of an autocrat and that is by definition illegitimate and not "rightful". He is however protecting his "perceived" national interests. Georgia did not "deserve" the Russian invasion. That is an outrageous and indefensible observation. The paleos are correct that we should cut a deal with Putin but on the basis of strength and with Putin dealing to protect his cash flow. The paleos are absolutely correct in saying that this is a question of America's national security interest and the national security interests of Israel are irrelevant.
The realists
They are right in insisting that we define our national interest. Emotional reaction is very, very dangerous. It might well be possible to establish a ring around Russia which includes half of Georgia. The extension of Western influence via NATO was done because an event such as this was prudently feared. Russia is only humiliated because it chooses to be an autocracy rather than a democracy. The world need not accommodate itself to that choice except at the point of defeating its own national interests. The role of honor in determining international policy should be admitted only very carefully and certainly not when your allies (the Europeans) regard acting out of honor to be cowboy diplomacy. If your allies deal only in their own self-interest without reference to honor, they will play your commitment to honor quite cynically. It is quite good advice to refrain from issuing promises that you cannot keep, especially if those promises include commitments from your NATO allies which you cannot enforce.
The left wing
No comment necessary here except to observe that this is the triumph of moral relativism perfected in The Frankfurt School. Moral relativism on Parade.
The liberal mainstream
Watered-down moral relativism. We can learn very little from NATO's involvement in Afghanistan except to provide a sober realization that European contributions to multilateral efforts will always be a day late and a dollar short. The liberal reaction of involving the United Nations etc. is a transparent effort to disguise capitulation. Moral relativism in disguise.
The Europeans
The Europeans have a real and substantial interest in the continued supply of gas and oil from Russia. That being said, the Europeans should recognize that the Russians have perhaps an even greater need to supply that oil and gas. The European politicians will find a way to do nothing by placing the blame on the United States and it does not matter whether George Bush is in office or Barak Obama. The Americans must contrive ways to make the Europeans choose our side. A very, very difficult undertaking.
The rest of America
America now knows the way it saw the world was all wrong. America is awakening to the danger not only of Russia but of an expansionist Russia in league with other oil-producing countries such as Iran and Venezuela. America is becoming alert to the fact that Russia is willing to play the nuclear card with Islamo fascists. America is awakening to the reality that there will not be meaningful cooperation with Russia concerning Iran. America is coming to the conclusion that it must identify and act in its national self interests with a very hardheaded and, if need be, ruthless determination.(he said with his fingers crossed and his head bowed in an attitude of prayer).
Who Started Cold War II
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:50:32 PM · 36 of 141
nathanbedford to MNJohnnie; Publius804; elhombrelibre
Pat Buchanan's analysis of the cause of the Russian invasion of Georgia is all wrong. But that portion of his comments which suggests that we look to American national security interests as the fixed poll upon which to shape our policy is well-founded.
I think it is necessary for me to set forth my previous posts so that the inevitable charges of "appeaser" or "Buchananite" can be fended off an advance. The first post is in response to a column by Michael Ledeen in which he advocates the bombing of Syria and Iran as a response to the Russian invasion of Georgia:
It is long past time for us to strike at the terrorist training camps inside those two nasty Russian allies, Syria and Iran.
When this thing broke in Georgia I sat down dictated some musings about the implications of all this. I will set them out now to demonstrate that I agree with the author but I am adamantly opposed to the quoted portion of his article above. I cannot think of anything stupider than to engage for no definitive strategic purpose in military adventures in Syria and Iran. This would leave us utterly without support in Europe and that is the first place we must secure if we are to wage a global war which this author otherwise correctly describes.
Beware the Council of neocons who would exploit every crisis through a lens that requires America, at all costs, to act in a way that irrevocably commits it to Israel. The Stakes in this game are not Israel. We are talking about the survival of Western civilization as we know it. If Russia aligns itself with the Arab and Muslim petroleum exporting nations, and can contrive an alliance with Venezuela and the natural resource producing nations and South America which have recently gone leftist, America will be hard-pressed to rally the world.
We're on the verge now of losing Europe. Mindless attacks on Syria and Iran (unless the regime in Iran is overthrown) are almost certain to lose Europe. Any attack on Iran should be done by the Israelis. United States strategic interest is to prevent an axis between Iran and Russia. Pinpricks will only assure that axis will be built.
China's decision at that point, to go with the forces of darkness and autocracy, to remain neutral, or to throw its weight in on behalf of civilization and prosperity, can decide the affair. What will China choose if Europe has abandoned us because of mindless attacks on Syria and Iran?
Here are the musings which I post to demonstrate that I am in overall sympathy with the authors strategic conception but not in his myopic, neocon, pro-Israeli application of it:
Some implications of the Russian attack in Georgia:
An Israeli strike against Iran is now more likely. It look that the map will see that Russia inching closer to direct geographical contact with Iran which only confirms the very dangerous trade and nuclear support that the Russians have been conducting, some of it in the dark.
Seen from the Israeli side, they can have no doubt now that Iran will soon have the bomb one way or the other, either through their own efforts or directly from Russia. The Israelis will see that Iran and Russia could well announce a mutual defense pact as a kind of a tit for tat with our installation of missiles in Poland. Once such an announcement is made, an attack by Israel against Iran becomes much more problematical. It makes it more difficult for Americans to supply, even clandestinely, the necessary logistics such as in-flight fueling needed for the Israelis to strike. So the Israelis must preempt if they are to act at all. In any event, we know that if they are going to act, they must act before George Bush leaves office, especially if Obama is elected.
A separate implication of the war in Georgia is that it might well cleave NATO. This has been a Russian/Soviet aim for at least half a century. Consider the matter from the European point of view: they are utterly dependent on oil and gas delivered via pipeline and almost all of which is controlled by Russia. My neighbors, many of them, heat with natural gas stored in a giant cavern not far from my house and Upper Bavaria which comes to them through a pipe from Russia. If the Europeans were adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq where they risked nothing and blamed America for everything, imagine their reaction to American proposals to get tough over Georgia. [Imagine their reaction to American strikes against camps in Syria and Iran!]
European pusillanimity, their leftism, will make it impossible for their politicians to do anything other than appease Russia and blame America. The Russians need only advance vaguely plausible arguments on their behalf- e. g. American meddling (read: CIA) caused the Georgians to overstep and commit aggression against the "independent" regions- which the Europeans can seize upon to save face. Couple that propaganda with reassurances that the pipelines will be kept open, and you have Chamberlain/Hitler redux.
A third implication of the Russian aggression in Georgia is that waging war with oil has now become a strategy used in a new world war which overlaps and might even embrace the world war conducted by radical Islam against civilization. In both wars oil is both a weapon and a prize. In both wars, civilization must fund its enemies with petrodollars.
Great risk here of course is that Russia will contrive a new world order of controlling nations starting with Iran and including Venezuela and whatever other.
Because of the international diplomatic disaster of our war in Iraq, even George Bush knows that he is virtually toothless in the Caucasus both militarily and diplomatically. He knows he has no backup in Europe. He himself has said that he has very few cards to play. So if Bush bows to reality and does nothing except fulminate and try to kick Russia out of the G-8, NATO will muddle on but it will be bereft of any international respect.
Should Bush pushback against the Russians too hard, McCain might do so as well if elected, that could strain NATO to the breaking point.
As pointed out Libslayer, Europe has so far behaved much more honorably than I had anticipated and so far I am wrong in that assessment.
As could have been anticipated, and that post raised cries of" appeaser" to which I responded as follows:
I beg your pardon.
Where do I advocate appeasement?
Instead of bluster, you might consider that the obvious Russian strategic purpose is to sheer NATO away from America. You do not want to give them that huge strategic advantage without some compensating gain. Means you better make damn sure you know what the hell you are doing when you push back against the Russians in Georgia where you have no levers.
When you hit them, it then hard and devastate them. Otherwise kindly refrain from bluster that makes you feel good but which is otherwise counterproductive.
Finally, to demonstrate that I am quite serious about doing something effective in Georgia, I repost this post from Sunday:
I want decisive action but I want it in pursuit of a strategic goal. At the end of this game we face nuclear weapons. At this point in the game the prize is world hegemony through control of oil.
We must raise our sights above Georgia. But there are many things inside Georgia that we might be able to do. First, I believe that the Soviet military is not nearly as good as this operation at first glance makes them appear. If you go to C-SPAN you can watch the panel involving Frederick Kagan and Ralph Peters and other analysts who believe that the invasion by the Russians reveals many weaknesses as well as strengths in their operation. The panel in particularly pointed to deficiencies in the Russian air wing exposed by the ability of the Georgians, weak as they are, to shoot down so many Russian planes. Further revealed by the Russians evident inability to hit targets despite the fact that they "preen" over their use of smart weapons.
I believe that we have seen the very best the Russians have to offer and we have seen it in the very best light because the Russians were preparing this invasion in minute detail, with rehearsals, since April. I believe this leaves us with an opening.
It might be possible to filter in a vanguard of American forces and have many available to airlift in upon the invitation of the Georgians. This might be accomplished before the Russians can wake up and overrun the rest of Georgia. That would put a tripwire east and North of the all-important oil pipeline and demonstrate to Europe that there is an alternative to appeasement.
Assuming we could do it, is it in our interests to do it? What are the risks? What do we gain? If we pull it off, Europe will acquiesce. If we bungle it, we have created a hell of a mess. Are we prepared to stay a long line in Georgia acting as a tripwire as we have for more than half a century in Korea? Is it worth it?
There is also a great deal such as we did in Poland which could be done in the Baltic states and in Ukraine. The beauty of the installation of missiles in Poland is that it was not put up for discussion for the Europeans to weigh in. Even though the negotiations had been proceeding for a long time, America shifted and presented the Russians and I might add, the Europeans, with a fait accompli.
My belief is that the Europeans will take the path of least resistance. If the Russians seem to be the bigger problem, they will appease them. If America presents them with a fait accompli, they will acquiesce.
Please note, I do not know whether such a course is logistically possible nor do I know if it is strategically desirable. These are the kinds of things that we ought to consider because they offer a way of changing the dynamic in our favor which right now is decidedly unfavorable to us.
You say I sound like I do not want to do anything, I do not want to do anything foolish because it feeds some emotional need. My apologies for the solipsism of publishing my own posts at such length. I do itonly because I feel that somebody has to advocate that part off Pat Buchanan which it is not tainted by his excesses. Pat Buchanan has it right when he says that America must be very careful about assessing its national interests. I am not willing to go to war for Georgia, but then I am not willing to go to war for Israel. I'm not sure we could go to war for either Georgia or Israel even if we should, considering the attenuated state of our arms currently. I do not want our foreign policy to be made with any consideration in mind other than the best interests of the United States of America. I believe that the best interest of the United States of America mean that we should willing to go to war for oil, and we might have to go to war to prevent Iran from getting a bomb, and we might have to go to war somewhere to stop Russia. But neither Georgia itself nor Israel itself constitute interests of the United States sufficient to go to war.
It is a pity that this call for the most basic kind of national soul-searching must come from Pat Buchanan who never misses an opportunity in these columns to discredit his views with his excesses.
A very long, and interesting set of posts. I was unaware of your previous position and thank you for bringing it to light.
I did not post in anger or with motives other than discussing this most interesting of subjects. I would argue that I’m not entirely ignorant here, but I suppose that can be left for others to decide. I can hardly be presciently aware of your previous posts can I, unless I’m some sort of internet search engine mind thing...
Much of Europe is dependent on Russia’s natural resources, as you said one of your posts. I think you also touched on the fact that Russia needs to sell the oil and gas to Europe as much as we need to buy it. They have no alternative buyer until they build a pipeline several thousand kilometres long through to China. Until then, their economy relies on Europe buying their resources. A stalemate if you will.
Certainly relations between Europe and the US are strained, and much of it comes from ignorance from one about what the other is up to. You talk and attack the EU for bowing down to Russia’s recent war in Georgia and the breakaway states. I don’t think we did. We have condemned the actions, and organised the peace treaty that both sides signed. If we hadn’t got both sides to the table, then Russia would be in virtual total control over Georgia and many thousands more lives would have been lost.
If Europe sees the need to do things differently than the US, then so be it. We are different continents, with different aims and ambitions. I would contend that no European would want to side militarily with Georgia given that its our land on the line. The US is secure behind her walls, but our borders are under very real threat, and actions that would exacerbate the situation are unwise in the extreme. The nuclear deterent will keep much of Western Europe safe from Russian expansion, and our combined naval forces would be more than a match for the Russian Fleet.
Its all well and good having high minded idealistic positions when your borders aren’t under threat.
As a final point, Russia contributes to the overall European demands for oil and gas, but other states, most notably Norway are providing the UK with most of her natural gas via and giant undersea pipeline.
W is supposed to be a lame duck. How dare he have his VP/administration do something to protect our country???
No, we want a NATO that will DO something besides whine.
...Besides whine...
You mean a quiet, pliable bunch of allies who ask ‘how high?’ when the US says ‘jump’.
NATO forces are battling alongside US forces in Afghanistan as we speak. Not 100 trainers from Lithuania, or 250 Czech engineers, but 1000’s of combat troops. There is the ‘DO’ that you are talking about. Sorry if some nations occasionaly disgree with the US. How dare we?!!!!
It isn't. Russia has said it's staying it Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Not unless he can get at least 13 other members to go along.
No, I mean some who are active in their own protection at home.
Ok.
But we are.
Are you saying we aren’t defending ourselves because we didn’t attack Russia?
No.
I suppose among the verbiage and underbrush of my remarks the graveman of my complaints about how Europe is behaving in the Atlantic alliance is expressed in this paragraph:
European pusillanimity, their leftism, will make it impossible for their politicians to do anything other than appease Russia and blame America. The Russians need only advance vaguely plausible arguments on their behalf- e. g. American meddling (read: CIA) caused the Georgians to overstep and commit aggression against the "independent" regions- which the Europeans can seize upon to save face. Couple that propaganda with reassurances that the pipelines will be kept open, and you have Chamberlain/Hitler redux.
And that is why I object in the author' s description of Vice President Cheney's remarks as "bellicose." I see it as a ploy by the journalist to take away any running room for the politicians to work in concert with America. Let's face it, if you are a leftist one -worlder the United States of America represents the greatest single obstacle toward a achieving Nirvana. Leftists in America as well as leftists in Europe would steadfastly turn a blind eye to Russian aggression if it weakens America's influence, citing the fact that the Russians have the bomb. The same leftists will steadfastly turn the other eye blind to Islamic terrorists, such as the regime in Iran, if that will diminish America's influence, even though that regime is actively seeking to get the bomb. One need not belabor the point to identify the consistency.
This is no way to run an alliance. If Cheney were in fact being bellicose that is a legitimate criticism. But to set up the matters so that everything that happens in the caucuses is America's fault is a bit much to endure.
Incidentally, I've been trying to locate the article by Kagan (?) Titled as I recall, "American is from Mars, Europe is from Venus" which caused quite a stir and offers very interesting insights into the problems arising between America and Europe. I believe with the author that these problems will edure past George Bush because they are systemic. In googling the above I came across the following very interesting article which has an illuminating map of the various pipelines.
It can be found here:
http://newglobal-america.blogspot.com/2008/02/american-mars-and-european-venus-over.html
I can see where you’re coming from, but I wouldn’t read too much into it. Its just a word, that’s going to be read by X number of people. Of those, not all would pick up on the term.
‘Verbiage’...
Can you use smaller words, my head hurt when I read that. Its been a while since I’ve heard or seen that one!
America from Mars; Europe from Venus...
Kagan? Yes, I know that name from somewhere. Seems to be titled after the book ‘Men from Mars; Women from Venus’, but I don’t like the way we Euro’s get the girly analogy!
Thanks for the link.
Demand that russia stick to its agreement.
Are we going to rely on the french to defend Europe..haven’t done that ever so far , have they?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
