'No US forces needed in Georgia'

BBC ^

[RFEngineer]

Jefferson was a pretty smart guy. Question is, are you?

[Dandydoodley]

If the US couldn’t protect it’s allies then why would they be allies at all?

Come on man your not paying attention (ò¿ó)

[nomodem]

Right - BTW, wasn’t Stalin from Georgia?

[KevinDavis]

Your point??

[ravingnutter]

Yes....according to Wikipedia it was "Gori, Georgia, Russia (now Republic of Georgia)".

Speaking of evil, have you seen this story:

Israel to surrender Jerusalem property to Russia

Putin having a "footprint" in the middle of Jerusalem is just a scary thought.

[Mr Rogers]

I think the REAL Captain Kirk would kick your ass up to your ears for quoting the Prime Directive!

[Travis McGee]

http://www.navoine.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=551

Check out the 90 or so pics at this Russian link. Not for the weak stomached: many gory war casualties.

Note especially the prevalent Chechyn units. Most Russian armor is spray-painted with the unit names, including “Chechyn Vostok.” The Russians are sending Chechyn muslims into Georgia, to do the dirty work.

[Mr Rogers]

As I think Scottie put it once, “You donna get laid by green women if you obey the Prime Directive.”

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Interesting pic here:

Looks to me like the Russians got bloodied somewhat too, with several of their own tanks (with the Chobham plating) knocked out.

[jammer]

2. Had we followed Jefferson's thinking, that would have meant staying out of WW2 and the Cold War. Would those have been correct stances to take?

Had we followed Jefferson's thinking we would have stayed out of WW1, and the Treaty of Versailles wouldn't have engendered the conditions for WW2 and the Cold War. That would be the correct stance.

[KevinDavis]

Never mind that Germany offered to help Mexico to take back the SW US.. Never mind that Germany sunk the Lusitania which there where Americans aboard..

[jammer]

Exactly. Never mind. Those are ridiculous justifications you imply. But I’m glad to have found someone, anyone, who thinks our Wilsonian entry into WWI was justified. You’re a rarity.

[Ohioan]

2. Had we followed Jefferson's thinking, that would have meant staying out of WW2 and the Cold War. Would those have been correct stances to take?

What a preposterous statement! We were attacked in World War II. We were the principal target in the Cold War. You need to study Jefferson, more carefully. Jefferson advised General Washington, when he was Washington's Secretary of State, that in foreign policy, you need to punish the first insult, lest it lead to many others.

But neither Jefferson nor Washington would ever have condoned our meddling in the affairs of nations in the Caucuses! This is pure insanity, and will create problems for many years to come.

[Ohioan]

I'm pretty sure Jefferson would understand that the world changes. The question is, do you?

The tools of man change; the basic moral principles that should or should not govern human affairs do not. The weapons of a nation change--they evolve. The fundamental principle that a Government's duty is entirely the interests of its own people, does not. We have gotten into an Alice In Wonderland pursuit of changing other peoples, which is as immoral as it is insane.

If we are attacked, we must respond. If we are the target of others, we must take necessary measures. But to expend the resources of Americans to try to change the world--what the Left in America has been seeking for two generations--is lunacy if not outright treason.

The real danger, here, is that we are destroying the chance of friendlier relations with other powers, to pursue ideological goals, outside our borders. We recognized that that was terribly wrong in the Communist and Nazi eras, when utilitarian Collectivists established monolithic bases in Europe, and sought to impose their will on others; but we somehow think it acceptable to allow academic theorists--dare one suggest crack-pots--to try to use American lives and resources, today, to play the same game.

Our policy in the Caucuses should be to offer both Russia and Georgia friendship, trade and respect. We have gotten into advising them on cultural matters, and that is ridiculous.

It is pathetic that some Republicans have enough sense to realize that Senator Obama's plans to expend our resources for the rest of the World are terribly wrong, yet they will not raise the same protests, when morally corrupted Republicans embrace kindred policies! We will either wake up, or find ourselves in a hopeless, as well as hapless, future.

Perhaps some will find the little debate we staged between President Bush and General Washington, instructive:

Washington/Bush Debate On Foreign Policy.

William Flax

[MindBender26]

Possesion of nucs probably means you never have to use them.

Remember The USSWas (former USSR or USSAre) in Cuba, 1961. One of the reasons we didn’t invade was our knowledge that Sovs has small tac nics in Cuba and HAD GIVEN WEAPONS RELEASE AUTHORITY TO THEIR GENERAL OFFICERS THERE ON GROUND IN CUBA.

[PurpleMan]

As General Cartwright (the current Vice Chairman Joint Chiefs) said in 2007 as Commander STRATCOM:

“Today, if something happens quickly and we need to respond quickly, the only choice we have in a global capability is a nuclear weapon,” he said. “That is unacceptable for the range of threats we are going to face in the future. We need a conventional capability (more appropriate to other scenarios).”

[Cheburashka]

George Washington never had to address the problem of nuclear weapons, and a world where the U.S. can be ended in an hour. If we wait until we are attacked it is too late. That was not true in Washington's time.

And I dispute your contention that we are trying to force anyone to change. We have not invaded Cuba. We have not invaded Venezuela. We have not invaded Zimbabwe. We have not invaded Saudi Arabia. Many on FR want us to invade one or more of these. Yet we haven't.

There are aspiring collectivist countries today - China, Russia, Iran, their various hangers-on. If it was right to oppose collectivist countries in the past then it's right to oppose them in the present.

We offer Russia our friendship. Their price for friendship is actually very simple and they have made it plain for all the years Putin has been in power. The price is their control of all the countries that made up the unlamented Soviet Union. It may or may not be in our power to hand these countries over to them to be vassals. But it would be a contemptible act if we were to try to do so. Until the Russians understand that they have no divine right to some “prison house of nations” empire we must oppose them. In spite of what you say, freedom is not a mere cultural matter. Or do you disagree with the Declaration of Independence when it says all men are created equal? And the slaves Putin makes today will be used to subjugate new slaves tomorrow. The ambition of power is always insatiable. So don't try to satisfy it. It is cowardice to revel in your own freedom and refuse to support the freedom of others. And by the very act of supporting the freedom of people who ask for your help you will oppose those who wish to deny them it, and therefore make enemies. The very epitome of what we see in the Republic of Georgia today.

I have a great regard for the Russian people and I mourn that the devil exorcised from them has returned and possesses them again. But to ignore that fact is the first step on the road to disaster.

Since I have no idea what academic theorists you are talking about I do not respond to that. Or do you mean that “evil genius”, Milton Friedman? If you do, begone fool.

Wary of them he might be, but Washington understood the value of foreign alliances. It was a foreign alliance that won him Yorktown. Without French troops and a French fleet the Brits would have won again.

And as for Mr. Flax's little work I'm sure his cut and paste job supports the position that he planned it to "prove". And any quotations that would disprove the premises he wishes to "prove" have been carefully sent down the memory hole. So I don't need to waste my time.

[Torpedo Eight]

While I’m not advocating the use of US troops in Georgia, you need to look out when rolling out quotes by the founders.

Jefferson’s statement comes from as big a Francophile as any. When France in the grips of revolution was openly attacking our shipping during their war with Britain he advocated unconditional alliance with France against England. Fortunately Adams position of negotiating from strength and unbending principal carried the day. While a patriot and esteemed founder Jefferson had his faults.

I believe we can make Russia pay in other ways. Economically through the G8 and WTO. Diplomatically by tightening our relations with and increasing military sales to Poland, Ukraine, etc.

[RFEngineer]

“While I’m not advocating the use of US troops in Georgia, you need to look out when rolling out quotes by the founders.”

Nor am I advocating isolationism, however, in context, I was defending a poster who was being excoriated for a view that was not as unreasonable as was being implied.

This quote from Jefferson was the first that came to mind - it is not unreasonable to point out that Europe has a bigger stake in this, at least in the near-term than we do.

Too many hair-trigger fingers on the war-button on here.

Still there is wisdom in Jefferson’s statement and it should not be ignored.

[Ohioan]

George Washington never had to address the problem of nuclear weapons, and a world where the U.S. can be ended in an hour. If we wait until we are attacked it is too late. That was not true in Washington's time.

The weapons are not the issue. We do indeed need to keep our arsenals safe; to devise ever better means of defending our homeland. That is hardly an argument for our minding anyone else's business. Our being in Georgia, other than for trade, tourism or some other traditional purpose, is what is at issue.

And as for Mr. Flax's little work I'm sure his cut and paste job supports the position that he planned it to "prove". And any quotations that would disprove the premises he wishes to "prove" have been carefully sent down the memory hole. So I don't need to waste my time.

The cut and paste job, included the Bush 2nd Inaugural address in its entirety. Interspersed with each set of complete paragraphs, are direct quotes from Washington's Farewell Address. The last thing I would want to do, in demonstrating the fatuousness of the Bush policy--which is that of Dean Rusk, the Leftwing JFK/LBJ Secretary of State, a little more clumsily stated--is leave out any of his argument. The whole point of the piece was to analyze that argument.

As for Milton Friedman, whose monetary theories were very similar to those advocated at my web site? Why, on earth, would you think that I was referring to him. My reference was to some of those who are trying to justify our efforts to promote collectivist political procedures--such as "one man/one vote," folly, in multi-ethnic third world nations.

As for Washington & the French, you are correct. But that was an ad hoc alliance, for an immediate purpose. It was not a permanent involvement. The Clinton/Bush push of the last 15 1/2+ years, has been in the direction of more and more permanent involvements--what Washington referred to as "entangling." We need to be free to respond, both to the dangers and opportunities of the modern world. That does not mean entanglements; it does strongly recommend the traditional Washington/Jefferson policy of trade and friendship for all, based upon mutual respect--but minimum commitments outside our borders.

We need to lower our profile in the Near & Middle Easts. It is breeding more enemies than friends, and has become inordinately expensive in the process.