Posted on 08/21/2008 2:24:04 AM PDT by HAL9000
Excerpt -
While it is almost certainly true that Moscow's action in the Ossetian and (for good measure) the Abkhazian enclave of Georgia has been, in a real sense, the revenge for the independence of Kosovo (on Feb. 14 Vladimir Putin said publicly that Western recognition of Kosovar independence would be met by intensified Russian support for irredentism in South Ossetia), it is extremely important to bear in mind that this observation does not permit us the moral sloth of allowing any equivalence between the two dramas.Perhaps one could mention just some of the more salient differences?
1. Russia had never expressed any interest ...
~ snip ~
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
>I’m glad that NATO - not Russia - is in control of Kosovo, and I look forward to Georgia and Ukraine joining the alliance.
Oh yeah, NATO is really doing a good job in Kosovo. (sarc.)
I doubt that Ukraine will join NATO. First, it has a good sized Russian and pro-Russian populaton. Second,NATO basically just sitting by twiddling it’s thumbs while Russia stomps and bullies Georgia makes NATO membership less than inviting. After all, what did NATO do?
NATO should be either phased out or turned into a all or mostly Euro alliance.
I can see where confusion comes from in a statement like this. The locations, given in reports from Georgian sources, are Georgian villages within South Ossetia.
Again, if you have anything that shows a target outside of South Ossetia. I would appreciate seeing it.
At what point did I say that? I didn't post the scarecrow.
In essence, what I did say and will stand by, is that our politicians are and have been the provocateur by arming Russia's neighbors to the teeth, pointing missiles at Russia and exploiting what is in essence a localized border dispute and turning it into the potential for a World War. And while this is being done in America's name, it is not FOR America, it is to protect Western international oil companies interests and make sure that they become monopolies. We don't give a damn about Georgia or the Ukraine or Poland or we wouldn't be throwing them in front of a truck.
Let's go your way. Let's see what happens if we go after Russia, militarily.
Russia cannot economically survive without exporting oil to Europe, so if she goes to war with Europe & us, you can count on two things -- the first thing that Russia would do is to take out the non-Russian pipelines which account for 60% of Europe's energy imports. Europe's economy would collapse and what's left of ours would, too. Europe now becomes totally dependent on Russia's oil and gas, and Europe would become more afraid of Russia than ever. All our buls%%t rhetoric won't mean a damn thing when Europe is freezing to death. If we keep spurring on the attack on Russia, we here in the US won't come out clean. We may be a nuclear power but so is Russia and we are not invulnerable.
Ultimately, who would win this war? The ME Muslims, who really control who gets what oil. And they and the NWO types would bring all of us to our knees in a perpetual state of martial law.
Is that what you are willing to risk over S. Ossetia and Abkhazia? Because I am not!
You may think Russians are nasty bastards and you may be right -- all the more reason not to corner them and threaten them, which is exactly what we have been doing.
A wile back, BrotherJoeK reminded of something that I had not thought of before: "When the Russians were Soviets, they were atheists and that was actually something that we had going for us -- because they didn't believe in God, they didn't want to lose the only life that they believed that they had." Well, the Russians aren't atheists anymore, and like us, they believe that they have a destiny. They tried playing that destiny as cooperating with us and all we did was spit on them. Now, they don't care what we think. If they can't be loved, they'll settle for being feared because it gets them some respect. By continually challenging and cornering them, we have made them far more dangerous than they ever would have been otherwise.
Sorry, I didn't mean my last to sound like a personal attack because it's not, but when I read it afterward, I realized it sounded more personal than I intended.
I don't disagree with your statement above, TE. And I don't even necessarily think that S. Ossetia and Abkhazia "belong to Russia". It's simply that I don't think that Georgia really gives a damn about either S. Ossetia or Abkhazia -- they were just useful ways to bait the Bear to get us to "come to the rescue". How much we spurred that kind of georgian behavior on is a subject of debate.
No, I wasn't referring to the picture at all. What I meant was you are making it sound like Russia is innocent and harmless ... like a scarecrow.
n essence, what I did say and will stand by, is that our politicians are and have been the provocateur by arming Russia's neighbors to the teeth, pointing missiles at Russia and exploiting what is in essence a localized border dispute and turning it into the potential for a World War.
Then we simply, and completely, disagree about that.
And while this is being done in America's name, it is not FOR America, it is to protect Western international oil companies interests and make sure that they become monopolies. We don't give a damn about Georgia or the Ukraine or Poland or we wouldn't be throwing them in front of a truck.
Completely disagree. Oil fuels the whole world. As such it will naturally become leverage in all international dealings. We are not forcing Russia to make mega-billions of dollars and we're not forcing them to use their oil/gas reserves as blackmail for their paranoid aspirations to hegemony. You obviously have a view of Russia that sees them as victims. I don't. I see them as brutish thugs. I'm talking about those in power. The people there are victims ... of their government and as such have no idea what is going on in their name.
I don't think Russia gives a damn about Abkhazia and S. Ossetia either. I also think Russia clearly used those peoples/regions as the bait to get Georgia to attack them. Check the story linked in #38. That is the most explicit description yet of what I'm talking about. Possibly the most credible source too.
If you still don't agree ... then we'll work on that. ;^)
FRegards! TigersEye
Nice try. Twisting things into a falsified version and ignoring a mountain more evidence from the same article isn’t going to fly with me. That might work on a Russian.
I do appreciate your statement against Russia’s invasion of Georgia, and reply to your points below.
1. Yes, Georgia is in a sensitive location in Russia’s backyard.
2. The US and NATO are limited in our options because Georgia has not been admitted into the alliance due to the recalcitrance of some of the European members. Hopefully, they’ll see that action on Georgia’s application must be taken now.
3. I disagree. The U.S. does sincerely care about freedom in Georgia. It furthers the national interests of the United States, and ultimately, it makes the world a safer place.
4. It’s about human freedom, and the prosperity that all nations should enjoy without Russia’s bully tactics.
5. No blood for oil, eh? Where have I heard that before?
That article is interesting. I looked up the interviewee, Andrei Illarionov. He's with the CATO Institute now, which is generally anti-interventionist, making him even more credible -- and it more likely that Russia did just stepped into a trap.
Here's an article that when I read the title, I thought the author must be completely nuts -- until I read it & checked out the author's credentials. "Russia Should Have Been Part of NATO" Think that you might find it interesting.
I'm glad that NATO - not Russia - is in control of Kosovo, and I look forward to Georgia and Ukraine joining the alliance.
21 posted on 21.8.2008 10:38:55 by HAL9000 (”No one made you run for president, girl.”- Bill Clinton)
Who is in control of NATO?
P.S.
In kosovo only thing NATo is guarding successfully if “Bill Clinton Street”.
No kidding.
You know I hate what the U.S. did in Serbia. Really really stupid all the way. So I am not a USA no matter what thinker. I am also sure there are lots of great Russian people and there have been many accomplishments there too. On balance though I think the US has done great good in the world and Russia has done great wrong. So there is where my biases lie.
Mikhail Gorbachev Quote from 1987"Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep. We want to accomplish three things:
One, we want the Americans to withdraw conventional forces from Europe. Two, we want them to withdraw nuclear forces from Europe. Three, we want the Americans to stop proceeding with Strategic Defense Initiative."
Quote by: Mikhail Gorbachev (1931- ) General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the last head of state of the USSR (1985-1991) Date: November 1987 Source: speech to the Soviet Politburo, November 1987
Russia's "Friendly Democracy" phase may not have been all that it seemed.
The Russian troops in South Ossetia and Abkzazia were there because of UN resolution. The Sochi Agreement was codified by the United Nations in August 1993 giving Russian peace keeping forces every right to be in both of the break away regions of Georgia. What are peace keepers to do when the area they are guarding is being invaded?
Well and good. Article 5 of the NATO charter
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
We had better be able to walk the talk if Russia invades Georgia or Ukraine, including willing to go to war in defense of a fellow NATO ally. Geographically, it will be very difficult to confront the Russians in Georgia and Ukraine. Nuclear confrontation is probably the only the way to carry through on NATO's commitment.
Our support of an independent Kosovo, a predominantly Muslim state in the heart of Europe, and controlled by the KLA, a terrorist organization, is not exactly in our best interests. I would prefer Russian control rather than KLA control.
Sorry, but I have a pet peeve with people that make thing up.
Regardless, the bottom line is...
are we better off now that Saakashvili ignored our warnings of a Russian trap and launched his attack on South Ossetians?
I don't think so!
If Russia were part of NATO, would we have had to come to her defense when Russian peacekeeper in South Ossetia were attacked?
Yes, Article 5 is a powerful deterrent against Russian aggression. If Georgia had been admitted into NATO already, the Russians would not have crossed the line.
Yes, but if Russia were part of NATO, I doubt that attack would have occurred.
It may be a deterrent, but what would NATO do if Russia invaded anyway knowing that any conventional military response by NATO would be very, very difficult. Would we [and the other NATO members} be willing to go to nuclear war to defend Georgia?
Tiger, with all due respect that is a quote from 21 years ago when the Soviet Union was still alive. I am sure that there were also some pretty nasty and inflammatory quotes we could dig up from our side, too.
The great irony was that back then, the US was sure that "Gorby was our guy"! And I was saying that "Gorby is still a communist".
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.