While I was racing around frantically last night to try and arrange the last minute details of my move to England, I was shocked to hear whatever conservative talk show host that was on the radio calling for the president to send US troops into Georgia to fight Russia. The host went on a long tirade about “protecting our national security interests” and how these missions must be handled delicately because of the gravity of the international relationships at stake.
It boggles my mind, when the economy is tanking and the currency is being debased to pay for our military expenditures, that some would be so quick to commit more blood and treasure to yet another conflict in some far-away land to fight some other global threat.
Is this what conservative foreign policy has been reduced to – sending troops at the bat of an eye on the basis of a vague ideal such as “national security interests?” This is recklessness.
Believe me, if I ever believed that the security of my family or my property were at risk, I would be the first to show up at the recruitment office with my guns in hand. I would gladly defend my home and even my neighbours from an imminent threat. But the idea of sending US troops over to start a war with in Georgia against Russia would definitely be the blow that absolutely cripples this country.
I presume that most conservatives do not share the views of the radio personality I heard last night. John McCain is arguing for a US military surrogate (NATO) to do the dirty work. McCain suggests using diplomacy “force Russia to withdraw from Georgia.” Last time I checked, diplomacy was about giving and taking, negotiating and making voluntary proposals. “Force” however, ultimately means threats and coercion which must be backed by aggression. McCain is clearly engaging in double-speak.
Yet another war would be disastrous for the US. Our economy is swirling around the toilet and our important relations around the world are dissolving. We need to wake up and start plugging holes or this ship is going to sink.
The Georgian situation distresses me because I naively expected Russian to emerge from the ashes of the Soviet Union as a free, peaceful democracy. I expected Russia to be much like the United States? Well, it’s too much like the United States, it seems, with the same penchant for war. I guess I expected more from a nation as great as Russia.
Yeah, man. What most don’t know is that the Georgians have been trained by the U.S. military and American mercenaries. In fact, one of the American mercenaries has been captured by the Russians. From what I understand, this was an American-backed provocation of Russia with a possible Israeli Mossad connection as well; this has been reported in the Israeli press. http://www.uruknet.de/?s1=1&p=46326&s2=11 Why? I’m not sure. It may have something to do with Russia’s vast untapped oil supply that threatens to knock the U.S out of the market. When that supply gets into the market, we’ll be back down to $50 oil. No more record profits for the big three. One thing is for sure: the ethnic conflict stuff is just the cover story. And don’t think it is mere happenstance that this even coincided with the Olympics or that irrelevant John Edwards story. Distractions, distractions.
I think the proposed strike on Iran was intended to be a provocation of Russia. Maybe this achieved the desired effect or maybe that is still in the works as well.
But you’ve really got the Neocons going ape over the whole thing - Bill Kristol, Dick Cheney, and their underlings are all gung ho about American intervention as if we haven’t already intervened or rather helped initiate conflict. These guys are going for broke to destroy America. Who will stop them? The Republicans? The Democrats? Yeah, right. Well, maybe. But even some on the Left are pushing for this. Unbelievable.
I have yet to understand why so many people are opposing what Russia has done here. Everything I have heard from the news makes me believe that Georgia tried to re-assert dominance over a territory that wants nothing to do with it, then Russia moved in to protect it’s interests. I have really little issue with Russia doing that. Sure it’s not what I would like to see happen, but this is the world we live in and compared to some other things going on there is no reason to get really upset with Russia over this. Nothing worse then the USA or Israel does to protect their interests. It’s a regional conflict that no one in North America should become involved in.
Now I hear the line is that Russia’s response was “disproportionate”. Bah. Once again, I don’t approve of war here, but if your going to have war their response is completely understandable. Go and read Carl Von Clausewitz and you’ll understand that Russia has to prevent the ability for Georgia to do this again or else the war will just be delayed for a while.
Exactly, Bryan.
Bryan, yes, I’ve heard similar reports. The territory appears to be in dispute–or rather, Georgia wishes to own the territory over the objections of Russia and the people who live there.
“The territory appears to be in dispute–or rather, Georgia wishes to own the territory over the objections of Russia and the people who live there.”
My understanding is that there is a division even in Georgia between those who want independence and those who want to be part of Russia. At any rate, its not a matter of U.S. national security and we should not have been involved in such a deliberate provocation. Colonel Sam Gardiner told Democracy Now that he thinks the Russians will use nuclear weapons if attacked by the U.S.
Last time I checked Russia has about 16,000 nuclear warheads. Is this guy stupid enough to risk everyone’s future over a small no-have country in completely isolated part of the world?
“Last time I checked Russia has about 16,000 nuclear warheads. Is this guy stupid enough to risk everyone’s future over a small no-have country in completely isolated part of the world?”
Who is “this guy”?
Chris A wrote: Who is “this guy”?
John Galt.
el oh el
IMO it will be foolish to not confront Russia for their naked agression in Georgia. Where are the UN resolutions condeming Georgia? Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia? Russian troops, FSB operatives and mercenarys is closer to the truth. Why accept Russian state controlled media’s version of events? This operation was planned and Putin motion long ago. The numbers of troops and equiptment required extensive preparation. The Russian navy deployed 4000 troops amphibously in less than 25 hours. To accept Russia version of events would ascribe a level of operational deployment capability they do not possess. If the free world fails to stand up NOW for a democracy in need of our help, when? Maybe after the Ukraine is targeted by an emboldened Bear. Maybe after Poland is similarly mauled? This is a power play by Putin that has nothing but terrible written all over it for democracies in the region. Iran also gets a pass. If you were happy with $4 gal gasoline then your gonna love $20 gal gasoline. The profits of which do not go to big oil. The State Owned Enterprises SOE take a majority of the funds that are then reinvested in other expandsionists tactics like invading smaller countries and nukes. Of course China is watching with great interest. Will America do anything to save it’s allies or merely say few kind words at the funeral? The action/inaction on our part is also being carefully noted by our allies, how do you think a tepid response looks to them? Ultimately diplomacy will fail in this case. There are a range of military options for dealing with Russian troops on Georgian soil that do not necessarily involve US troops. One possibility is the use of volunteer groups similar to the “Flying Tigers” of WW2 fame. Russians will be given an option to move it or lose it, welcome to WW3
“Why accept Russian state controlled media’s version of events? This operation was planned and Putin motion long ago…To accept Russia version of events would ascribe a level of operational deployment capability they do not possess. If the free world fails to stand up NOW for a democracy in need of our help, when?”
We should accept Russia’s version of events because they are telling the truth. And I’m not saying the Russians are the good guys, because there are no good guys. However, this operation could not have been planned by Putin. That’s just not true. The Georgians attacked the Russians first. They have even admitted this. There is no room for debate here. The only argument Georgia’s allies have in favor of military action against Russia is its extreme retribution. This is a NATO/U.S./Israeli provocation. Georgia is their tool. There are other former Soviet states where this same type of provocation may be carried out. This democracy thing is only the cover story. Haven’t we figured that out yet? This is about the “grand chessboard” Brzezinski talked about. Don’t be fooled! You will soon regret it.
Here is a link that will best summarize the events of this recent military action. And again, this information is mostly undisputed.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russo_georgian_war_and_balance_power
Anyone catch bush’s speech. He said “Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected” with a straight face. Amazing.
Point of military history. The american volunteer group (aka the flying tigers) consisted of less than 100 obsolete P40 model B’s operating out of western china. These pilots had a phenomenal combat record against superior japanese aircraft by using excellent tactics developed by Claire Chennault. As a moral booster the flying tigers were a great resource, they represented the only allied unit achieving success of any kind against japan. Because of their small numbers and extremely limited resources (all supplies had to be flown from india over the himalaya) the actual strategic military value of the flying tigers was severely limited at best. Close to zero if you consider the huge scope of japan’s military operations at the time.
Romantic idea, but I don’t think russia’s leadership is quaking in their boots.
Um, what?
Bob and Chris, did Georgia attack Russia? Nothing in what you’ve posted has indicated that they did, but Russia feels compelled to destroy Georgia. Kind of sad that a LIBERTARIAN site is so anti-freedom.
Darius, come on dude. Maybe you should read it again. Are you actually disputing that Georgia attacked Russia? Fox News actually interviewed Georgians on live TV that were dismayed at the fact that their government did this. As far as I am aware, this is an undisputed fact. Have you heard anything to the contrary? I haven’t. But there is an emphasis in the media on so-called “Russian aggression” which makes it seem that Russia struck first. Here is a direct quote from the article I posted:
“On the night of Thursday, Aug. 7, forces of the Republic of Georgia drove across the border of South Ossetia, a secessionist region of Georgia that has functioned as an independent entity since the fall of the Soviet Union. The forces drove on to the capital, Tskhinvali, which is close to the border. Georgian forces got bogged down while trying to take the city. In spite of heavy fighting, they never fully secured the city, nor the rest of South Ossetia.
On the morning of Aug. 8, Russian forces entered South Ossetia, using armored and motorized infantry forces along with air power. South Ossetia was informally aligned with Russia, and Russia acted to prevent the region’s absorption by Georgia. Given the speed with which the Russians responded — within hours of the Georgian attack — the Russians were expecting the Georgian attack and were themselves at their jumping-off points…”
What is anti-freedom about the facts? If Georgia wants to be an independent state, that’s fine with me. I just don’t want the U.S. military to be involved. They have “liberated” enough people on our dime for much too long.
Here’s what Joe Biden just recently had to say, (and notice his generosity with your tax dollars): “When Congress reconvenes, I intend to work with the administration to seek Congressional approval for $1 billion in emergency assistance for Georgia. This money will help the people of Georgia recover from the damage that has been inflicted on their economy and send a clear message that the United States will not abandon this young democracy.”
Yeah, I don’t think anybody is disputing that Georgia started this by invading South Ossetia. I think the confusion has arisen because South Ossetia is officially recognized as part of Georgia, but in practice it is independent and is allied with Russia.
Exactly. Again, LET ME REPEAT, when did Georgia attack RUSSIA? Ossentia is a part of Georgia, and thus any issues between them should have stayed as such. If Quebec broke away from Canada and aligned themselves with the USA and Canada invaded Quebec, would you all seriously be supportive of the U.S. invading Canada to defend Quebec? Or is this just another case of situational ethics against the big bad Americans?
Again, I’m not promoting any policy in regards to handling the current situation between Georgia and Russia (I say let them handle their own problems, at least to some extent). I am merely pointing out the fact that you all seem to have your good and bad mixed up.
I think Jew clarified the discrepancy. But the heart of the matter goes to the fact that when Georgia attacked, Russia considered that an attack against them - hence the retribution. But I specifically stated before that this is not good guys vs. bad guys. I’m not choosing sides. Why are people so simple to reduce everything to an argument of good vs. evil? Maybe Russia is evil, but if we are judging by the sames standards so is just about every other government, not the least of which being the U.S.
Russia is still the same old bully like it was when it was called the USSR. They can’t stand that history has passed them by and that they are (largely) irrelevant to the world. Thus, they support all of the problems in the world and none of the solutions (read: backing of Iran and Saddam). They have a country that is rotting away by bad policies and abortion (their population will halve in 40 years or less) and so they are choosing to bring the rest of the world down with them.
Georgia may not have clean hands either, but Russia’s involvement is significantly worse. It’s called discernment and not making everything morally equivalent. Liberals and libertarians shy away from moral discernment on political matters. I understand why secular liberals and libertarians do it (they don’t like moral standards in general) but I am not quite sure why Christians libs are so in favor of moral equivalency. I agree, all governments are fallen and broken. No argument there. But some are much worse than others.
I’m pretty sure that Georgia has no legitimate moral claim on a territory that declared independence years ago and has operated as an independent state for quite some time. As far as I can tell, Georgia’s actions were morally indefensible.
Yes. (Well, I would if I believed in getting involved in foreign wars. But that’s a discussion for another day.) When Germany invaded France in WW2, the allies didn’t stop at the German border after liberating France; we marched to Berlin. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the allied forces didn’t stop after liberating Kuwait; we went deep into Iraqi territory. You can’t fight a war by half measures.
The real question here is whether South Ossetia should be treated as an independent state.
Georgia says that South Ossetia is part of Georgia. But that doesn’t make it so. According to a recent article in the ‘Irish Times,’ South Ossetia “broke away from Georgian rule in a war in 1991-92…and continues to maintain close ties with the neighbouring Russian region of North Ossetia, on the north side of the Caucasus. The majority of the roughly 70,000 people are ethnically distinct from Georgians, and speak their own language, related to Farsi. They say they were forcibly absorbed into Georgia under Soviet rule and now want to exercise their right to self-determination.”
Given all this, I don’t see how Saakashvili is justified in claiming that the “territorial integrity and belonging of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to Georgia can never be put under doubt.”
South Ossetians don’t want to be ruled by Georgia. Therefore, according to the principle of self-determination, they shouldn’t have to be.
Turning to Darius’ question: “If Quebec broke away from Canada and aligned themselves with the USA and Canada invaded Quebec, would you all seriously be supportive of the U.S. invading Canada to defend Quebec?” My answer would be no, I probably wouldn’t support a U.S. invasion of Canada. But I also wouldn’t support a Canadian invasion of Quebec.
Regarding the situation at hand, I think both Georgia and Russia are wrong. For the Bush administration to cast Russia as the bad guys here is simply ridiculous.
“Georgia may not have clean hands either, but Russia’s involvement is significantly worse. It’s called discernment and not making everything morally equivalent. Liberals and libertarians shy away from moral discernment on political matters.”
Darius, explain to me why Russia’s involvement is significantly worse. Maybe you can enlighten me on moral discernment. While you’re at it, maybe you could also enlighten me as to why I, as an American taxpayer, should think monetary and/or military support of Georgia is a worthwhile venture while the U.S. is still engaged in two other wars. Because essentially your “moral” argument is going to lead to this. It will be the “right thing to do”. And then when we’ve been there for five years, we will be obligated to stay because it too will be the “right thing to do.” And then when the country goes belly up you can stick to the script and blame the Liberals for taxing and spending. Now that’s what I call morality!
Hey Darius. All I said was that bush talking about respecting sovereignty would be a joke if it wasn’t so sad and that a flying tigers type of organization would have no more real effect in georgia than it did in china. I didn’t engage in the russia vs georgia debate at all.
The thought that russia is irrelevant is pretty dangerous. This is a country of 150 million people, a large standing army, a the world’s second largest nuclear arsenal, a very active arms export industry, and a centuries long history of (pretty well justified at times) paranoia that is sitting on top a lots of very valuable commodities.
This is all a tempest in a teapot. Georgia has a population of something like 5 million. Ossetian is a lot smaller. What would possess georgia to start this fight anyway? Who cares? Why is most of the industialized world getting involved? There are bigger, but less obvious, disputes going on all over the world. There just has to be more involved than a very small regional dispute about a meaningless bit of dirt.
Chris, read my comments.
“Again, I’m not promoting any policy in regards to handling the current situation between Georgia and Russia (I say let them handle their own problems, at least to some extent). I am merely pointing out the fact that you all seem to have your good and bad mixed up.”
Yeah, but your so-called moral argument overshadowed that comment. Because, as I said, this will be the argument that will lead to American military intervention. That’s what I was addressing.
I won’t say it is impossible to stay neutral about policy while having an opinion about justice, but you have to see where this is leading. I mean, we have been through this before. The Americans are the good guys and al Qaeda, the CIA-funded group who were utilized to fight against the evil Soviet empire (the ultimate bad guys), were the bad guys. The Americans were the good guys and their former ally and sanctioned strong man, Saddam Hussein, was the bad guy.
And you still haven’t explained why what Russia did was “significantly worse”. I think I know the answer, though. Its because they are Russians.
Or because they are the official “bad guy.”
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0820mt.html
Yeah, yeah, yeah. More propaganda to demonize Russia, completely ignoring the fact that Georgia attacked Russian peace-keeping forces to start this whole mess. But I guess that doesn’t matter when you are the official bad guy.
Anything that goes against your view is propaganda, huh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war
“Anything that goes against your view is propaganda, huh?”
My view? Its propaganda because it focuses on Georgia being the victim and Russia being the aggressor. Go back and read the media reports from 08/08/08 when this happened. There is no real disagreement about how this started. This is propaganda designed to build public sympathy for Georgian “democracy” so ignorant Americans will support U.S. military action, monetary aid, or both. Otherwise how could people like Senator Joe Biden promise to send $1,000,000,000 that we don’t even have to give?
Oh, I am in complete agreement with you that the calls for U.S. military action are over the line. But let us still be honest, Georgia was attacked by some group in South Ossetia (maybe connected to the S. Ossetia government, maybe not), and so Georgia responded. Russia, because they’re the regional bully, decided to interfere and not just help out S. Ossetia, but also invaded Georgia, killing, raping, and pillaging as it went. Sure Georgia might have gone overboard in its reaction, but nothing like Russia did.
I have really tried to stay out of this discussion because I’m ignorant, but what?
Georgia claimed that they were attacked by South Ossetia which broke the cease-fire. Who knows if that is true, but that’s what I read.
It’s true that fighting broke out on August 1 and Gerogia claimed that they were first attacked by South Ossetia. But it’s also true that South Ossetia claimed they were first attacked by Georgia.[1] At this point, I don’t know if anyone knows who fired the first shot.
But that was August 1. On August 7, a ceasefire was reached. Both countries then suggested that they would meet the following day for peace talks. But then on August 8 Saakashvili did an about-face and launched a major military offensive.
[1] http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=278661
I still fail to see how Russia’s use of force was understandable or legit.
I guess the question I have is why did Saakashvili open that can of worms after the minor conflict had cooled down? If I am him, I’m thinking if I attack Russian forces during the ceasefire, they will utterly destroy me…unless he was counting on help from the U.S. and/or NATO. It’s like he must have known they were going to back him up. That’s where this starts to look fishy, coupled with the fact that the U.S. had been helping to train the Georgian military along with mercenaries, many of whom are also ex-U.S. military guys themselves.
My suspicion is that these Neocons are going for broke, but they are really a small part of the picture internationally. They are coming with great wrath because they know they have a short time. In the Rebuilding America’s Defenses document published by the Project for the New American Century, the now notorious Neocon think tank headed by Bill Kristol in concert with Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby, etc., the group called for multiple and simoutaneous military actions to achieve their foreign policy goals. And what better time could there have been to erupt in violence than the opening of the Olympic games when the whole world is looking the other direction.
To borrow a famous phrase “Your either with US or against us”. I oppose Russia’s attempt to assert their will over liberal democracies in the region. Russia wishes to avoid irrelevance by controling European energy supplies. If Russia succeeds in establishing a puppet regime in Georgia, Europe will be at their mercy. History tells us that Russian mercy does not appear to be an abundant resource. See Stalin if you have any doubts. The Russian excuse for invading Georgia was to “protect the dignity of Russian citizens”. When they rolled the tanks in 56, 68, and 79 they at least put up the pretense that they were invited by their puppet. This is simply the rule of law vs the law of the jungle. There is no moral equalivance between the victims and the agressors.
Chris A: You raise a good question. What on earth was Saakashvili thinking? And if the U.S. was behind this (and according to US ambassador Kurt Volker, they warned Georgia against another attack), then what on earth were they thinking? Whatever the case, I think Pat Buchanan is right when he writes, “Mikheil Saakashvili’s decision to use the opening of the Olympic Games to cover Georgia’s invasion of its breakaway province of South Ossetia must rank in stupidity with Gamal Abdel-Nasser’s decision to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships. Nasser’s blunder cost him the Sinai in the Six-Day War. Saakashvili’s blunder probably means permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.”
Can anyone really write something like this with a straight face?
I don’t suppose this has anything at all to do with the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline that now offers an alternative route to russian pipelines for shipping oil from the caspian sea and central asia. Seems like this all started when georgia became a partner in building and operating this pipeline over russia’s very strong objections. No of course not, it’s all about protecting nascent democracy. Right? Silly me. Obviously the entire world has grave concerns about the fate of democracy in a pissant little country occupying the butt end of the planet. Follow the money.
I’m not sure why “Europe will be at their mercy,” but otherwise, Ric is right on with his assessment. Sorry Ric, rational thinking is not very welcome here. Everything is a conspiracy. “Russia may be the bad guy, but that doesn’t fit our conspiracy lens, so we’ll assume otherwise with no evidence to back it up. The most obvious answer can’t possibly be true.”
Don, be careful about quoting Pat Buchanan, who regularly meets with white supremacists and has become quite virulent in his anti-semitism. Buchanan has lost most of his credibility (but not all of it, since he still frequents The McGaughlin Group. Anyone who writes this tripe is beyond the pale (http://townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2008/06/20/was_the_holocaust_inevitable?page=full&comments=true). If he is still welcome on Zeal for “Truth,” then this site is farther gone than I realized.
“I don’t suppose this has anything at all to do with the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline that now offers an alternative route to russian pipelines for shipping oil from the caspian sea and central asia. Seems like this all started when georgia became a partner in building and operating this pipeline over russia’s very strong objections. No of course not, it’s all about protecting nascent democracy. Right? Silly me. Obviously the entire world has grave concerns about the fate of democracy in a pissant little country occupying the butt end of the planet. Follow the money.”
Yeah, bob, I think you’re on to something. In fact, in my original post I wrote about my suspicions of this thing being oil-related. Of course, at that time this other information about the pipeline wasn’t really being talked about.
I’m going to say something here that I hope no one will take offense at. If you think the driving force behind U.S. support for Georgia is the defense of democracy, you are an idiot. That’s the way these propagandists view you. They know they can dupe you every time because you will believe anything they say without ever daring to ask questions. It frustrates me to see the level of willful ignorance and complicity Americans display in the blind acceptance of government propaganda. Having been fooled by it myself (as have many of you), it is hard to see others falling into the same trap. If you still want to go along with what they say, fine. But you cannot say that no one challenged you to get a clue when you regret it later.
It reminds me of when Michael Moore dared to challenge the war in Iraq on the eve of the invasion at the Oscars. You had all Hollywood people booing him. Most everyone (with some exceptions of course) wanted him to sit down and shut up so as not to rock the boat. At that time such a thing was unAmerican. Then a few years later, he’s their hero again. And they would have given him an Oscar for Fahrenheit 9/11 if he hadn’t disqualified himself. Whatever you think about the man or his movies (and I personally have mixed opinions), at least he was willing to get booed to stand up against a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of human lives.
“Everything is a conspiracy. ‘Russia may be the bad guy, but that doesn’t fit our conspiracy lens, so we’ll assume otherwise with no evidence to back it up. The most obvious answer can’t possibly be true.’”
Let’s demystify the word “conspiracy” for a moment. Things don’t just happen accidentally. Suggesting that governments do things without first conspiring to do them is kind of juvenile. Is everything a conspiracy? Yeah, pretty much. What is a conspiracy?
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
I think, by these definitions, most military and governmental actions would qualify as conspiracies. Particularly in this instance, there are multiple parties involved, so to say that there is no conspiracy here would require more faith than to say there is one.
The “conspiracy lens” should only take into account the most credible information available. If information comes from one government or another, it automatically loses credibility because it isn’t neutral. The degree of credibility can only be assumed on the basis of whether the source of it has no vested interest in the matter at hand. The U.S. media, although once considered quite credible, is becoming more and more less credible because of the concentration of its control is in the hands of fewer people than it was 15 years ago. And its no secret that it has been infiltrated by CIA and most recently the Pentagon, not to mention the Bilderbergers. David Rockefeller openly admitted this, when he thanked the U.S. media keeping secret the conspiracy of the Elite to control the world and destroy national sovereignty. In fact, he basically said they were part of the conspiracy.
“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
- David Rockefeller to Trilateral Commission in 1991
Darius wrote, “If he is still welcome on Zeal for “Truth,” then this site is farther gone than I realized.”
Are you suggesting that those in charge of ZFT should decide whether they agree with Don, and if they don’t that they should ban him?
I assumed “he” meant Pat Buchanan, not Don.
Darius: I think Pat Buchanan is a good man. I don’t really care if he’s met with white supremacists. So what? Jesus met with sinners; that didn’t make him one. And I don’t think Buchanan is anti-Semitic. I see nothing anti-Semitic in the article you referenced. He thinks that World War II could have been avoided and that without the war there wouldn’t have been a Holocaust. That’s anti-Semitic? Am I missing something here? Is this one of those articles you need to read backwards in order to understand the real meaning?
William F. Buckley thought he was an anti-Semite in 1992 when he wrote a book pointing out Buchanan’s agenda. The article that I linked to basically blames Churchill for the Holocaust. Hitler was a reasonable guy until the unreasonable Churchill came along and ruined it all. That is one of the despicable articles I’ve ever read, especially from someone I used to admire.
For a long time I have thought Buchanan is somewhat of a racial bigot in his rhetoric, but that doesn’t mean I will write off everything he says over that aspect of his persona. Is he anti-Semitic? I don’t know. It wouldn’t surprise me, but would that nullify everything the man ever said? He is admittedly xenophobic; that’s for sure.
But let’s get real. A lot of these old school politicians are bigots. The difference between him and some of these other guys is that he is honest about what he believes. Even George H.W. Bush ran for a Texas senate seat as a Segregationist. Then you’ve got Strom Thurmond, Richard Nixon, Trent Lott, all these guys and many more. Nixon’s White House tapes recorded him saying some blatantly anti-Semitic stuff. Buchanan was part of that administration. That alone wouldn’t make him guilty, but when you combine this with some of the other stuff…
Incidentally, I saw Buchanan on the McLaughlin Group Friday. They discussed the Russia/Georgia stuff. He an Eleanor Clift both agreed that this was a Georgian provocation. (I don’t know if any of you guys watch this show, but it is quite rare when they agree on anything.) Monica Crowly disagreed of course, but she is the resident Neocon sympathizer filling in for Tony Blankley, so her position is easy to forecast.
Yeah, I watch that show every week. He used to disagree with Clift most of the time, now he almost always agrees with her, especially on foreign policy issues. Pretty sad.
Found this very interesting piece by Michael Totten in my web travels. Lots of information on the Georgian situation.
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php
An excerpts to get Chris A spinning:
“The Ossetians start provoking and provoking and provoking by shelling Georgian positions and Georgian villages around there. And it’s a classic tit for tat thing. You shell, I shell back. The Georgians offered repeated ceasefires, which the Ossetians broke … Can I stop you for a second?” I said. I was still under the impression that the war began on August 7 and that Georgian President Saakashvili started it when he sent troops into South Ossetia’s capital Tskhinvali. What was all this about the Ossetian violence on August 6 and before?”
There is much more in the article. If you are interested in the truth, read it.
The Michael Totten article states that South Ossetia attacked Georgia on August 5, August 6. But I still don’t see how that proves that South Ossetia started the conflict. According to the AP, fighting between the two parties broke out on August 1, and each side claimed that the other had started it.
Exactly my point, Ric. However, some ears and eyes on this site are closed to the facts.
Ric and Darius, it is perfectly fine with me if you want to side with Georgia. I don’t think Russia was the aggressor, but that’s neither here nor there. The thing that disturbs me is the ramifications of potential U.S. involvement.
You might notice that both presidential campaigns sought to capitalize on this early on, although the Obama campaign was much more slick. They put Biden over there to show off his foreign policy experience before he was named as the VP nominee. Of course, I could just be a conspiracy nut. He is promising Georgia money for humanitarian aid. Oddly enough the USS McFaul was docked in a Georgian port yesterday with 50 Tomahawk missiles on board - all under the guise of humanitarian aid. And I guess you could say it’s not actually the U.S. because its NATO, but whatever. This is a very dangerous situation. It really could lead to eventual nuclear conflict.
So should navy ships stop to unload their weapons before they deliver humanitarian aid to potentially hostile regions? Should they hang a big banner that says “Hay guyz, we’ere unarmed. Plz dnt shoot. K thx bye.”
Jew, that was my exact question.
We couldn’t find a freighter in the entire mediterranean and black sea? This bit of posturing (provocation???) is about as subtle as a train wreck. Not to mention a lot more dangerous. This area has been in conflict for the last 3-4 millennium. Virtually every significant civilization in history has fought in the caucasus. Of course now that america is involved we should be able to clear it right up.
Baiting the russian bear is an extremely hazardous game. Especially since, in this case, they hold all the cards.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/24596/sec_id/24596
Don’t fool yourselves into thinking that NATO didn’t know exactly the message they were sending by using a fully armed U.S. Navy ship. I’m not even trying to debate this with you guys anymore, I’m just saying think for a minute. This is very serious, potentially more serious than anything that has happened in Iraq or Afghanistan. We’re talking World War III potential - Russia, Brittain, United States, Iran, Israel, Poland, Georgia, Czech Republic, and God knows who else. Even when they were threatening Iran, they were taunting Russia. They knew that. I’m not concerned about being proven right about this later. I’m just saying watch this carefully, and please don’t be so anxious to follow the kind of rhetoric that is manufactured to support mass destruction.
Darius, I am encouraged by the fact that you have said any call for U.S. military action is “over the line”, but let’s not kid ourselves. Where is this thing heading? Haven’t we been down this road before? Has history taught us nothing?
US Navy ships do humanitarian work all the time. I’m not sure why everyone is getting so worked up about this.
No, we’re really not. None of the nuclear armed nations is so foolish as to start a shooting war with the another nuclear power.
Chris, you keep denying that Iran is a threat because they aren’t dumb enough to start a nuclear war, but then in your next breath, you claim that the rest of the world is that dumb.
Gotta love how conspiracy theories make even sane people sound absolutely nuts.
“No, we’re really not. None of the nuclear armed nations is so foolish as to start a shooting war with the another nuclear power.”
Well, India and Pakistan have come very close to nuclear conflict in times past and may have actually gone through with it if it had not been for diplomatic intervention. I think it is quite foolish to make such an assumption as to the rationality of leaders of nations with whom we are not personally familiar. Have their been leaders in times past that would have utilized such power if it had been made available to them - even to their own peril? Who is to say?
Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, believes that the U.S. is headed for a nuclear confrontation with Russia. He even went so far as to say that such a conflict would almost certainly happen if McCain is elected. I don’t necessarily agree with him because I don’t have the information that would be necessary to agree or disagree, but I would be remiss to take his comments with a grain of salt. He also said this has the potential to lead to World War III. Whether we’re looking at World War III or not, this is a very serious situation.
“I think it is quite foolish to make such an assumption as to the rationality of leaders of nations with whom we are not personally familiar.”
So you must disagree strongly with Don E. and his assessment of the Iran nuclear situation, since he counts on them being rational.
“Have their been leaders in times past…”
Have there been, actually.
“So you must disagree strongly with Don E. and his assessment of the Iran nuclear situation, since he counts on them being rational.”
I’m not sure which comment you are referring to, but Iran doesn’t have nuclear capability. Even if they were irrational, that wouldn’t justify a preemptive strike against them. Such action would constitute another provocation of Russia. Then it would be a question of whether Russia would be rational or not.
And in times past the USA and USSR have come very close to nuclear conflict. Here’s the bottom line: everybody is willing come close, but nobody is willing to start a nuclear war. It’s a bit of an optical illusion. It seems like the brink of a nuclear war, but in reality neither side is anywhere close to actually starting that war.
Anyway, history isn’t the point here. Regarding Georgia, it’s clear that the US government is posturing to confront Russia, and vice versa. It’s not about a war, it’s all about Russia proving it’s still a superpower.
“It’s not about a war, it’s all about Russia proving it’s still a superpower.”
Exactly. Russia knows that it is irrelevant to world politics and can’t even get it’s Asian allies to back them on their invasion of Georgia. Russia is the schoolyard bully who is ignored by everyone, so he goes and beats up the little nerdy kid for his lunch.
“It’s not about a war, it’s all about Russia proving it’s still a superpower.”
So Georgia broke the ceasefire to prove that Russia is still a superpower? Now that is a conspiracy theory.
Russia involved itself in another country’s affairs to prove it’s still relevant. Georgia was being attacked (read: the ceasefire was already broken).
No, all the rhetoric and posturing about this conflict is about Russia demonstrating its power. If it wasn’t this conflict, it would be something else. I’m not into conspiracy theories. I don’t think anybody started this to prove a political point about Russia’s relevance. It’s just a convenient opportunity for some Russian rhetoric.
Alright, so I’m sure everyone is aware of Governor Palin’s interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson. Here is an excerpt of their discussion about the Russian/Georgian conflict:
GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.
The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep… GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
Sarah Palin on Russia:
We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.
We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?
PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.
GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.
PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.
Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but…
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.
But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.
We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.
PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.
And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.
It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.
His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.
Right on, Palin, right on.
George Washington would be aghast.
Oh, do we now operate on Neville Chamberlain-like foreign policy? Let Rome burn, we’ll just fiddle away.
Washington is Chamberlain now? No, I mean just no entangling alliances. That leaves us the option to act when we need to and mind our own business when we don’t.
Ah, gotcha. Yeah, alliances like NATO and the United Nations are baloney, and we should have gotten out of them long ago, especially since we do all the heavy lifting. I do believe that Palin is right when she says that we need to keep an eye on Russia and have all options available if they are going to keep challenging the sovereignty of nations. If you allow them to do it once, they’ll do it again and again. That’s what I meant by Chamberlain, he let Hitler take half of Europe before anyone even put up a fight.
Well, Palin has one thing right. This conflict is not about oil, it’s about democracy…not!
Darius, I think you need to do a little deeper reading on chamberlain. He didn’t operate in a vacuum. His policy was well supported internationally and initially made a great deal of sense. Many people believed that germany was unfairly treated at the treaty of versailles and that the invasion of the rhineland was just regaining what germany had lost.
After the invasion of czechoslovaki it was pretty obvious that appeasement had failed. What would have chamberlain confronted hitler with at that point (or for that matter a year earlier)? You do remember hitler walked through france in a week and threw the british army out at dunkirk? Was this the army that was going to take hitler down on his own soil a year earlier? Many historians believe that appeasement gave britain the time it desperately needed to build up. Immediate confrontation would have had very little effect on hitler, but could have easily resulted in the loss of britain. As it was britain only survived the battle of britian because of serious strategic errors on the part of air martial goering. Thankfully goering made equally large errors during the allied bombing of germany.
Did appeasement work then? Did chamberlain have any other choice except to try? No to both. Could anything have stopped hitler? Very unlikely. So is putin the new hitler planning to march through the fulda gap? Also very unlikely. Right on Chris. This is just about oil money.
Of course the idea of bush being condescending about appeasement (speech to the Knesset) is a very delicious bit of irony, since he probably owes his being president to the family fortune amassed by his grandfather prescott’s companies profiteering from (including the use of slave labor from concentration camps) and collaborating with nazi germany right up to the time america declared war in 1941.
Georgia in NATO. That’s crazy. Look at a map. Didn’t anyone ever hear of the battle of Stalingrad, the Crimean War, Shah Agha Mohamed Khan, Tamerlane, Seljuk Sultan Mahmud, Genghis Khan, Pompey, Alexander the great, etc, etc.?
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
George Santayana, The Life of Reason
or if you prefer
“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Sir Winston Churchill
“His policy was well supported internationally…”
That right there shows that it was doomed to fail. World opinion is almost always wrong.
true enough, which brings us to the current world opinion about the georgia situation.
touche
Judging a policy on whether the world supports it is silly. Judge it on its merits.
I was making that exact case, Jew. “His policy was well-supported internationally” means squat, since we all know how well it turned out. Just like we know how well the UN’s policy in Rwanda worked.
Yes, but you also can’t dismiss a policy because it has widespread support.
I wasn’t saying you could do either, just trying to refute the idea that world opinion gives any position legitimacy.
I didn’t say world opinion meant squat. My point was that chamberlain wasn’t some kind of loose cannon moron careening off into disaster on his own as depicted by some historians. Opinion didn’t matter anyway since there was really no other course of action. In 1939 the only army that could have challenged hitler was the british, The problem was that the troops were scattered all over the colonial empire and/or tied up in colonial wars. The polish actually charged panzer tanks on horseback with swords (romantic but not effective), the czechs weren’t much better off, the french only had a guard force for the mignot line, stalin had just finished killing off all his military leadership, and america had a second rate military that was severely understaffed, poorly equipped sitting 4000 miles away with no shipping. The idea that standing up to hitler would have prevented WW II has a certain swashbuckling appeal, but has never been very realistic. Maybe in 1932, but who knew? Hindsight is always 20/20.
It doesn’t matter today either. Europe won’t challenge russia unless they want to be unemployed while sitting in the dark freezing to death. America’s military is scattered all over the world and tied up in two wars (anyone see a pattern here?). Not much chance russia will be terribly intimidated unless we start aiming nuclear warheads at them again. I desperately hope that the chickenhawk neocon cabal currently in power isn’t that crazy. Turkey won’t let what could turn into WW III happen on their eastern border anyway. If things get too heavy they will simply close the dardanelles.
Putin saw an opportunity to send a crystal clear message to the baltic states, the ukraine, and the central asian stan republics to be very careful about pushing russia. Even better, there was almost no risk that anyone would or could do anything about it. There is a reason why so many chess masters are russian. They are very, very good strategic thinkers.