Georgia. South Ossetia. Abkhazia.

Latest news, video.

Pravda says it's our fault. An underlying issue. Le Monde says the West seems powerless in this situation.

Comments

[Beelzebubba]

McCain has already said that Georgia, a member of the coalition of the shilling, is worthy of US blood and treasure. But the US has its pants down, looking for something to wipe with in Chaostan. Interesting times.

[Spag]

Nope. This is not our problem. It will be interesting to see how both candidates handle this matter, though. I suspect that both will be disappointing. Maybe Obama can at least give a speech to stop the violence and prevent a war. McCain might talk about using force, which is worse when we have no national interest at stake in Georgia.

[scharrison]

Unfortunately Sam, we do have a national interest, or at least we've pursued such. For right or wrong, we are currently engaged in several of the former Soviet satellite countries. We've been trying to increase our influence in these nations for both economic and strategic reasons, and Russia does not like it one bit.

This...may just be Chapter 1.

[Spag]

That is not a real national interest- the American people are not threatened. It is just another example of an entangling alliance that costs us billions of dollars each year and eventually American lives when we send our troops to bail out other countries. This is a fine example of why we should end NATO, or at least limit it to those countries where we have a real interest at stake.

[scharrison]

"That is not a real national interest- the American people are not threatened."

That all depends on who you talk to, right?

As far as the neocons are concerned, the American form of Democracy is considered to be "under threat" until a durable American hegemony over the entire world is achieved. And they've been busy—-real busy.

As far as the former Soviet Republics being ushered into NATO, that serves two purposes: it keeps Russia from expanding again, and it gives us access to economic leverage that will (theoretically) keep them from trying to steal our lunch elsewhere in the world. And yes, it's a very dangerous game, especially considering the ultra-nationalist movement in Russia and Putin's desire to keep it rolling.

But the thing is, the neocons don't really care about any potential military conflicts between the U.S. and Russia, because they're not playing this game for a draw. In fact, a clash between our forces would be just what the doctor ordered to bring about the huge increase in defense spending they know we'll need to exert our influence (successfully) worldwide.

Chapter 2 in this book may be named after any of the following (new) members of NATO: Albania, Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania. Or maybe the debutantes hoping for an invite to the ball: Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, Kosovo, and maybe even Serbia, which would really piss off Russia. I didn't even mention any of the 'stans, but we're stirring up some shit there too.

PNAC's plans are a lot farther along than many people think, and most Americans have absolutely no idea what that means as far as the next few decades are concerned.

[Ged Maheux]

Not our problem Sam? I think you had better go read the news again, especially the part about a key oil pipeline running through the war zone that was destroyed today.

[Beelzebubba]

Are the border states of the old USSR looking to the USA to provide gas and oil this winter when Putin goes punitive? The nations who have taken military handouts to become shills for the neocons in Iraq will feel abandoned as the US must yawn as Russia disciplines the infidels. Georgia is simply getting Saddamed. Its a risk you take when changing sides, especially when your new ally is on the record as hanging their old allies who change sides. Mission accomplished.

[Spag]

Ged, I don't believe the US should go to war to defend Georgia over a pipeline. America isn't the only country that uses the pipeline, yet some want to make this our problem. Your argument justifies going to war with Iraq and I know you oppose that. War for oil, Ged? Or is your opposition to Iraq really BDS in disguise?

Be consistent.

[Ged Maheux]

Nice twisting of my words Sam. Where in my last comment did I say we should "go to war"?

Please tell me.

I said nothing of the kind. I pointed out that you said the action taking place in the region was "not our problem", which of course, it is.

We have a vested interest in getting Russia and Georgia to stop the violence as soon as possible. Thanks in part to Bush's do-nothing attitude for the past 8 years to look for alternative energy sources this is yet another example of how our dependence on oil holds us all hostage. Just when the price per barrel was starting to come down due to American's decreased usage, the outbreak between Russia and Georgia will most likely drive it right back up.

[Beelzebubba]

Interesting that this occurs one month before the first Russian snowflake arrives..around Sept 15 or before. Western Europe has forgotten how to chop wood. Theyre getting out their old Putin rockstar t-shirts and taking down the "NATO Now" signs. Theyre in a no win situation..like the Native Americans during the Revolutionary War. Whoever wins..they lose. All Putin has to do is call on Russia's invincible ally - winter. Ghenghis Khan was the last successful encroacher in Russia(1236 AD)..and it took him four years. Now the same Georgian troops who occupied Afghanistan for the USSR are doing the same for Fraudistan(USG). They should read Sioux history. Stalin's mother never learned to speak Russian.

[scharrison]

From Michael Goldfarb on the John McCain 2008 website:

http://www.johnmccain.com/McCainReport/Read.aspx?guid=cfd266be-9594-43a2-b927-ae9f82bd2789

"It's this campaign's position that every American has a "vested interest" in the welfare of the Republic of Georgia, a key regional ally and a member of our Coalition in Iraq. Georgia is a small, democratic state which has seen its sovereignty violated by a much larger pseudo-democracy. If the position of this campaign "mirrors" the position advocated by the Georgian government, it is because John McCain stands by our allies as Senator Obama offers only platitudes about condemning violence that mask the deeper moral equivalence of his foreign policy positions."

Considering John McCain is a latter-day signatory of PNAC this doesn't surprise me, but it should (if they're paying attaention) send a clear message to "true" conservatives that neocons are in total control of the Republican Party.

And in his own words:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/

"I strongly support the declaration issued by the Presidents of Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and their commitment that 'aggression against a small country in Europe will not be passed over in silence or with meaningless statements equating the victims with the victimizers.' I share their regret that NATO's decision to withhold from Georgia a Membership Action Plan may have been viewed as a green light for aggression in the region. As they propose, a new international peacekeeping force should be created, in light of -- as they observe -- the 'obvious bankruptcy of Russian "peacekeeping operations" in its immediate neighborhood.' In addition, Finnish Foreign Minister Stubb, the Chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, has said there can be no return to the status quo in South Ossetia and that Russia cannot serve as a mediator in the South Ossetian conflict. Each of these leaders represents a country that has undergone what Georgia is now experiencing.

"I am pleased the U.S. has agreed to facilitate the transfer of Georgian troops serving bravely in Iraq, who are now unfortunately needed to defend their own country."

If you examine McCain's inferences, you'll see that he is either hopelessly naive and out of his league, or he's being intentionally deceptive. NATO's hesitance to invite Georgia in is because of their problems with a seceding South Ossetia, yet McCain blames NATO's behavior for the Russian actions. He's also trying to equate this conflict with Soviet actions of the bad old days by talking about Poland and Finland.

I have a feeling this is only a taste of what a McCain Presidency will look like. He's either more of a malleable puppet than Bush or he's a true neocon believer, and both possibilities scare the shit out of me.

[Spag]

Ged, if Georgia is our problem for the reason you stated, then Iraq was, too- to a greater extent because of UN resolutions that were being violated and the OIL. Really, how big of a player is Georgia? Are we obligated to them militarily or should we be? Isn't this more of a problem for Georgia and maybe the Europeans than America?

[Spag]

America should only use military force when America is threatened or are interests are threatened. We are not the world's policeman, nor should we be. The rest of the world doesn't pay for that role, the taxpayers do and the soldiers who die do, then the rest of the world shits on us while we protect their asses. Enough is enough. We can't afford it anymore on so many levels. Time to bring all of the troops home and quit spending billions around the world for a thankless job, and one that is contrary to a conservative philosophy of American governance.

[Ged Maheux]

You're right Sam, using military force to keep oil flowing is a gross mis-use of our brave men and women as well as our tax dollars. I'm glad you realize that. If you remember your history, the US didn't invade Iraq for the OIL, it invaded for the so-called weapons of mass destruction, or so the Bush administration said. Since we now know that was nothing but a tissue of lies, I assume you agree with me that other than removing Sadam from power, initiating the Iraq war was a huge mistake.

Since we didn't get one drop of Iraq's oil before the war, it wasn't in "our interests" to invade the country. Now that we're in control of the Iraqi OIL fields, strangely enough, that crude isn't actually paying for the country's reconstruction. Why is that? Where is that money going? Is that money considered to be "our interests"?

All questions I'd love to have the answers to.

[Beelzebubba]

The USG has been policing the world and blowing off limbs and heads while making citizens arrests. This doesnt go over too big where the words "forgive" and "forget" are not in the urban dictionary, cultural feuds last thousands of years and few die of old age. The USG being the world's policeman while the streets of this country are not safe could only appear in a swindler's publication. The USG's meddling in the thousand year old tribal and clan wars of Europe and Asia have millions of victims looking for revenge. When the USG left Vietnam the bughugging Buddhist adversaries said, "yall go on to hell now, ya hear"...but the guys west of them...they hold a grudge like a good southerner- until your remains leave the planet. And they export more than Ramen noodles and Nike shoes. Nice goin meddlers. Mission Accomplished

[Spag]

Ged, I never said we should have gone into Iraq. But if I was going to make an argument for the invasion, I would say that it was based on our commitment to the UN to enforce resolutions that we agreed to enforce. This is no different than our NATO entanglements where we make military commitments to other countries whether our interests are at stake or not.

I also don't believe that the Bush Administration lied about WMD. If they lied, so did Sen. Clinton and a whole lot of other people including many Democrats and foreign countries. Being wrong isn't the same as lying.

[scharrison]

Sam, there's quite a bit of testimony and documentation showing the administration ignored, twisted and exaggerated intelligence data on WMDs to suit their purposes of convincing Congress and the nation that an invasion of Iraq was in the best interests of national security.

Now, you can say they were wrong about how successful the invasion and subsequent Democratization of Iraq would be, or what the impact said invasion and occupation would actually have on our security and our ability to wield military influence elsewhere in the world, and you'd be right. But to claim they were merely wrong about WMDs and not intentionally deceptive is to (once again) ignore evidence to the contrary.

[Spag]

You mean the same intelligence about WMD that the Clinton Administration claims it had?

It's hard to blame this on the Bush White House when the prior administration as well as intelligence agencies overseas reached the same conclusions. It's a good spin to pin on Bush, but is simply isn't true.

[Dave Dobson]

And yet . . . Clinton didn't lead us into an eight-year war costing $565,000,000 and perhaps a few hundred thousand dead. So far.

But yeah, I guess their decision making was sure equal.

[Dave Dobson]

Silly me, forgot three zeroes. $565,000,000,000.

[j. neas]

My first thought when I heard about this was: 'Huh. Jack Van Impe is going to have a field day with this.' He always cites some sort of Russian-involved conflict as a 'beginning of end times' event.

[meblogin]

good post and thanks for the links

[Spag]

Dave, that isn't the premise though, is it? You can oppose the war but you don't have to lie about it being a lie....

[Dave Dobson]

Sam, you will never convince me the Bush administration did not make far more of what they had than was there. I saw Colin Powell's speech, and thought it was embarrassing. They picked a goal (invade Iraq) and then bent every shred of evidence and propaganda they could find toward that goal. Whether that bending fits your or my legal definition of lying or not isn't very relevant; what it was, was dishonest and stupid.

Saying that Clinton had the same information or had made a similar assessment is irrelevant - the Clinton folks appear to have properly weighed the strength of that evidence and of the risk Saddam posed, and even if they didn't, even if they were just lucky, they did not make a horrible decision based on it. The Bush administration did.

[Spag]

That's still different than lying.

[Dave Dobson]

OK, let's put it this way. If I applied your approved Bush administration principles of truth-telling to my marriage, I'd be living alone.

[Spag]

Let me put it this way, if that is the case, then a lot of men would be living alone because the fact that the Clinton Administration and the governments of foreign countries believed that Saddam had WMD has not been refuted and they would be just as guilty as you.

It is better to stick to your arguments against the war than to try to bolster them with poorly supported claims of lies.

[Ed Cone]

The Bush administration clearly cherry-picked the data to make the case for war. They made statements that we now know to be false (e.g., "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction"). Their allies in the field worked with their allies at the New York Times to sell the idea; those stories have been discredited. They overstated the threat of nuclear weapons, and rushed the inspectors out of Iraq, ending any good-faith effort at nailing down the truth before invading.

You may argue that these were all errors made in good faith. I would argue that there was a clear agenda.

[Dave Dobson]

If the mistaken horrible war is the important part, then why do you keep harping on what the definition of lying is? Do you deny they represented weak evidence as strong? Do you deny they made knowingly false connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and allowed those false connections to stand, when they could have set the record straight? Lies of embellishment and omission are still lies. Sounds to me like you're arguing about what the meaning of "is" is.

[scharrison]

I think Sam's in denial. He knows the new & improved Compassionate Conservatives are neither, but he still thinks he can make the relationship work. And if they merely f**ked up and didn't intentionally deceive us, the next crop of Republicans can start over fresh.

Here's a clue: McCain's a card-carrying, PNAC-signing neocon. He's not a maverick, he's a petting-zoo pony with a sad story to tell and a whole lot of pent-up aggression to let out. Plus, he's got a totally hot, relatively young and seriously rich wife that he doesn't appreciate. Case closed.

[Ged Maheux]

Back to the thread's topic (which I helped get us off of... sorry), William "the bloody" Kristol is now calling for the U.S. to actively defend Georgia against Russian aggression. Why? Because they were part of the so-called coalition of the willing and deserve our support both diplomatically AND militarily.

Kristol is basically saying it is okay to go to active war with Russia.

This man has needed his head examined for a long, long time. This opinion piece pretty much proves it.

[scharrison]

Did anybody else see Zalmay Khalilzad's interview on CNN? Talk about one-sided. You'd think Stalin had risen from the grave and was rolling his tanks through a pastoral village.

One of the original 25 signatories of PNAC, and now the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Fantastic.

[Spag]

There may be a time when going to war with Russia is warranted. This isn't one of them.

SC- I oppose the war in Iraq, but I also don't think Bush lied about WMD. If you think those two concepts can't coexist, then that is your problem. It's like OJ- it's possible that the police did plant evidence, but OJ still killed Nicole.

[scharrison]

Alright, forget about the lying part (for now), and let's just stick with the "sins of ommission", because this current crisis is being handled the same way.

Shortly (less than two years, I think) after Georgia declared independence from Russia in the early 1990's, South Ossetia and Abkhazia basically tried to do the same thing by seceding from Georgia. Georgia has refused to recognize this secession, and has periodically dealt harshly with these entities.

This (most recent) conflict began with Georgian forces making a full-scale military invasion of South Ossetia, where the vast majority of citizens hold Russian passports. The Georgians have indiscriminately shelled civilian homes, buildings and infrastructure, in an effort to bring this disputed area back under their control.

Have you heard anything remotely negative about Georgia from the administration, our neocon U.N. Ambassador, or the various pundits and wags that have been chewing this over on the news? Of course not. That doesn't suit their purposes, just like what happened in the weeks and months leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

I guarantee you we not only knew about Georgian atrocities in South Ossetia, we probably encouraged and funded the invasion. I'm afraid the neocons are trying to get in as many licks as they can before January rolls around and they're booted out of their positions of influence.

This could very well be the most dangerous time in our recent history, and we're still arguing about whether Bush lied or not. Not good.