I’ve been doing a number of things this weekend, but two in particular got me thinking.
One is watching the Olympics. The Olympic rings, which are part of the permanent NBC bug in the upper right-hand corner of the screen, symbolize unity. You have athletes from just about every country represented, including athletes from Russia and Georgia. The athletes are there to compete under the Olympic Creed: “The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.”
But then I’ve also been reading about the escalating violence in Georgia as Russian forces have gone beyond just the separatist region of South Ossetia and have started bombing and moving ground forces into the heart of Georgia. Their aims, according to Western officials, “could go as far as destroying its armed forces or overthrowing Georgia’s pro-Western president, Mikheil Saakashvili.”
Quite a contrast.
Is anyone in Georgia having their Civil Rights violated?
Are you asking about American, Russian or Georgian civil right? You can be idealistic about human right but in reality it all depend on which societal or political system you are in. For me I say all civil right in Georgia are being violated. But the Georgians, Russians have old world definitions for human right.
Russia has invaded a sovereign nation under the cloak of the Olympics. Those in Ukraine and the Baltic are going to be watching events unfold very very carefully. The implications will resonate strongly throughout Europe.
Where is America? or Europe for that matter.
Mahkno,
You sound like you’re going right 🙂
Seriously, a couple of articles on National Review Online suggest the same.
David,
Foreign policy doesn’t have a particularly left or right bent. The Dems should recognize the problems that conflict presents just as easily as the right. The Dems are going to point out, somewhat correctly, that our ability to deal with the crisis is severely handicapped by Iraq. The problem is neither party is going to do much about it except a lot of hand wringing.
Are we willing to go to war over the invasion Georgia? All politics is local. I am sure there are some people who think Atlanta ought to be burned to the ground again.
But we were willing to go to war over Kuwait? No oil in Georgia? True, but Georgia is a major pipeline route. Georgia was also being considered for hosting some of the components of the missile defense shield.
The piece to watch is whether Ukraine blocks Russian naval vessels from returning to port. Ukraine has the biggest stake in all of this.
Wonder what the reaction would be if Georgia had the wealth of Kuwait?
Got to give Putin credit, though, he struck while most of the world was licking the fascists’ boots in Beijing.
Nobody wants to spoil China’s party.
Hmmm… Iraq invaded Kuwait over the pretense that they were a breakaway republic… Georgia is invading their own breakaway republic.
The “righteous” colonists of England in 1776 decided to rebel against their country and form a breakaway republic.
The United States in 1861 “righteously” invaded the Southern breakaway republic…
What we did in 1861 was “righteous”. (Had England interfered with us, we would have been pretty miffed)
What Iraq did in 1991 was so bad, we were “righteous” in interfering and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
So now that Russia has “interfered” with Georgia’s attempt to bring the rebellion to and end… which position are we gonna take? Our 1776, 1861 or 1992 position of “righteousness”?
Georgia invading Ossetia? South Ossetia and Abkazia were both administratively part of Georgia under Soviet rule and under Georgia in post Soviet times. Briefly during the Russian revolution Georgia was independent with these territories. If you go back to pre-Russian Georgia, you will find these territories to be Georgian. The borders of Georgia are internationally recognized to include these ‘breakaway’ regions. This was not the case with Kuwait and Iraq. This is a BIG and very important difference.
Mahkno wrote: Foreign policy doesn’t have a particularly left or right bent.
It shouldn’t but it does. Ever since the hard left took control of the Democrat Party after 1968, foreign policy has been subject to politics. Until then, both parties were consistent in their stands against Soviet aggression (though JFK got wobbly in his early months in office). Today, the left is more interested in spouting useless cliches dripped in historical revisionism than getting serious about a war on terror (which is not exclusive to Al Qaeda). Both parties, unfortunately, are consistently wrong when they try to broker peace deals between Israel and the “Palestinians.”
Mahkno wrote; But we were willing to go to war over Kuwait? No oil in Georgia? True, but Georgia is a major pipeline route.
Obviously, our interests in the Caucacus region are not what they are in the Persion Gulf region. And going to war with Russia would technically start World War Three, which might have something to do with us not engaging in such adventurism.
Georgia was also being considered for hosting some of the components of the missile defense shield.
Czech Republic, not Georgia.
I can’t agree that foreign policy was not subject to politics before 1968.
There were times of general agreement, true, but, unfortunately, they have not been as often as we would like to think.
Too often, from Woodrow Wilson leading us into WWI with anti-German propaganda to Jimmy Carter’s soft-headed foreign policy, to Clinton’s bombing of the asperin factory, Americans have allowed too many Presidents (and others) to formulate policy on the basis of something other than the national interest. The U.S. is not an international policeman, an international meals-on-wheels, or whatever. U.S. foreign policy should be based upon the national interest.
My general point was post-WW2 era.
mahkno:
You hit the barn but missed the target. It is about pretense… Ossetia wants their independence and Georgia doesn’t want them to have it… just like Kuwait, just like The Confederacy in 1861, just like the English colonists in 1776…
We better just keep our noses out of it and just observe. Its none of our business and we can’t and shouldn’t try to rule the world. Not all the world wants to be democratic and that is their right.
Exactly!
We can’t get involved in some place where the “enemy” could kick our ass. We only butt in where the “enemy” is militarily and politically weak.
kcdad,
Although you wish otherwise, Russia cannot kick our a–! Their army is poorly-trained and their air crews have limited flying hours and combat experience. Hangovers are said to be a problem for them as well 🙂
Highly-skilled, trained and experienced American air crews, marines and special forces would kick Russian butts so far out of Georgia, they’d prepare for our occupation of Moscow 🙂
Seriously, refraining from providing Georgia with military assistance is due to our wish to remain on friendly terms with Russia, which is getting more difficult.
The best way to retaliate is to end Russia’s involvement in the G-8, prevent WTO membership and quickly bring Ukraine into NATO, as some have suggested.
So are you trying to say that our Army and Navy aren’t highly-skilled? What’s up with that?
Who, 11Bravo?
Jordan: You really think Russia would have more trouble than a bunch of unorganized Arab terrorists? We don’t know how to win a war. There is no profit in it.
6 years and we still can’t defeat Al Quaeda… has there been a LONGER war in our history? (Don’t count Vietnam because after 3 years we began withdrawing troops)
I would not discount the Russian military. It isn’t the military of 5 or even 10 years ago. I think the Russians are well aware of the deficiencies that developed under Yeltsin and are working to get back to where they should be in training, equipment, and skills. Sure, they are not the big bad Soviet military of yesterday,… yet. But with the big pile of money they are sitting on, they have the funding and the skills to return as a top notch military force backed up by all those 1000s of nukes that are still around.
I just saw a CNN news report where Russians soldiers were threatening reporters. The guy doing the report said the Russians had a strong odor of alcohol. The Russians looked drunk. I doubt they’d be much of a match against American soldiers in combat but I’m sure that those Russians could commit summary executions well enough.
CNN? Then it must be true!
kcdad,
The Islamists have been waging war against the United States since at least 1979 and we’ve only gotten serious during the last six. Like it or not, Pres. Bush warned that the War on Terror might not end during our lifetimes, however, we have defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq, while the enemy in Afghanistan is the Taliban, not Al Qaeda (which hide in the tribal regions of NW Pakistan).
Since Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization, rather than a nation, it’d be best if you’d define, “defeat Al Qaeda.” Perhaps by killing Osama bin Laden? Of course, OBL isn’t Al Qaeda but rather their leader. Killing him won’t kill the organization. They will find a replacement.
We win wars, but slowly because we’re too timid to do what has to be done. The more ferocious and rapid the destruction of the enemy and his infrastructure, the faster he will surrender.
During the past quarter century, presidents of both parties have intervened in Lebanon (1983), Grenada (1983), confrontation with Libya (1986), Panama (1989-1990), Somalia (1992-1994), Haiti (1994), Bosnia-Hercegovina (1995), Kosovo (1999) and Afghanistan (2001 – to present) where no oil was involved. The only “oil wars” during this period were the “Tanker War” (US Navy protection of US flagged-foreign tankers in the Persian Gulf) in 1988 and Iraq in 1991 and 2003.
Having said that, what’s so wrong with “going to war for oil?” We reversed Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, which served warning to others that we would not tolerate such action. We should go to war if necessary to protect the flow of oil.
Although Russia’s invasion of Georgia is best characterized as unprovoked aggression since Georgian forces took action in their own territory. But Russia didn’t cease control of the entire country and annex it like Saddam Hussein did to Kuwait. If they did, would you want to risk a nuclear exchange in liberating it? I don’t think so.
Nuclear weapons bring prestige and power. That’s why it’s important to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons as we do not want them to feel ten feet tall and bulletproof, which will give them the confidence to intimidate and invade their neighbors and effectively deter a response from the United States.
But you’re smart enough to understand these things. Unfortunately, you interpret events selectively as fodder for your anti-Americanism. You’re too wound up in hatred for your own country, and way too conspiracy-minded to be taken seriously. Try to use common sense for a change. And be sure to tell us when you’ve relocated to a better country.
P. S. It’s “Mr. Jordan.”
And we have been waging war in in The Middle East since WW1 and been an integral political force since the post WW2 era with both the Saudis and the Shah in Iran.
Actually OBL is not Al Qaeda.
Mr. Jordan? yeah. Whatever. Why is it when someone criticizes our government, fascists claim they are criticizing the country? Since when is our government the country? I thought we got a new government ever 4 years (or 2 if you are counting Congress)? When, in our case, the policies of our government are being decided by a private bank and a few mega-corporations that are citizens of no nation, how can criticism be called anti-American. Wasn’t it our “founding fathers” who called upon an armed revolution every 20 years or so for the “good of the nation”?
Now you are smart enough to know that, but I guess you are afraid of the economic repercussions of being honest.
kcdad wrote: And we have been waging war in in The Middle East since WW1 and been an integral political force since the post WW2 era with both the Saudis and the Shah in Iran.
The British fought the Turks in Palestine during WW1 and North Africa is the closest we came to fighting in the Middle East during WW2. We’ve been involved with Western Europe since WW2 and that part of the continent has had no open warfare since 1945. We’ve long been involved in Latin America and aside from the occasional revolution and guerilla insurgency, those countries have had general peace. The problem, kcdad, is not America, but the culture of the Middle East. The radicalism and lack of freedom is a continuous incubator for violence.
kcdad wrote: Actually OBL is not Al Qaeda.
Yeah, I know, he’s a paid member of the Bush Cabinet, hired personally by Dick Cheney to destroy the WTC so they could use the War on Terror as a pretense to make America a dictatorship.
kcdad wrote: Why is it when someone criticizes our government, fascists claim they are criticizing the country? Since when is our government the country? I thought we got a new government ever 4 years (or 2 if you are counting Congress)?
That’s the first time I’ve been called a “fascist.” I guess I’ll wear it as a badge of honor 🙂 Seriously, you’re confused, kcdad. America is a great nation with a great people, and I’m tired of hearing people like yourself bash it when we do good in the world. The president who orders military action, the Congress that approves it and the men and women in our armed forces who carry out the mission are part of “the country.” Those tens of billions in private and public funds we overseas send in food and financial aid comes from “the country.” Your false dichotomy won’t work.
kcdad wrote: the policies of our government are being decided by a private bank and a few mega-corporations that are citizens of no nation, how can criticism be called anti-American.
Be specific.
kcdad wrote: Now you are smart enough to know that, but I guess you are afraid of the economic repercussions of being honest.
I’m afraid that if marxists like yourself ever take control of this country, the whole world will descend into poverty, famine and worldwide conflict due to your forced attempt to redistribute wealth and destroy any incentive to create of it.
As to your first propaganda response: War is politics by other means… and politics is war by other means… you don’t have to kill people to commit acts of war.
To you question of who is formulating governmental policies:
The Federal Reserve and The Bank of the Settlements, and the global elite groups like CFR, Trilateral Commission and other private organizations.
Is that specific enough?
Marxists, as you call them, are not political, they are interested in economics. Karl Marx was a Sociologist and was interested in the economic inequality and explotation in society.
Calling someone who is militarily motivated to redistribute wealth a Marxist is like calling a nation that invades another a liberator. (Whether it be Russia or The United States)
Karl Marx confessed he was not a Marxist by your usage of the word.
I love that phrase “incentive to create wealth”.
What is that incentive? Why do you need or want wealth? What is it about wealth that is so desirable? What is wrong with everyone sharing the bounty of the world equally? What makes you able to “own” anything? Whether it is land, ideas, seeds, or people… what is the difference?
(here’s a hint: You are afraid of not getting something you think you need or will need in the future. That is a pretty unfaithful motivation for anyone who professes Christianity)
“if marxists like yourself ever take control of this country, the whole world will descend into poverty, famine and worldwide conflict”… OR… there will be no motivation for war, famine or poverty…
LOL! Marxism. Bwaaaahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahha! That is funny.
David, the problem is, there is a kernel of truth to what kcdad says. The Fed, CFR, and other organizations have too much power. That gives talking points to the Marxists, utopians, or whatever you want to call them. Marx, of course, was a crackpot, whose theories have been disproved over and over again. But for those who want to believe we can create a utopia on earth, he is hope. OK, Marx is dead, now it’s Obama, but point is they need a messiah who can lead them to the promised land of “no war, famine, poverty…”. They can’t live with the fact that the world will forever be imperfect.
kcd wrote: As to your first propaganda response: War is politics by other means… and politics is war by other means… you don’t have to kill people to commit acts of war.
Psychobabble.
kcdad wrote: To you question of who is formulating governmental policies:
The Federal Reserve and The Bank of the Settlements, and the global elite groups like CFR, Trilateral Commission and other private organizations.
The more government meddles in private industry, the more private industry meddles in government. Solution – smaller government.BR>
kcdad wrote: I love that phrase “incentive to create wealth”.
What is that incentive? Why do you need or want wealth? What is it about wealth that is so desirable? What is wrong with everyone sharing the bounty of the world equally? What makes you able to “own” anything? Whether it is land, ideas, seeds, or people… what is the difference?
kcdad, to avoid being a hypocrite, you must not have a job, and any charity you receive which exceeds your needs, whether it be monetary or food, shelter, clothing, you must give away. Are you willing to do that? Oh, I know – the “system” makes it impossible to do this. So once those who believe like you do get power, they must force this one everyone. Since you possess the moral arrogance to believe your idea is superior, you know deep down inside that you would force your system on everyone else.
kcdad wrote: (here’s a hint: You are afraid of not getting something you think you need or will need in the future. That is a pretty unfaithful motivation for anyone who professes Christianity)
Biblical Christianity does not pit material things against God, only when material things are held in place of or above God is it a problem. There were many wealthy saints in the Old Testament – Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. And the New Testament – don’t forget Joseph of Arimathea, who donated his own tomb for Jesus.
Christianity is not a call to be a pauper. Some will have wealth and others will not, but we can serve with what we have. America’s wealth means we can give charitably to many nations and we do. If all we did was “share the bounty of the world equally,” no one would work or have incentive to produce more than they’re tasked with. Inevitably rising population would lead to famine and poverty. Read the story of the Pilgrims and how they tried a form of communism and how it failed. Thanksgiving came after they learned their lesson and prospered.
kcdad wrote: “if marxists like yourself ever take control of this country, the whole world will descend into poverty, famine and worldwide conflict”… OR… there will be no motivation for war, famine or poverty…
Find out for yourself, kcdad, where there is armed conflict, famine and poverty. hint: you will not find it in the prosperous free world – Western Europe, Canada, USA, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
Mouse: You sound just like Rush, Hannity and Levin.
You got them down pat.
The solution is smaller economies. Soon there will be no more mom and pop stores and everything you want comes from 4 or 5 corporations (like our media outlets now)…
Jesus didn’t say sell everything you have and follow me? He didn’t say take just a cloak and a walking stick…? (Oh that’s right, you are talking about Christianity, not the teachings of Jesus)
I’m a teacher… you want to compare paychecks and lifestyles? (Don’t give me away NewVoice)
Oh my… no poverty, disease or hunger in The U.S. of A. !!!! I missed that mountain leaping into the sea!
You more likely to me killed in Detroit or Philadelphia then in Baghdad or Mogadishu.
Marx was a genius. What was he wrong about? He observed and described the Industrial Revolution. He described the rise of Corporate Imperialism to replace national imperialism, he described wage slavery and the loss of dignity and worth of labor, he described the preeminence of money and its eventual worthlessness…
Look at globalization, the paycheck to paycheck existence of the working class (and not better for the middle class, the rise and fall of unions, the removal of any real standard to the value of the dollar… making money a commodity to be bought and sold (???).
Marx was right on.
kcdad wrote: The solution is smaller economies. Soon there will be no more mom and pop stores and everything you want comes from 4 or 5 corporations (like our media outlets now)…
Okay, explain how this will be accomplished.
kcdad wrote; Jesus didn’t say sell everything you have and follow me?
The story is found in Matthew 19:16-30. It’s the one that starts with the Rich Young Ruler approaching Jesus, asking him, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to inherit eternal life?” The Rich Young Ruler was trying to attain righteousness through good works, but knew something was missing. Jesus knew his thoughts and heart and tested him by saying he must attain absolute perfection to make it to heaven through his own works, hence, the answer, “…go sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Since the Rich Young Ruler had great wealth he was not willing to give up, he went away saddened. Jesus then explains to his disciples that it’s impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven likely due to their tendency to place their lifelong safety and security in their wealth rather than placing their faith in the Saviour, but he did not leave the Rich doomed to eternity in hell; He explained, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
kcdad wrote: He didn’t say take just a cloak and a walking stick…?
I think you mean Luke 9:1-9, in which Jesus tells his disciples to go out and preach the kingdowm of God, but in telling them, “Take nothing for the journey-no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic,” He wanted them to depend on the people in whose homes they’d stay. The order is specific to this particular journey and not a general command for everyone for all time.
kcdad wrote: (Oh that’s right, you are talking about Christianity, not the teachings of Jesus)
There you go again 🙂
kcdad wrote: I’m a teacher…
I always knew there were marxists teaching in our public schools…now I have proof
kcdad wrote: you want to compare paychecks and lifestyles?.
Your annual pay is $10,000 more than mine.
kcdad wrote: Oh my… no poverty, disease or hunger in The U.S. of A. !!!! I missed that mountain leaping into the sea!
Free market economies does not absolutely prevent all poverty, but the “poor” in these countries are usually limited to single mothers, drug addicts and/or those with mental issues. Opportunity abounds. Our “poor” would be considered kings by the folks in Bangladesh! And there lies the difference
kcdad wrote: You more likely to me killed in Detroit or Philadelphia then in Baghdad or Mogadishu.
And what do Detroit and Philadelphia have in common? Hint: leftist mayors…and the former’s recently spent a night in jail. What do they not have in common with Baghdad? Answer: U. S. Marines to take care of the problem.
There you go again, giving all of the credits to the Marines…
so kcdad you are this reno and the blagblogren or whatmawhosie. good for you to finally identificate your authentify.
Jordan:”Find out for yourself, kcdad, where there is armed conflict, famine and poverty. hint: you will not find it in the prosperous free world – Western Europe, Canada, USA, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, etc.”
Jordan again: “Free market economies does not absolutely prevent all poverty, but the “poor” in these countries are usually limited to single mothers, drug addicts and/or those with mental issues. Opportunity abounds. Our “poor” would be considered kings by the folks in Bangladesh! And there lies the difference”
Stand by for more of the comedy stylings of Jordan!
islmalishaf32: WTF? “so kcdad you are this reno and the blagblogren or whatmawhosie. good for you to finally identificate your authentify.”
Is this some kind of Kaballa, secret Bible code or something?
kcdad wrote: Stand by for more of the comedy stylings of Jordan!
As long as you stay up there in the peanut gallery 🙂
I’m on the front lines, buddy. I heckle from the front row.