Comments for Mixed Truth of the Russia-Georgia War »
Posted By populist 1 year, 4 months ago in NewsDespite significant U.S. and Georgian culpability in the crisis in Georgia, most U.S. politicians and media painted Russia as the diabolical “evildoer.”
Read Full Story at consortiumnews.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 36
-
100%
jordan111 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080812-US-plays-a-shadowy-hand-in-Georgian-conflict.html
Reply -
83%
rightfromwrong1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
just like they painted Al Qaeda as diabolical. The Bush administration didn't tell the people that there were no WMD in Iraq and no Saddam linkage to Al Qaeda. The bush administration should have told the American people that they were going to investigate 9/11 but didn't want ot as it would have pointed right back to me. No doubt in was a Pentagon "black ops" gig all the way.
Reply -
100%
dissent1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"But despite their tough pre-election public posturing, some U.S. politicians acknowledge privately that the U.S. friend Saakashvili might be a loose cannon. That they take for granted that the United States should be reflexively supporting him anyway vis-à-vis Russia is troubling."
Reply
better take mickey s for a long drive, soprano-style. condi will take the back seat. if they don't vlad will do it for them -
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Okay, unless your country is one of the following:
Reply
The United Kingdom
Canada
Australia
South America in general (US sphere of influence and all, I realize its a continent, but limited room on the list)
Sweden (maybe)
Norway (maybe)
France (maybe)
Japan (maybe)
South Korea (maybe)
Do not depend on an alliance with the United States, at least on military issues. Toss a coin and depending on how it lands, is whether you'll get aid or not. So its NOT a smart idea to provoke the really big country to the north.-
100%
skeek1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think what determines US military involvement is even simpler than this. Avarice and power. It's the question, "What's in it for America?"
Reply
For example, I see that you have Australia on your list, however when Australia "liberated" East Timor from Indonesian occupation (a liberation that also resulted in several lucrative oil deals for Australia) and requested US military assistance, America declined.
The stated reason was that it believed that Australia was more than capable. The likely truth, however, is that the US also has several economic and military interests in Indonesia dating back to the 60's with the overthrow of Sukarno in a military coup, the installation of Suharto and the 'purging' of tens of thousands of communists. An act of war crimes in which America was complicit.-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I was thinking more of a scenario more akin to Georgia, in which the country is invaded. Most of the places I listed have either strategic or economic ties to the United States.
Reply
An interesting aspect of the United States is the difference in the general public and the people. Most are not very forceful and don't believe in invading sovereign nations for economic interests. Every single election it is promised that this will not happen, no more nation building and so on. Even Bush promised this in 2000. Every single election, just about, the promise is broken. The third parties are completely excluded from the process, virtually ignored, and its a sad thing. The majority of Americans want these parties included in the process and a few of them are well known, except for their positions on issues; just how each of the major parties wants it. Only once in recent memory has a non-Dem/Republican done anything in a general election, and that was Ross Perot.
The parties don't reflect the populace at all, or even what they were originally founded as.-
100%
CHAM1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
mdiar. You have identified the problem. The third parties, the independent parties, assure themselves that they will have no say.
Reply
Why?
Because they won't organize into an Independent coalition.
If we Independents ever do that, we can start to take our country back.
If we continue to refuse to organize, we'll always get more of the same.-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yup. I keep waiting for Obama to do the smart thing and insist Barr gets into the debates. With a bit of pro-Barr rhetoric, Barr donations can go up and he can get some ad time in a few places... hopefully eventually getting him into the debates. I'd say McCain should do the same with McKinney, except I don't think he can afford too. Democrats are not going to be voting Green this time around, like they may have done in the past in protest. Obama should also push for the Constitutional Party to get into the debates, and I think that would make McCain lose all social conservative support and pro-free market liberals. The Constitutional Party would basically eat up all the social conservatives (in theory) and the Libertarians the classical liberals.
Reply
Unfortunately, its way to much in both parties favor to exclude them from the process altogether. Combined Independents and third parties make up more votes then the Republicans and almost as much as the Democrats.
I wish we still had the Bull Moose Party... -
-
-
Neutral
skeek1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If that's the case what does that actually say about the effectiveness of your democracy? I take it you're saying it's impotent and farcical. A pretense. I think we can probably agree on that.
Reply
Unfortunately, it's not only Americans that have to live with the consequences of it. We all do in some form or other.-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Most democracies are farces, at the end of the day.
Reply
Take the Czech Republic. 70% disapprove of the missile shield, yet it is still there.
How many people in the United Kingdom wished to go into Iraq?
You may say the United States "forced" it onto them, yet at the same time, the legislatures still accepted it.
I could go on.
Those who control the show are those who have the means to do so in every culture, contrary to what the people wish for. Places that claim to be "democracies" simply ask the opinion of the people beforehand and, on occasion, do as they are told.
Besides, the idea of the United States as a single nation is a myth. The United States standing army is an illegal organization under American law, as well. Or the funding of said army is illegal. The United States as a democracy, even in name, is a myth. It is like the European Union... an organization composed of member-states that claim democracy as a form of governance.
I promise you, if we remove the United States from the seat it possesses, you will simply have another country or organization arise. It has been like this since the fall or Rome or before. It is simply the nature of civilization.-
100%
skeek1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wouldn't put the Czech Republic in quite the same category as the United States, nor even the UK for that matter, as much as it wishes it was, again.
Reply
Aside from the obvious imperial power it is 'democracy' itself that is now the justification for that imperial action by the US, just as 'Christianity' was for other empires only a few short centuries ago.
It's true that imperial rule is the nature of this world as history shows, but unfortunately the world is not so accommodating as it once was. We have over-population, global warming and a generally rapidly deteriorating environment on many levels. This is only further complicated by war technology that is so lethal today it could not even have been imagined just a century ago.
It's fair to say that the extreme nature of these factors when coupled with human nature's appetite for dominating, subjugating and exploiting others doesn't offer much hope of any kind of future for any of us. I would hope that our intelligence en masse could recognise this and seek to have us evolve beyond imperialism, but the odds are against it. Still, I live in hope. I'd rather this than simply resign myself to it. My conscience couldn't allow it.-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I used the Czech Republic as an example that democracy is a farce... not on imperialism. Imperialism is a foreign policy, democracy is a form of government. Most "democracies" are really democratic republics and thus, will not truly reflect the will of the people.
Reply
I have my own theory of history... when an empire falls, those who have the ability will seek to make a new empire. In the future the prime contenders for this are China, Russia, the European Union (I'd watch that one closely, if history is an indicator) and India. Just as when the British Empire fell, something has to fill this void and at first it will be civil unrest and war. Then Empire to provide stability.
I believe the best answer to this question is for most democratic republics to become more democratic. Keep the legislatures, but strip them of their most damning powers in the ability to declare war and alter the structure of their government. Allocate these powers, not to the United Nations (which would then just become another legislature), but to the people of the country in question in a direct vote. I think this would quickly evaporate the influence of people who steer countries toward empire for their own gain. Its a simple solution, but one that would be almost impossible to implement.
Eventually I'd also work towards a global state with extremely limited powers. The powers would primarily deal with pollution, international trade and humanitarian issues as well as a variety of civil rights involving freedom of speech primarily as well as the press. The goal would be to not impinge on sovereignty, at least as much as possible, while making life better for many people and tackling serious issues involving the world in total.
I think you may be surprised to learn that most Americans share most of the concerns you do... though they also insist that they aren't on the level Britain was. Most are of a non-interventionist attitude... few true imperialists exist among the general populace. They are a good people and are full of contradictions on just about every single issue. Somehow they manage to be multicultural and provincial at the same time, for example.-
100%
david_nwpa1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Mdiar, I agree with most of your points, however, you ignore that some nations, such as China, pay lipservice to certain human rights in much the same way the United States does. For example, China claims to have freedom of religion and speech, but oppresses anyone who actually observes them. In the United States, we claim to have the right to life; however, we have a death row in most states and at the federal and military levels of our justice system.
Reply
Other nations which promote right to life not only disbanded the death penalty, but also provide other social services to people such that they can afford to live. Consider Sweden and Germany's social services for new parents.
Examples of the kind of democracy you have described do exist on the planet. In particular, look at Switzerland. It has a Federal Council which is directly elected by the people. If a need arises which a sufficient number of people deem should be decided by the masses, a petition is gathered and certified by the Federal Council. Once certified, a plebiscite is called, and the people vote on the matter. Elections are held in Switzerland at the national level far more frequently. In older parts of Switzerland, the people gather in town squares and voice their opinions in an open forum. All of the townsfolk then vote up or down on the issues facing them. I realize the scale of Switzerland's size is far smaller than the US or UK. However, they have a "purer" form of democracy at work.
The key to the article is that Russia is not the enemy and is not the evil to which we have ascribed them. They defended break away regions much as we did with Kosovo. In previous conflicts, we brokered deals such that these two autonomous regions could hold their own elections to determine independence. Why are we not working that diplomatic angle once more?-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Whoops, sorry, I actually went off on a tangent in these posts, not really related to the article.
Reply
Switzerland was a bit more of what I had in mind, for the most part.
I think its pretty clear from my post that I'm rather pro-globalism and, in a true global state, the ability to enforce certain human rights would be within the strength of a global community. Of course this requires alot of the world, including the United States, to grow up.
I'm a big fan of social services in most things, including for new parents. I think in some places areas like Sweden have gone to far and in other things not far enough. I see no need to nationalize something like alcohol (which, according to a few Swedish friends of mine, has been nationalized) or things along those lines. However, I'd probably be for better social programs and community work projects for the unemployed in which they are paid a fair sum. I like the idea of internet for everybody and its rather easy to implement. I also think college/university level education should be far more available then it is now.
I rarely actually discuss my true political views because they are very far from mainstream. I'd rather not get into arguments that serve no purpose. These tend to be part of it. Essentially it neuters the government in several key areas while, at the same time, promotes a well educated and healthy society.
I don't really believe any country on this planet is our enemy. I believe that economic interests that exist within a country is the enemy of freedom, as this leads to imperialism in some fashion. My main thrusts were that simply attacking and speaking out against the United States, in general, don't serve the final purpose of addressing what creates this imperialism in the first place. Remove the United States and the other powers of the world battle it out to determine the replacement. However, if we can find a way to effectively neuter the ability of these economic interests to control a nation's ability to go to war, then you perhaps fix the issue. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
BB641 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are you talking about nations that owe their freedom to the actions of the United States? Then that would be almost all of the nations on earth today including Russia, China and even North Korea. If you're talking about the nations protected by having the USA as a big brother or nations now free of the Iron Curtain, you'd have to add Germany, Poland, Czech and Slovak Republics, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Greece, Turkey to name a few.
Reply
-
-
67%
nikkibabe1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The axis of evil is in Washington DC. Bush, Rice, Cheney, Powell.
Reply
. invaded, destroyed and occupied Iraq
. Law breakers, domestic, international and Geneva convention
. Instigated and re-started cold war in Europe
. Destroyed the US economy, US$ and US moral standing around the world.
What is your wish for these criminals when they finally leave on1/20/2009?-
0%
BB641 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, when you consider the violations of the peace accords of 1990, the USA had multiple reasons for taking him down. Oil for Weapons, I mean palaces, oh that's right for Food. As to the other nonsense, we didn't restart the cold war. Czar Putin did that when they resumed the bomber patrols and incursions over Canada and Alaska.
Reply
The Czar sent troops into Georgia as an excuse. This was a long planned out attack. Russia or the Soviet Union never was able to move that quickly. This was a build up for attack simply because army commanders are not trusted when it comes to extra supplies. They have a tendency to sell off the excess on the black market. Putin had this in the works for some time and used this as an excuse to send a message to their former serfdoms. Follow our laws or we will kill you and take away your children. Good Hitlerian move. If you like dictators, which this author and you clearly prefer.
-
-
-
100%
david_nwpa1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can understand the need to protect the Ukraine with its vast pipelines not only of oil, but natural gas, which supply much of Western Europe. However, the diplomacy between the Germans and Russia which involve running a pipeline under the North Sea bypassing Poland and Sweden could provide sufficient fuel without having to admit Ukraine to NATO. The point of the article is well-taken. Why support Kosovo but not Abkhazia? Why cheer on Georgia and not protect South Ossetia? We need a leader in Washington who knows the difference between our friends and our allies.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
0%
TonyByron1 year, 4 months ago
-
50%
BB641 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I hope I'm wrong too. I'm too old to go back to active duty. That plus my ship's been retired a little too long. The former slave colonies of Russia certainly are expressing concern along with many of the former Warsaw pack nations. No one wants to be under the jackboots of Russia again. Putin is one guy that scares me. When I've been to Russia over the years, there's been many reports of his unhappiness with the way the USSR collapsed. I really think he's trying to rebuild it again. Being former KGB I'm not sure if it would be the USSR part 2 or a new Imperial Russia. I hope I'm wrong but if we don't take a stand now, we may be fighting later.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
50%
BB641 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm confused by the author's intentions. He's defending the Russian attack on a separate nation to "defend" Russians living in that territory. Georgia was an independent nation before Russia invaded and then moved people into those areas. Very much the same claims Hitler made on Czechoslovakia and the "Sudden" Germans. They were moved during the Kaiser's time. Putin like Hitler decided to be the "liberator". So he ordered his army into Georgia and proceeded to kill, maim and destroy. The best was when he seized US army equipment prepared for shipping back to the USA.
Reply
Another question on the author's integrity, has to do with Czar Putin and what he's done to Chechnya. This was a break away region that was much like South Ossetia except instead of the Russians "defending" a breakaway region, they basically crushed the resistance, committed acts of genocide and then proceeded to ship the survivors to the sunny regions of Northern Siberia for job training or something. I'd say Soviets or the new Imperial Russians need to explain themselves and get out of Georgia without conditions. -
0%
saneman1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A striking resemblance between Kim Hunter's makeup as Dr. Zira in the original Planet of the Apes in 1968 (http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003461/) and Condolezza Rice. Simply look at their mug shots. Incredible. Of course, the Neocon's have this Better-Than-Though attitude. Heck, I have worked with plenty.
Reply
Now I know why Charleton Heston loved Condolezza Rice.-
0%
BB641 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We're talking about a rather serious topic and you, an ignorant liberal drag down the discussion. If you can't contribute here, you can find a different site having a love fest for Obama you could participate in. I'm sure they can alway use another yes man on staff.
Reply-
Neutral
saneman1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LIberal? ROFLMAO! Obviously, you aren't very bright. In reality, I don't care about Russia, Georgia, Darfur, Iraq, Iran, Israel, etc. Do you get the drift. As a Libertarian, I don't CARE. In addition, I really only care about people who have enough brains to invent and patent their inventions which means I don't care about you.
Reply
-
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.