Boycott Georgia!

JosephTheLibertarian said:
lol
Click to expand...

August 15, 2008
Blowback From Bear-Baiting


by Patrick J. Buchanan

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.After shelling and attacking what he claims is his own country, killing scores of his own Ossetian citizens and sending tens of thousands fleeing into Russia, Saakashvili's army was whipped back into Georgia in 48 hours.Vladimir Putin took the opportunity to kick the Georgian army out of Abkhazia, as well, to bomb Tbilisi, and to seize Gori, birthplace of Stalin.Reveling in his status as an intimate of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and John McCain, and America's lone democratic ally in the Caucasus, Saakashvili thought he could get away with a lightning coup and present the world with a fait accompli.Mikheil did not reckon on the rage or resolve of the Bear.American charges of Russian aggression ring hollow. Georgia started this fight – Russia finished it. People who start wars don't get to decide how and when they end.Russia's response was "disproportionate" and "brutal," wailed Bush.True. But did we not authorize Israel to bomb Lebanon for 35 days in response to a border skirmish where several Israel soldiers were killed and two captured? Was that not many times more "disproportionate"?Russia has invaded a sovereign country, railed Bush. But did not the United States bomb Serbia for 78 days and invade to force it to surrender a province, Kosovo, to which Serbia had a far greater historic claim than Georgia had to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, both of which prefer Moscow to Tbilisi?Is not Western hypocrisy astonishing?When the Soviet Union broke into 15 nations, we celebrated. When Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Montenegro, and Kosovo broke from Serbia, we rejoiced. Why, then, the indignation when two provinces, whose peoples are ethnically separate from Georgians and who fought for their independence, should succeed in breaking away?Are secessions and the dissolution of nations laudable only when they advance the agenda of the neocons, many of whom viscerally detest Russia?That Putin took the occasion of Saakashvili's provocative and stupid stunt to administer an extra dose of punishment is undeniable. But is not Russian anger understandable? For years the West has rubbed Russia's nose in her Cold War defeat and treated her like Weimar Germany.When Moscow pulled the Red Army out of Europe, closed its bases in Cuba, dissolved the evil empire, let the Soviet Union break up into 15 states, and sought friendship and alliance with the United States, what did we do?American carpetbaggers colluded with Muscovite Scalawags to loot the Russian nation. Breaking a pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev, we moved our military alliance into Eastern Europe, then onto Russia's doorstep. Six Warsaw Pact nations and three former republics of the Soviet Union are now NATO members.Bush, Cheney, and McCain have pushed to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This would require the United States to go to war with Russia over Stalin's birthplace and who has sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula and Sebastopol, traditional home of Russia's Black Sea fleet.When did these become U.S. vital interests, justifying war with Russia?The United States unilaterally abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty because our technology was superior, then planned to site anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend against Iranian missiles, though Iran has no ICBMs and no atomic bombs. A Russian counter-offer to have us together put an antimissile system in Azerbaijan was rejected out of hand.We built a Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey to cut Russia out. Then we helped dump over regimes friendly to Moscow with democratic "revolutions" in Ukraine and Georgia, and tried to repeat it in Belarus.Americans have many fine qualities. A capacity to see ourselves as others see us is not high among them.Imagine a world that never knew Ronald Reagan, where Europe had opted out of the Cold War after Moscow installed those SS-20 missiles east of the Elbe. And Europe had abandoned NATO, told us to go home and become subservient to Moscow.How would we have reacted if Moscow had brought Western Europe into the Warsaw Pact, established bases in Mexico and Panama, put missile defense radars and rockets in Cuba, and joined with China to build pipelines to transfer Mexican and Venezuelan oil to Pacific ports for shipment to Asia? And cut us out? If there were Russian and Chinese advisers training Latin American armies, the way we are in the former Soviet republics, how would we react? Would we look with bemusement on such Russian behavior?For a decade, some of us have warned about the folly of getting into Russia's space and getting into Russia's face. The chickens of democratic imperialism have now come home to roost – in Tbilisi.COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.





Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=13305
 
JosephTheLibertarian said:
lol
Click to expand...

Crisis in the Caucasus


by Ivan Eland
Despite significant U.S. and Georgian culpability in the crisis in Georgia, most U.S. politicians and media painted Russia as the diabolical "evildoer." As if the Russian military incursions into Georgia, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia – the latter two are autonomous regions of the former that do not want to be part of that country – happened out of the blue, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice implied that Russia was attempting to bring back the Cold War.

Because Georgia is a U.S. friend, however, U.S. politicians, in a huff to heap blame on the resurgent Russian bear, forgot to mention that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili recklessly first invaded South Ossetia to try to reclaim one of the two regions, which both have had long-standing autonomy and populations who want it to stay that way. He did this in part because the U.S. had helped build up his military, leading him to overestimate U.S. backing in any crisis.

Russia had given ample warnings to Saakashvili that if he attempted to grab such lands, he would meet resistance. In addition, the initial Georgian invasion killed Russian soldiers and apparently many civilians. The United States would never tolerate the killing of its military personnel in such a manner.

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. Why should the United States stand behind Saakashvili's aggressive provocation of Russia – a country with thousands of nuclear warheads?

The answer is that contrary to Secretary Rice's implication, Russia is not bringing back the Cold War. In fact, it never ended. After the Soviet Union fell, the United States deliberately took advantage of a weakened Russia to incorporate its former allies and even some former Soviet republics into the NATO alliance. The U.S. even sought and won access to military bases in former Soviet republics in Central Asia. At the time, Russia could do nothing about this perceived hostile alliance moving right up to its current borders. More recently, a stronger Russia – reacting to NATO's flirtation with Ukraine and Georgia for eventual alliance membership and plans for installing U.S. missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic – tightened its relationship with the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Another factor provoking this Russian reaction was the West's recognition of Kosovo – the secessionist province of Serbia, which is a staunch Russian ally – as an independent state. If the U.S. supported self-determination, as enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, for Kosovo, then why not for Georgia's breakaway regions?

Thus, the post-1991 "Cold War Lite" policy that the U.S. has adopted has made Russia feel surrounded, isolated, and threatened, as many opponents of NATO expansion predicted in the 1990s would eventually happen. After all, the U.S. is in Russia's face – that is, in its traditional sphere of influence – and not vice versa. The opponents also correctly predicted if Russia rose again – which they deemed a distinct possibility – the disgruntled bear would put its foot down. That just happened.

This crisis has dragged up larger questions, however. If the U.S. continues to pledge a costly defense of an ever expanding list of NATO allies (currently at 25), at some point, one or more of these small, weak nations in Russia's "near abroad" will embroil the U.S. needlessly in a Cold War-style confrontation with a nuclear-armed power. In this case, if the rash Georgia had already become a NATO member, pressure would have mounted to send U.S. combat troops instead of humanitarian aid to that nation.

Ever more to the point, why is Georgia so important to the United States? The answer is that it is not. Although Russia is unfortunately moving back to autocracy and Georgia is an imperfect democracy, Georgia is a small, weak country not even remotely close to the United States, its sphere of influence, or anything important to the United States.

Some would say that oil pipelines running from the Caspian Sea oil basin through Georgia to Turkey and the Mediterranean matter, but even this argument has been vastly overstated. Caspian Sea oil accounts for only less than four percent of the world's proven oil reserves. But even in the worst case, if Russia would get control of the Georgian portions of these pipelines – in addition to controlling its own pipelines carrying Caspian Sea oil – the Russian economy remains oil-based and in dire need of lucrative revenues from oil transport. Thus, although the Russians might raise the price of transporting Caspian Sea oil through these pipelines, Russia would be unlikely to halt the long-term flow of the petroleum to the world market.

In short, U.S. friend Georgia is hardly on the unambiguous right side of this dispute, was recklessly aggressive (in part because of U.S. military aid and friendship), and is not strategic to the United States. As bad as this crisis is, it could have been worse if Georgia had already been admitted to NATO. This crisis should be a wake-up call that admitting Georgia, Ukraine, or other non-strategic nations in the Russian sphere of influence into NATO could needlessly make Russia even more hostile and start a new, dangerous, and unnecessary Cold War.

http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=13311
 
JosephTheLibertarian said:
1. Why do you want me to go away? Rather preach to the choir? Listen. S. Ossetia or not, Russia invaded GEORGIA and butchered thousands of innocent civilians. They bombed civilan locations! Two wrongs don't make a right!
Click to expand...


Who is Joseph :rolleyes:


pic_02549.jpg
 
Last edited:
DAFTEK said:
Interesting, the only attacks and disrespect on this thread is from a Joseph the so called Liberterian..... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

My politics are libertarian, what in the fuck are you trying to suggest here? I believe in lower taxes, less regulations, eliminate DoE, end the WoT/WoD, and more. If I'm not a libertarian, then you're a communist.

Every libertarian sided with Russia? What a collectivist mentality!
 
JosephTheLibertarian said:
My politics are libertarian, what in the fuck are you trying to suggest here? I believe in lower taxes, less regulations, eliminate DoE, end the WoT/WoD, and more. If I'm not a libertarian, then you're a communist.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, heh, more aggression and personal atacks.......... :eek::rolleyes:
 
DAFTEK said:
Ahhh, heh, more agression and persoanl atacks.......... :eek::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, you did tell me that you're a communist. And you've been replying to every one of my posts with a personal attack. I'm beginning to think you're a troll...or just a very bitter old man.

Ha. Nice spelling :)
 
Libertarians have no politics, by definition. They are apolitical.<IMHO>

A political libertarian is like a theistic atheist.
 
JosephTheLibertarian said:
Well, you did tell me that you're a communist. And you've been replying to every one of my posts with a personal attack. I'm beginning to think you're a troll...or just a very bitter old man.

Ha. Nice spelling :)
Click to expand...

I said i was a communist? I'm a troll? Old? lol wrong on all those attacks, haha..., heh, again your true colors shine bright like others have mentioned on this forum.... You have no respect for anyones view but you're own...
 
DAFTEK said:
I said i was a communist? I'm a troll? Old? lol wrong on all those attacks, haha..., heh, again your true colors shine bright like others have mentioned on this forum.... You have no respect for anyones view but you're own...
Click to expand...

You can dish it, but you can't take it? I see. :D

Well, you did tell me that you're not a libertarian. You can't deny that one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ClaytonB
The American tradition of abolishing central banks
Replies
0
Views
736
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
PAF
Javier Milei Versus the Antiwar Cause
Replies
7
Views
1K
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Brian4Liberty
Did We Provoke Putin’s War in Ukraine?
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
6K
pcosmar
pcosmar
osan
Time Is Here
Replies
0
Views
602
osan
osan
jmdrake
Desantis vs Nikki Haley on the war in Ukraine
Replies
1
Views
350
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Back
Top