Why Not Belarus?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Looger

has everyone forgotten the 1980s or something?

american adventurism in central america, death squads, autocratic regimes, strongmen, civil war, well it looks exactly like iraq does today.

this 'sudden switch' of the united states in peoples minds, boggles me.

I agree, the USA has been crossing the line for ages but there have been times when they do seem to act ethically or at least they try to portray themselves that way. I'm thinking more of their open flaunting of the Geneva Convention in treating prisoners. A new low, perhaps brought on by their determination to win this time.

[vanisleflamesfan]

I think that the 'Western' governments that are in the business of inciting 'regime change' are finding themselves a tad over committed in terms of their military right now...

[Knut]

Simple.. it is strategic...

Keep local unrest in all these areas surrounding Russia and then Russia has to deal with these areas before looking outward. Whether pro-western or pro-russian these areas still want their independance. Pro-russian states will eventually grow tired of Russia's meddling. Pro-western states will be further polarized from Russia as they are constantly having Russia attempt to manipulate them.

If you keep Russia spread thin in the area's surrounding it their power will be diluted and they would not be able to pull their weight around.

Eventually, there is going to be a re-emergence of civil war in Southern Russia in the Chechnyan region. There are alot of poor states there, and alot of people with pent up rage. Russia is going to be forced to pull forces from Belarus, Kazhakstan, Georgia, Ukraine etc. and that is when those nations will be ripe for Western influence. Especially once nations like Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and others complete their move into the EU. Let the cultural influence bleed East.

Basically, you want to keep Russia as busy as possible for as long as possible and then Russia can say whatever it wants, but wont be able to do a damn thing about it.

And like people said before, these nations are not really a threat to national security. Remember, Russia hates terrorists too.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I agree, the USA has been crossing the line for ages but there have been times when they do seem to act ethically or at least they try to portray themselves that way. I'm thinking more of their open flaunting of the Geneva Convention in treating prisoners. A new low, perhaps brought on by their determination to win this time.

i have no doubt that the facilitators and soldiers, the ones who build schools, who feed the hungry, and protect the innocent, believe that they're trying to win. they're the ones living in fear, they're the ones losing friends, they're the ones on the firing line.

but absolutely all top-down policy decisions, from the immediate disbandment of the iraqi army to the recruitment of saddam's worst, from the mind-boggingly stupid strategic decisions like the multiple retakings and abandonments of fallujah or the use of willie-pete chemical weapons by iraqi and US forces, from the lies used to start the war and the ridiculous justifications afterward, all of this leaves one with a pretty simple conclusion:

either, we are dealing with the stupidest foreign policy decision-making of all time, or, considering exactly what interests are at stake in this administration, the smartest.

this war is meant to go on for a good long while.

and yes, it will definitely spark change in the mid-east.

change for the worst, unless you are an oil company exec or an arms dealer. and especially if you're a farm-boy from iowa trying to scrape together some college money.

[Vulcan]

Thanks for the post Hesla. It gave me a new slant on the troubles in former Soviet states.

What you're saying Looger is the same old, same old. Something I wasn't about to equate Iraq with Viet Nam so closely. In the 50's their was a newspaper cartoon character called General Bullmoose. His favorite saying was "Whats good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA". I think he portrayed a retired general now working for the 'Military Industrial Complex', a term I don't hear anymore.
Here's where the charachter's idea came from.
"Charles E. Wilson, the former head of General Motors and Secretary of Defense under Dwight Eisenhower. In 1952. Wilson told a Senate subcomittee, 'What is good for the country is good for General Motors, and what's good for General Motors is good for the country.' "

Just change a few names around and here we are. Sad really.