Russia/Georgia back to war...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by kermitology

To quote Bush..


“In a statement at the White House, President George W Bush accused Russia of “bullying and intimidation”, saying it was an unacceptable “way to conduct foreign policy in the 21st Century”.”


Yup..

Oh, darn. Bush should have said nothing instead.

In fact, what do you expect him to say? Tell Russia that because the US apparently 'bullied and intimidated' countries throughout the world, its alright for Russia to do the same thing?

You do realize that Bush being strong in this regard, only sets the foundation for the next President? Right now he's not acting for his own good, but for the good of the United States. If Georgia is a US ally, they have the responsibility to defend Georgia. Even against Russia. Fighting a verbal war is part of that.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Azure

Oh, darn. Bush should have said nothing instead.

In fact, what do you expect him to say? Tell Russia that because the US apparently 'bullied and intimidated' countries throughout the world, its alright for Russia to do the same thing?

You do realize that Bush being strong in this regard, only sets the foundation for the next President? Right now he's not acting for his own good, but for the good of the United States. If Georgia is a US ally, they have the responsibility to defend Georgia. Even against Russia. Fighting a verbal war is part of that.

I don't disagree that he's saying what he should given that Georgia is a US ally. What I have a problem with is that he's saying this after having started a war that's now been going on longer than the second world war lasted, to dispose of a leader that, while certainly evil and not democratically elected, the United States had no business in disposing of.

South Ossetia declared it's independence from Georgia, and the Russians are their allies in this war. Georgia declared war on Russia, commenced hostilities during ceasefire and Russia responded with force.

Now the argument has been made that the dissension in South Ossetia was with Russian support, but then what do you consider any of the United States support of opposition? The point is South Ossetia doesn't want to be part of Georgia.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Russia invaded immediately. If they truly had already heard any horror stories from the break away provinces they certainly didn't take any time to confirm anything before invading.

Because amongst others it was Russian soldiers being attacked.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

How does this give Russia the right to issue passports to foreign citizens who happen to be rebelling against their government? It doesn't. Clearly Russia is interested in expanding its territory.

Because the foreign citizens don't consider themselves foreign citizens? The vast majority voted for being an autonomous republic in the Russian federation.

It's nothing new and not exclusive. e.g. People in Northern Ireland can carry Irish passports even though they're under UK rule.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I don't disagree that he's saying what he should given that Georgia is a US ally. What I have a problem with is that he's saying this after having started a war that's now been going on longer than the second world war lasted, to dispose of a leader that, while certainly evil and not democratically elected, the United States had no business in disposing of.

And you know damn well none of that has anything to do with this conflict.

South Ossetia declared it's independence from Georgia, and the Russians are their allies in this war. Georgia declared war on Russia, commenced hostilities during ceasefire and Russia responded with force.

True, but you left out a lot of details. Each country accuses the other of breaking the ceasefire, which is why I said earlier that we need an outside viewpoint to really know whats going on there.

Now the argument has been made that the dissension in South Ossetia was with Russian support, but then what do you consider any of the United States support of opposition? The point is South Ossetia doesn't want to be part of Georgia.

Did the US ever condemn Ossetia for anything? IIRC, all they ever did was tell Russia to back off.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Did the US ever condemn Ossetia for anything?

No, but they rejected its referendum where 99% voted for independence. Hardly a case of recognising democracy.

I think the issue being raised is a lot of double standards and inconsistancies. Why recognise Kosovo and reject Ossetia?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Oh, darn. Bush should have said nothing instead

Well, no--he probably said exactly what he could say under the circumstances. But this situation has exposed the weakness of the US on the international scene. For Bush to be wagging his finger at Putin for doing something that he himself arguably did is not just hypocritical (which I take to be kermitology's point)--it's kind of pathetic. It shows how much American international influence has fallen since the invasion of Iraq. To make matters worse, France now has more influence over the actions of Russia than the U.S. does--which is a realization that has to sting for the neocons.

In fact, what do you expect him to say? Tell Russia that because the US apparently 'bullied and intimidated' countries throughout the world, its alright for Russia to do the same thing?

I think that is what Russia is implicitly saying. But who knows, they may have done this anyway. Putin is one person who has nothing to lose in this situation. His international reputation is already terrible, so it's not like it can get worse--and he knows that the U.S. can't do anything about it, either diplomatically or militarily, because on both fronts they're currently very weak.

You do realize that Bush being strong in this regard, only sets the foundation for the next President? Right now he's not acting for his own good, but for the good of the United States. If Georgia is a US ally, they have the responsibility to defend Georgia. Even against Russia. Fighting a verbal war is part of that.

Bush isn't "being strong." He's issuing "strongly worded statements." From a president who historically prefers action to words, this shows how far he has fallen from his high point in early 2002.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Azure

And you know damn well none of that has anything to do with this conflict.

Did the US ever condemn Ossetia for anything? IIRC, all they ever did was tell Russia to back off.

Iowa is correct. My point is that it is hypocritical and sets a double standard for Bush to criticize Russia in this compared to his own behaviour in the past six years.

In supporting Georgia and Gerogia's insistence that they not lose any territory whatsoever, the United States is not supporting the decision of South Ossetia to break away from Georgia.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, no--he probably said exactly what he could say under the circumstances. But this situation has exposed the weakness of the US on the international scene. For Bush to be wagging his finger at Putin for doing something that he himself arguably did is not just hypocritical (which I take to be kermitology's point)--it's kind of pathetic. It shows how much American international influence has fallen since the invasion of Iraq. To make matters worse, France now has more influence over the actions of Russia than the U.S. does--which is a realization that has to sting for the neocons.

All a matter of perspective. From the US perspective they are promoting democracy in Iraq and Russia is trying to impose totalitarianism. Most Americans (especially Neocons) will never see those as being the same thing or hypocritical.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

It shows how much American international influence has fallen since the invasion of Iraq. To make matters worse, France now has more influence over the actions of Russia than the U.S. does--which is a realization that has to sting for the neocons.

I'm not sure why the US would have influence over Russia or when they ever did. Last time I checked they were bitter rivals. Russia may have been in trouble for the last while and not able to influence the world like they once did. Now that Russia is on the upswing again that will all change.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Bush isn't "being strong." He's issuing "strongly worded statements." From a president who historically prefers action to words, this shows how far he has fallen from his high point in early 2002.

Actions simply are not a possibility in this conflict. Way too much risk of open warfare with Russia.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

To make matters worse, France now has more influence over the actions of Russia than the U.S. does.

I would substitute "France" for "the EU". I think the only reason France is a player in this is because they (Sarkozy) currently hold the rotating EU presidency.

[Azure]

nm, not worth it considering the reply.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Iowa is correct. My point is that it is hypocritical and sets a double standard for Bush to criticize Russia in this compared to his own behaviour in the past six years.

No he is not correct. Right now the US has to get involved diplomatically. That is EXACTLY what they are doing. What happened 6 years ago doesn't matter.

Again, both of you are insane if you expect anything else.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Azure

No he is not correct. Right now the US has to get involved diplomatically. That is EXACTLY what they are doing. What happened 6 years ago doesn't matter.

What happened 6 years ago has EVERYTHING to do with this.

6 years ago Bush ignored the UN security council and the UN charter to invade Iraq.

To quote Kofi Annan: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the U.N. charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

What happened 6 years ago greatly affected America's credibility re. diplomacy in the rest of the Western World. 6 years ago showed that the US will ignore the UN for it own self-interests.

And it could be argued that they're not getting involved diplomatically. All I'm hearing at the moment is threats of repercussions to the Russians and blatant support to the Georgians. Not to mention that Bush doesn't even seem to understand the terms of the peace plan.

"Russia's vision of Georgia without the provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia was a nonstarter, the president said.

These regions are a part of Georgia and the international community has repeatedly made clear that they will remain so," said Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at his side. "There's no room for debate on this matter."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26237382/

Maybe he should get Condy to sit him down and read him the 6th term of the ceasefire that she witnessed again.

International talks about future status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia

So ...... either he's saying he doesn't recognise the peace plan signed by both countries or doesn't understand it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

No he is not correct. Right now the US has to get involved diplomatically. That is EXACTLY what they are doing. What happened 6 years ago doesn't matter.

Again, both of you are insane if you expect anything else.

Apparently we have different definitions of insane. I personally think it's insane to not see how this conflict has exposed Bush's diplomatic weakness--and that weakness IS a direct result of things that happened 6 years ago.

He's been portrayed as a "cowboy," an autocrat, a "strong leader," the list goes on. In the final analysis, however, he's been exposed as what he truly is: an out-of-his-depth frat boy.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Azure

No he is not correct. Right now the US has to get involved diplomatically. That is EXACTLY what they are doing. What happened 6 years ago doesn't matter.

Again, both of you are insane if you expect anything else.

Seriously. How can anyone argue any differently. The US is doing everything that they practically can given their alliance with Georgia and the other side happens to be the country with the most nuclear warheads in the world.

I really don't understand the point of some of these posts. Your saying that since the US invaded Iraq they should never get involved in another international conflict again?

As for hypocritical, it really depends on how you look at it. You could also argue that it would be hypocritical for the US not to get involved, since that is what they were doing in Iraq. Some posters seem to be arguing both ways.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Apparently we have different definitions of insane. I personally think it's insane to not see how this conflict has exposed Bush's diplomatic weakness--and that weakness IS a direct result of things that happened 6 years ago.

He's been portrayed as a "cowboy," an autocrat, a "strong leader," the list goes on. In the final analysis, however, he's been exposed as what he truly is: an out-of-his-depth frat boy.

I really don't see how this is happening at all. We have to remember that this time he is dealing with RUSSIA. The second biggest military power in the world. The country with the most nuclear warheads in the world.

The US and the West in general have used this opportunity to form new alliances with former Russian states. What more do you expect?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7566070.stm.

The US just signed a massive defence deal with Poland using former Soviet bases:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7562425.stm

I'm not sure how you see this as a political failure?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Apparently we have different definitions of insane. I personally think it's insane to not see how this conflict has exposed Bush's diplomatic weakness--and that weakness IS a direct result of things that happened 6 years ago.

He's been portrayed as a "cowboy," an autocrat, a "strong leader," the list goes on. In the final analysis, however, he's been exposed as what he truly is: an out-of-his-depth frat boy.

Apparently we have a different definition of what is happening.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. THAT is what YOU are saying.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by blankall

Seriously. How can anyone argue any differently. The US is doing everything that they practically can given their alliance with Georgia and the other side happens to be the country with the most nuclear warheads in the world.

I really don't understand the point of some of these posts. Your saying that since the US invaded Iraq they should never get involved in another international conflict again?

As for hypocritical, it really depends on how you look at it. You could also argue that it would be hypocritical for the US not to get involved, since that is what they were doing in Iraq. Some posters seem to be arguing both ways.

That is exactly how I see it.

Bush is doing the right thing here. But people are jumping on him for it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by blankall

I really don't see how this is happening at all. We have to remember that this time he is dealing with RUSSIA. The second biggest military power in the world. The country with the most nuclear warheads in the world.

The US and the West in general have used this opportunity to form new alliances with former Russian states. What more do you expect?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7566070.stm.

The US just signed a massive defence deal with Poland using former Soviet bases:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7562425.stm

I'm not sure how you see this as a political failure?

I think there is one of the instances where BDS comes into play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Apparently we have a different definition of what is happening.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. THAT is what YOU are saying.

Not really--and I think with all due respect that you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying that what Bush is doing right now is wrong. I'm saying that the same actions might be more effective if he had not damaged the credibility of the U.S. along with their international reputation and used up every shred of his political capital abroad on what amounted to a wild goose chase--in the process (and this is important) defining it as the doctrine of the United States that they will go out and preemptively attack anyone they want in order to protect their own security.

I sort of feel like your assumption is that international relations takes place in a closed system in which every circumstance offers a finite set of options, and the results of a choice are always the same no matter what has happened in the past. This just isn't the case. Bush's reputation matters--who is in his circle of friends matters. How much influence he has matters in a situation like this. A situation like this is exactly why the so-called "Bush doctrine" was such a serious strategic blunder that winds up being contrary to U.S. interests in the long run.

If you don't think part of what Putin is doing right now is thumbing his nose at Bush.... I'm not sure what will convince you. Remember, this is the guy that Bush thought was his buddy not too long ago. The guy's out of his depth, Azure. I think even you can admit that now, with only a few months left in his presidency.

[Azure]

You think Putin wouldn't 'thumb his nose' at Obama? Seriously?

I actually don't believe he is doing that in the first place. We don't know what is going on behind closed doors.