-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Russia finishes giving Georgia licking
- Thread starter UShadItComing
- Start date
Werbung:
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
OMG... I hope thats meant to be absurd hyperbole.
UShadItComing
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 680
No general, it's the absolute truth because Shadow is a good and honest person. I'll tell shadow what you are in a p.m.
Shadow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 302
Putin Walks into a Trap 
By Mike Whitney
13/08/08 "ICH" --- - The American-armed and trained Georgian army swarmed into South Ossetia last Thursday, killing an estimated 2,000 civilians, sending 40,000 South Ossetians fleeing over the Russian border, and destroying much of the capital, Tskhinvali. The attack was unprovoked and took place a full 24 hours before even ONE Russian soldier set foot in South Ossetia. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Americans still believe that the Russian army invaded Georgian territory first. The BBC, AP, NPR, the New York Times and the rest of the establishment media has consistently and deliberately misled its readers into believing that the violence in South Ossetia was initiated by the Kremlin. Let's be clear, it wasn't. In truth, there is NO dispute about the facts except among the people who rely the western press for their information. Despite its steady loss of credibility, the corporate media continues to operate as the propaganda-arm of the Pentagon.
Former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev gave a good summary of events in an op-ed in Monday's Washington Post:
"For some time, relative calm was maintained in South Ossetia. The peacekeeping force composed of Russians, Georgians and Ossetians fulfilled its mission, and ordinary Ossetians and Georgians, who live close to each other, found at least some common ground....What happened on the night of Aug. 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas....Mounting a military assault against innocents was a reckless decision whose tragic consequences, for thousands of people of different nationalities, are now clear. The Georgian leadership could do this only with the perceived support and encouragement of a much more powerful force. Georgian armed forces were trained by hundreds of U.S. instructors, and its sophisticated military equipment was bought in a number of countries. This, coupled with the promise of NATO membership, emboldened Georgian leaders into thinking that they could get away with a "blitzkrieg" in South Ossetia..Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against "small, defenseless Georgia" is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity." .("A Path to Peace in the Caucasus", Mikhail Gorbachev, Washington Post)
The question for Americans is whether they trust Mikhail Gorbachev more than the corporate media?
Russia deployed its tanks and troops to South Ossetia to save the lives of civilians and to reestablish the peace. Period. It has no interest in annexing the former-Soviet country or in expanding its present borders. Now that the Georgian army has been routed, Russian president Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin have expressed a willingness to settle the dispute through normal diplomatic channels at the United Nations.Neither leader is under any illusions about Washington's involvement in the hostilities. They know that Georgian President Mikail Saakashvili is an American stooge who came to power in a CIA-backed coup, the so-called "Rose Revolution", and would never order a major military operation without explicit instructions from his White House puppetmasters. Most likely, the orders to invade came directly from the office of the Vice President, Dick Cheney.
Operation Brimstone, the joint US, UK and French naval war games in the Atlantic Ocean preparing for a naval blockade of Iran, ended just last week. The war games were designed to simulate a naval blockade of Iran and the probable Iranian response.The Georgian army had no chance of winning a war with Russia or any intention of occupying the territory they captured. The real aim was to lure the Russian army into a trap. US planners hope to do what they did so skillfully in Afghanistan; lure their Russian prey into a long and bloody Chechnya-type fiasco that will pit their Russia troops against guerrilla forces armed and trained by US military and intelligence agencies. The war will be waged in the name of liberating Georgia from Russian imperialism and stopping Putin from achieving his alleged ambition to control critical western-owned pipelines around the Caspian Basin. Much of this "think tank" generated narrative has already appeared in the mainstream media or been articulated by American political elites. Meanwhile, the fighting in the Caucasus has diverted attention from the massive US naval armada that is presently sailing towards the Persian Gulf for the long-anticipated confrontation with Iran.
source:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20508.htm
sounds like an accurate summary of this current mess.
By Mike Whitney
13/08/08 "ICH" --- - The American-armed and trained Georgian army swarmed into South Ossetia last Thursday, killing an estimated 2,000 civilians, sending 40,000 South Ossetians fleeing over the Russian border, and destroying much of the capital, Tskhinvali. The attack was unprovoked and took place a full 24 hours before even ONE Russian soldier set foot in South Ossetia. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Americans still believe that the Russian army invaded Georgian territory first. The BBC, AP, NPR, the New York Times and the rest of the establishment media has consistently and deliberately misled its readers into believing that the violence in South Ossetia was initiated by the Kremlin. Let's be clear, it wasn't. In truth, there is NO dispute about the facts except among the people who rely the western press for their information. Despite its steady loss of credibility, the corporate media continues to operate as the propaganda-arm of the Pentagon.
Former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev gave a good summary of events in an op-ed in Monday's Washington Post:
"For some time, relative calm was maintained in South Ossetia. The peacekeeping force composed of Russians, Georgians and Ossetians fulfilled its mission, and ordinary Ossetians and Georgians, who live close to each other, found at least some common ground....What happened on the night of Aug. 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas....Mounting a military assault against innocents was a reckless decision whose tragic consequences, for thousands of people of different nationalities, are now clear. The Georgian leadership could do this only with the perceived support and encouragement of a much more powerful force. Georgian armed forces were trained by hundreds of U.S. instructors, and its sophisticated military equipment was bought in a number of countries. This, coupled with the promise of NATO membership, emboldened Georgian leaders into thinking that they could get away with a "blitzkrieg" in South Ossetia..Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against "small, defenseless Georgia" is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity." .("A Path to Peace in the Caucasus", Mikhail Gorbachev, Washington Post)
The question for Americans is whether they trust Mikhail Gorbachev more than the corporate media?
Russia deployed its tanks and troops to South Ossetia to save the lives of civilians and to reestablish the peace. Period. It has no interest in annexing the former-Soviet country or in expanding its present borders. Now that the Georgian army has been routed, Russian president Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin have expressed a willingness to settle the dispute through normal diplomatic channels at the United Nations.Neither leader is under any illusions about Washington's involvement in the hostilities. They know that Georgian President Mikail Saakashvili is an American stooge who came to power in a CIA-backed coup, the so-called "Rose Revolution", and would never order a major military operation without explicit instructions from his White House puppetmasters. Most likely, the orders to invade came directly from the office of the Vice President, Dick Cheney.
Operation Brimstone, the joint US, UK and French naval war games in the Atlantic Ocean preparing for a naval blockade of Iran, ended just last week. The war games were designed to simulate a naval blockade of Iran and the probable Iranian response.The Georgian army had no chance of winning a war with Russia or any intention of occupying the territory they captured. The real aim was to lure the Russian army into a trap. US planners hope to do what they did so skillfully in Afghanistan; lure their Russian prey into a long and bloody Chechnya-type fiasco that will pit their Russia troops against guerrilla forces armed and trained by US military and intelligence agencies. The war will be waged in the name of liberating Georgia from Russian imperialism and stopping Putin from achieving his alleged ambition to control critical western-owned pipelines around the Caspian Basin. Much of this "think tank" generated narrative has already appeared in the mainstream media or been articulated by American political elites. Meanwhile, the fighting in the Caucasus has diverted attention from the massive US naval armada that is presently sailing towards the Persian Gulf for the long-anticipated confrontation with Iran.
source:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20508.htm
sounds like an accurate summary of this current mess.
Mr.Dysfunctional
Well-Known Member
Putin Walks into a Trap
By Mike Whitney
13/08/08 "ICH" --- - The American-armed and trained Georgian army swarmed into South Ossetia last Thursday, killing an estimated 2,000 civilians, sending 40,000 South Ossetians fleeing over the Russian border, and destroying much of the capital, Tskhinvali. The attack was unprovoked and took place a full 24 hours before even ONE Russian soldier set foot in South Ossetia. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Americans still believe that the Russian army invaded Georgian territory first. The BBC, AP, NPR, the New York Times and the rest of the establishment media has consistently and deliberately misled its readers into believing that the violence in South Ossetia was initiated by the Kremlin. Let's be clear, it wasn't. In truth, there is NO dispute about the facts except among the people who rely the western press for their information. Despite its steady loss of credibility, the corporate media continues to operate as the propaganda-arm of the Pentagon.
source:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20508.htm
sounds like an accurate summary of this current mess.
Wanted to point an excerpt from this column and rebute..
Since not all westerners have the view point that russia attacked first and not only that but could the kremlin be at the heart of the provocations in south Ossteria.
Notice my source?
Exactly.. it seems if information clearing house has it right.. then everyone else has it wrong... Have yet seen a piece agreeing with there argument.. but will check into it.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Yes, its safer now to keep your off color comments about my character in pm's and off the public boards.
There have been 4455 Coalition deaths
I'm sure you frequent sites like IraqBodyCount.org, its frequently referenced by Leftist sites such as the Huffington Post... they currently estimate 1.25 million Iraqi deaths, they claim them all to be innocent civilians.
Now the good and honest Shadow has made the claim:
Bush, with the blood of a million innocent Iraqis dripping from his hands
Which means... all those deaths are Bush's fault, yes? I mean its our stated policy to kill men, women and children indiscriminately and the terrorists are the ones who completely avoid civilian deaths at all costs, right?
Such a good and honest person would do well to point out that just around 50,000 civilian deaths can be directly attributed to actions taken by American military personnel and our private contractors, such as Blackwater.
The remaining 1.2 MILLION estimated civilian deaths occurred at the hands of terrorists... Here's a small sample from IBC:
suicide bombers kill 6. <--American Suicide Bomber?
suicide bomber kills 5 at police station. <--Also American?
roadside bomb kills 8. <--American planted IED?
25 killed by bomb in market. <--American bomb, or made in Iran?
suicide car bomber kills 3. <--American Humvee perhaps?
8 members of the same family (2 of them children) are killed by landmine. <--American or Iranian made?
America doesn't target the civilian population, terrorists do... thats why we call them terrorists and not freedom fighters.
Now some people think terrorists are just "freedom fighters" and play a game of moral equivalence by claiming American patriots were once considered terrorists by the English they fought. What one has to leave out is the crucial fact that the American patriots targeted the English Military only and not the American civilians they fought to make independent from the crown.
Terrorists kill indiscriminately, their goal is to terrorize the population into capitulation and make protecting the populace a horrific task for our Coalition Forces. The Coalition, which includes assistant from the brave Canadian Military, takes great pains to limit civilian casualties and, unlike the terrorists we fight, the Coalition tries to protect the innocent lives the terrorists seek to destroy or frighten into submission.
Shadow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 302
Neo-Con Hypocrisy on Georgia and Iraq
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Amidst the death and destruction in Georgia, the neo-conservative reaction here in the United States is a sight to behold.
Aggression, the neo-cons are screaming. The Russians are waging an unprovoked war of aggression, they’re exclaiming. This is unacceptable, they’re declaring. Something must be done, they’re saying.
Oh?
Where were all those terms when the U.S. government attacked Iraq, a country that had never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so? If there was ever a case in which an illegal and immoral war of aggression was waged against another country, it was Iraq.
Yet, what did the neo-cons say about the Iraq invasion and occupation? Oh, it’s not a war of aggression, they said, but rather a war of liberation, of freedom, of democracy-spreading — well, at least once those infamous WMDs failed to materialize.
But all of a sudden Russia attacks Georgia in response to Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s sending of troops into South Ossetia, and all of a sudden the neo-cons experience a gigantic moral awakening in which they see nothing but unlawful, immoral, and arrogant belligerence and aggression.
You see — in the neo-con mind, when the U.S. government attacks countries, that is automatically considered good. When the Russian government attacks countries, that is automatically considered bad.
But let’s give credit where credit is due: Not only did the neo-cons’ poking of hornets’ nests in the Middle East give rise to 9/11 and the war on terrorism, the clever neo-con use of NATO has now helped to poke the Russian hornet’s nest, giving the neo-cons another excuse — “the resurgence of the communist threat” — to take away even more of our freedoms.
Let’s not forget what the purpose of NATO was — to protect Europe from the Soviet communists (who were the former partner of the U.S. government in World War II and to whose control U.S. officials had delivered Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the Baltics).
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, the obvious step would have been to dismantle NATO, given that its mission was now moot. That’s not what U.S. officials did, however. Instead, they kept NATO in existence and then began using it to take a series of provocative actions against Russia, such as proposing the installation of missiles in Eastern Europe.
U.S. officials also sought to have Georgia, which is a former Soviet republic, join NATO, which would have meant more U.S. missiles on Russia’s border.
Now, the neo-cons are claiming that the Russians are behaving ridiculously in objecting to such actions. They are suggesting that it is Russia’s duty to simply obey the U.S. Empire and comply with its directives. After all, they say, the intentions of the U.S. government are entirely peaceful, defensive, and non-threatening. Everyone knows, they say, that the U.S. government doesn’t attack and wage wars of aggression and occupy other countries or engage in regime-change operations through such actions as assassinations, coups, and bribery. The U.S. government is the embodiment of good, they say. Just trust us and obey us, they say to the Russians.
This has demonstrated what the US is like and has been for some time. SHAME ON THE US.... What a bunch of lying hypocrits. and Yes, the busheviks have a lot of blood on their hands .... blood from slaughtering a massive number of innocents in an unprovoked invasion. No amount of "justification" defensiveness,lies or rationalization will change that. Listening to bush over the last few days ......has been an experience in an alternate reality. Maybe this is where his followers live. And they surely ain't grounded in reality. The stench of hypocricy is astounding,appalling.& shameful
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Amidst the death and destruction in Georgia, the neo-conservative reaction here in the United States is a sight to behold.
Aggression, the neo-cons are screaming. The Russians are waging an unprovoked war of aggression, they’re exclaiming. This is unacceptable, they’re declaring. Something must be done, they’re saying.
Oh?
Where were all those terms when the U.S. government attacked Iraq, a country that had never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so? If there was ever a case in which an illegal and immoral war of aggression was waged against another country, it was Iraq.
Yet, what did the neo-cons say about the Iraq invasion and occupation? Oh, it’s not a war of aggression, they said, but rather a war of liberation, of freedom, of democracy-spreading — well, at least once those infamous WMDs failed to materialize.
But all of a sudden Russia attacks Georgia in response to Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s sending of troops into South Ossetia, and all of a sudden the neo-cons experience a gigantic moral awakening in which they see nothing but unlawful, immoral, and arrogant belligerence and aggression.
You see — in the neo-con mind, when the U.S. government attacks countries, that is automatically considered good. When the Russian government attacks countries, that is automatically considered bad.
But let’s give credit where credit is due: Not only did the neo-cons’ poking of hornets’ nests in the Middle East give rise to 9/11 and the war on terrorism, the clever neo-con use of NATO has now helped to poke the Russian hornet’s nest, giving the neo-cons another excuse — “the resurgence of the communist threat” — to take away even more of our freedoms.
Let’s not forget what the purpose of NATO was — to protect Europe from the Soviet communists (who were the former partner of the U.S. government in World War II and to whose control U.S. officials had delivered Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the Baltics).
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, the obvious step would have been to dismantle NATO, given that its mission was now moot. That’s not what U.S. officials did, however. Instead, they kept NATO in existence and then began using it to take a series of provocative actions against Russia, such as proposing the installation of missiles in Eastern Europe.
U.S. officials also sought to have Georgia, which is a former Soviet republic, join NATO, which would have meant more U.S. missiles on Russia’s border.
Now, the neo-cons are claiming that the Russians are behaving ridiculously in objecting to such actions. They are suggesting that it is Russia’s duty to simply obey the U.S. Empire and comply with its directives. After all, they say, the intentions of the U.S. government are entirely peaceful, defensive, and non-threatening. Everyone knows, they say, that the U.S. government doesn’t attack and wage wars of aggression and occupy other countries or engage in regime-change operations through such actions as assassinations, coups, and bribery. The U.S. government is the embodiment of good, they say. Just trust us and obey us, they say to the Russians.
This has demonstrated what the US is like and has been for some time. SHAME ON THE US.... What a bunch of lying hypocrits. and Yes, the busheviks have a lot of blood on their hands .... blood from slaughtering a massive number of innocents in an unprovoked invasion. No amount of "justification" defensiveness,lies or rationalization will change that. Listening to bush over the last few days ......has been an experience in an alternate reality. Maybe this is where his followers live. And they surely ain't grounded in reality. The stench of hypocricy is astounding,appalling.& shameful
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
To bad Mr. Hornberger is not a member...
From the About Us on his organizations site:
Strange how he holds the Socialists view of America but claims to be a proponent of Conservative values....
From the About Us on his organizations site:
Strange how he holds the Socialists view of America but claims to be a proponent of Conservative values....
Shadow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 302
A very valid question
Georgia War a Neocon Election Ploy?
Posted on Aug 12, 2008
By Robert Scheer
Is it possible that this time the October surprise was tried in August, and that the garbage issue of brave little Georgia struggling for its survival from the grasp of the Russian bear was stoked to influence the U.S. presidential election?
Before you dismiss that possibility:, consider the role of one Randy Scheunemann, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government who ended his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s senior foreign policy adviser.
Previously, Scheunemann was best known as one of the neoconservatives who engineered the war in Iraq when he was a director of the Project for a New American Century. It was Scheunemann who, after working on the McCain 2000 presidential campaign, headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which championed the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
There are telltale signs that he played a similar role in the recent Georgia flare-up. How else to explain the folly of his close friend and former employer, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, in ordering an invasion of the breakaway region of South Ossetia, an invasion that clearly was expected to produce a Russian counterreaction? It is inconceivable that Saakashvili would have triggered this dangerous escalation without some assurance from influential Americans he trusted, like Scheunemann, that the United States would have his back. Scheunemann long guided McCain in these matters, even before he was officially running foreign policy for McCain’s presidential campaign.
In 2005, while registered as a paid lobbyist for Georgia, Scheunemann worked with McCain to draft a congressional resolution pushing for Georgia’s membership in NATO. A year later, while still on the Georgian payroll, Scheunemann accompanied McCain on a trip to that country, where they met with Saakashvili and supported his bellicose views toward Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
Scheunemann is at the center of the neoconservative cabal that has come to dominate the Republican candidate’s foreign policy stance in a replay of the run-up to the war against Iraq. These folks are always looking for a foreign enemy on which to base a new Cold War, and with the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime, it was Putin’s Russia that came increasingly to fit the bill.
Yes, it sounds diabolical, but that may be the most accurate way to assess the designs of the McCain campaign in matters of war and peace. There is every indication that the candidate’s demonization of Russian leader Putin is an even grander plan than the previous use of Saddam to fuel American militarism with the fearsome enemy that it desperately needs.
McCain gets to look tough with a new Cold War to fight while Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, scrambling to make sense of a more measured foreign policy posture, will seem weak in comparison. Meanwhile, the dire consequences of the Bush legacy that McCain has inherited, from the disaster of Iraq to the economic meltdown, conveniently will be ignored. But the military-industrial complex, which has helped bankroll the neoconservatives, will be provided with an excuse for ramping up a military budget that is already bigger than that of the rest of the world combined.
What is at work here is a neoconservative, self-fulfilling prophecy in which Russia is turned into an enemy that expands its largely reduced military, and Putin is cast as the new Josef Stalin bogeyman, evoking images of the old Soviet Union. McCain has condemned a “revanchist Russia” that should once again be contained. Although Putin has been the enormously popular elected leader of post-Communist Russia, it is assumed that imperialism is always lurking, not only in his DNA but in that of the Russian people.
How convenient to forget that Stalin was a Georgian, and indeed if Russian troops had occupied the threatened Georgian town of Gori they would have found a museum still honoring the local boy, who made good by seizing control of the Russian revolution. Indeed five Russian bombs were allegedly dropped on Gori’s Stalin Square on Tuesday.
It should also be mentioned that the post-Communist Georgians have imperial designs on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. What a stark contradiction that the United States, which championed Kosovo’s independence from Serbia, now is ignoring Georgia’s invasion of its ethnically rebellious provinces.
For McCain to so fervently embrace Scheunemann’s neoconservative line of demonizing Russia in the interest of appearing tough during an election campaign is a reminder that a senator can be old and yet wildly irresponsible.
Something to seriously THINK ABOUT.& Consider. Fits the neo con MO to a "T" They are not wanting to surrender power in the coming election ...so one can expect them to try to pull off some of their more distasteful tactics. The Anti Russia propaganda machine is in full force.......and once again, the sheeple will buy into it.~~ "electing" that old conservative to continue the path they have started. ( given that the WAR Mentality has been firmly established in the US mindset now) Would NOT be a surprise at all. The "timing' of this was suspect from the onset. It also serves as a diversion from the neo con plans for Iran and takes the focus off the messes in Iraq and Afganistan.
source:http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080812_georgia_war_a_neocon_election_ploy/?ln
Georgia War a Neocon Election Ploy?
Posted on Aug 12, 2008
By Robert Scheer
Is it possible that this time the October surprise was tried in August, and that the garbage issue of brave little Georgia struggling for its survival from the grasp of the Russian bear was stoked to influence the U.S. presidential election?
Before you dismiss that possibility:, consider the role of one Randy Scheunemann, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government who ended his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s senior foreign policy adviser.
Previously, Scheunemann was best known as one of the neoconservatives who engineered the war in Iraq when he was a director of the Project for a New American Century. It was Scheunemann who, after working on the McCain 2000 presidential campaign, headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which championed the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
There are telltale signs that he played a similar role in the recent Georgia flare-up. How else to explain the folly of his close friend and former employer, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, in ordering an invasion of the breakaway region of South Ossetia, an invasion that clearly was expected to produce a Russian counterreaction? It is inconceivable that Saakashvili would have triggered this dangerous escalation without some assurance from influential Americans he trusted, like Scheunemann, that the United States would have his back. Scheunemann long guided McCain in these matters, even before he was officially running foreign policy for McCain’s presidential campaign.
In 2005, while registered as a paid lobbyist for Georgia, Scheunemann worked with McCain to draft a congressional resolution pushing for Georgia’s membership in NATO. A year later, while still on the Georgian payroll, Scheunemann accompanied McCain on a trip to that country, where they met with Saakashvili and supported his bellicose views toward Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
Scheunemann is at the center of the neoconservative cabal that has come to dominate the Republican candidate’s foreign policy stance in a replay of the run-up to the war against Iraq. These folks are always looking for a foreign enemy on which to base a new Cold War, and with the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime, it was Putin’s Russia that came increasingly to fit the bill.
Yes, it sounds diabolical, but that may be the most accurate way to assess the designs of the McCain campaign in matters of war and peace. There is every indication that the candidate’s demonization of Russian leader Putin is an even grander plan than the previous use of Saddam to fuel American militarism with the fearsome enemy that it desperately needs.
McCain gets to look tough with a new Cold War to fight while Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, scrambling to make sense of a more measured foreign policy posture, will seem weak in comparison. Meanwhile, the dire consequences of the Bush legacy that McCain has inherited, from the disaster of Iraq to the economic meltdown, conveniently will be ignored. But the military-industrial complex, which has helped bankroll the neoconservatives, will be provided with an excuse for ramping up a military budget that is already bigger than that of the rest of the world combined.
What is at work here is a neoconservative, self-fulfilling prophecy in which Russia is turned into an enemy that expands its largely reduced military, and Putin is cast as the new Josef Stalin bogeyman, evoking images of the old Soviet Union. McCain has condemned a “revanchist Russia” that should once again be contained. Although Putin has been the enormously popular elected leader of post-Communist Russia, it is assumed that imperialism is always lurking, not only in his DNA but in that of the Russian people.
How convenient to forget that Stalin was a Georgian, and indeed if Russian troops had occupied the threatened Georgian town of Gori they would have found a museum still honoring the local boy, who made good by seizing control of the Russian revolution. Indeed five Russian bombs were allegedly dropped on Gori’s Stalin Square on Tuesday.
It should also be mentioned that the post-Communist Georgians have imperial designs on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. What a stark contradiction that the United States, which championed Kosovo’s independence from Serbia, now is ignoring Georgia’s invasion of its ethnically rebellious provinces.
For McCain to so fervently embrace Scheunemann’s neoconservative line of demonizing Russia in the interest of appearing tough during an election campaign is a reminder that a senator can be old and yet wildly irresponsible.
Something to seriously THINK ABOUT.& Consider. Fits the neo con MO to a "T" They are not wanting to surrender power in the coming election ...so one can expect them to try to pull off some of their more distasteful tactics. The Anti Russia propaganda machine is in full force.......and once again, the sheeple will buy into it.~~ "electing" that old conservative to continue the path they have started. ( given that the WAR Mentality has been firmly established in the US mindset now) Would NOT be a surprise at all. The "timing' of this was suspect from the onset. It also serves as a diversion from the neo con plans for Iran and takes the focus off the messes in Iraq and Afganistan.
source:http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080812_georgia_war_a_neocon_election_ploy/?ln
Libsmasher
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,151
You sir, are I'm sure, a fine gentleman, but the above shows that there is no theory too crackpot or embarassing to utter as long as one attaches the word "neocon" somewhere.
Shadow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 302
Putin's war enablers: Bush and Cheney
Russia's escalating war on Georgia reveals the consequences of the Bush administration's long assault on the international rule of law.
By Juan Cole
Aug. 14, 2008 |The run-up to the current chaos in the Caucasus should look quite familiar: Russia acted unilaterally rather than going through the U.N. Security Council. It used massive force against a small, weak adversary. It called for regime change in a country that had defied Moscow. It championed a separatist movement as a way of asserting dominance in a region it coveted.
Indeed, despite George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's howls of outrage at Russian aggression in Georgia and the disputed province of South Ossetia, the Bush administration set a deep precedent for Moscow's actions -- with its own systematic assault on international law over the past seven years. Now, the administration's condemnations of Russia ring hollow.
Bush said on Monday, responding to reports that Russia might attack the Georgian capital, "It now appears that an effort may be under way to depose [Georgia's] duly elected government. Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century." By Wednesday, with more Russian troops on the move and a negotiated cease-fire quickly unraveling, Bush stepped up the rhetoric, announcing a sizable humanitarian-aid mission to Georgia and dispatching Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the region.
While U.S. leaders have tended to back Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, there are two sides to every dispute, and in the ethnically diverse Caucasus it may be more like a hundred sides. Abkhazia and Ossetia are claimed by Georgia, but they have their own distinctive languages, cultures and national aspirations. Both fought for independence in the early 1990s, without success, though neither was Georgia able to assert its full sovereignty over them, accepting Russian mediation and peacekeeping troops.
The separatist leaders of South Ossetia and Abkhazia now speak of Saakashvili in terms reminiscent of the way separatists in Darfur speak of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Sergei Bagapsh of Abkhazia and Eduard Kokoity of South Ossetia have come out against conducting any further talks with Georgia, calling instead for Saakashvili to be tried for war crimes. Kokoity told Interfax, "There can be no talks with the organizers of genocide." The Russian press is full of talk of putting Saakashvili on trial for ordering attacks on Ossetian civilians.
Source:http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/08/14/bush_putin/?source=newsletter
.......... a situation where the US is in NO position to talk, belly ache, condemen or otherwise crticize. It is a joke to watch bush do his aggressive threatening little dance now. the fact he has no respect /credibility is only a small part of the farce.
For the record: They are all wrong. Bush was very wrong to do what he did and how he did it, Georgia was wrong as is Russia. But that is the way of the poltical world now. War and aggression is the "first " option. The US set the precident ( pre-emptive war language of modern times) and now must live with it. Many of us predicted this after the US arrogance in Iraq. If it were not so tragic and destructive, it would be a humongous joke on the US .As it is, the US has left itself wide open...... and is no longer the standard for a higher ethical/ progressive standard. It is now , just another barbarian , where war is the first option and basing it on LIES is "politics du jour" Because Georgia is essentially a US puppet, one could interpret this as a US attack on Russia. Not smart.
Russia's escalating war on Georgia reveals the consequences of the Bush administration's long assault on the international rule of law.
By Juan Cole
Aug. 14, 2008 |The run-up to the current chaos in the Caucasus should look quite familiar: Russia acted unilaterally rather than going through the U.N. Security Council. It used massive force against a small, weak adversary. It called for regime change in a country that had defied Moscow. It championed a separatist movement as a way of asserting dominance in a region it coveted.
Indeed, despite George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's howls of outrage at Russian aggression in Georgia and the disputed province of South Ossetia, the Bush administration set a deep precedent for Moscow's actions -- with its own systematic assault on international law over the past seven years. Now, the administration's condemnations of Russia ring hollow.
Bush said on Monday, responding to reports that Russia might attack the Georgian capital, "It now appears that an effort may be under way to depose [Georgia's] duly elected government. Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century." By Wednesday, with more Russian troops on the move and a negotiated cease-fire quickly unraveling, Bush stepped up the rhetoric, announcing a sizable humanitarian-aid mission to Georgia and dispatching Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the region.
While U.S. leaders have tended to back Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, there are two sides to every dispute, and in the ethnically diverse Caucasus it may be more like a hundred sides. Abkhazia and Ossetia are claimed by Georgia, but they have their own distinctive languages, cultures and national aspirations. Both fought for independence in the early 1990s, without success, though neither was Georgia able to assert its full sovereignty over them, accepting Russian mediation and peacekeeping troops.
The separatist leaders of South Ossetia and Abkhazia now speak of Saakashvili in terms reminiscent of the way separatists in Darfur speak of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Sergei Bagapsh of Abkhazia and Eduard Kokoity of South Ossetia have come out against conducting any further talks with Georgia, calling instead for Saakashvili to be tried for war crimes. Kokoity told Interfax, "There can be no talks with the organizers of genocide." The Russian press is full of talk of putting Saakashvili on trial for ordering attacks on Ossetian civilians.
Source:http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/08/14/bush_putin/?source=newsletter
.......... a situation where the US is in NO position to talk, belly ache, condemen or otherwise crticize. It is a joke to watch bush do his aggressive threatening little dance now. the fact he has no respect /credibility is only a small part of the farce.
For the record: They are all wrong. Bush was very wrong to do what he did and how he did it, Georgia was wrong as is Russia. But that is the way of the poltical world now. War and aggression is the "first " option. The US set the precident ( pre-emptive war language of modern times) and now must live with it. Many of us predicted this after the US arrogance in Iraq. If it were not so tragic and destructive, it would be a humongous joke on the US .As it is, the US has left itself wide open...... and is no longer the standard for a higher ethical/ progressive standard. It is now , just another barbarian , where war is the first option and basing it on LIES is "politics du jour" Because Georgia is essentially a US puppet, one could interpret this as a US attack on Russia. Not smart.
Shadow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 302
LOL. Perhaps. Then again, perhaps not, given what "we' have seen of the neo con methods........ would not put it passed them. They have defined political criminality on the national and international scale. Have no regard for any laws , domestic or international.... and even less ethos. Their hypocracy goes beyond the pale.
Shadow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 302
from Yahoo Breaking news.
Hmmm. This might be exactly what the US wants. It could then " justify" a continuation of being a militant nation . This would also provide an ongoing "enemy" for the US ....... which in turn would support the US military complex.
Libsmasher
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,151
All the above is a laugh. The half-baked attempted equivalence of the russian dictatorship invading the territory of a democracy, with Bush toppling a dictatorship, all dictatorships being by definition illegitimate regimes, is beyond stupid. To anyone with more than half a brain, what's going on here is obvious - the first shot in russia trying to recover it's old soviet union empire. By intimidation and subversion if possible, by force if necessary. Meanwhile, "the world" (euroweenies), the people whom Obama says we should regain the respect of, is hypocritically dead silent about this invasion.
Werbung:
Shadow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 302
Of course it is about power. But Russia is not stupid. Particularly Putin. (regardless of his background etc). Seems that folks have not heard that currently, Putin is acknowledged as the smartest politican/ leader on the planet. He makes the USG look like the idiots they are. They KNOW that the world is different now , so whatever power ploy they are on , has different dimensions and aspects to it. Just as other nations change evolve and emerge in a new /revised form........ so is Russia. The perception that it wants its OLD Empire back.... is silly. Why would it want to go backwards??
What is REALLY laughable , is folks defending the US CRIMES and elective unprovoked invasions based on LIES. Is the US going to go around this entire planet and depose every leader IT deams to be a "dictator"?? IF so, it will be neck deep in blood shed , death and war crimes for years to come. Given the mess it makes in nations that it does ATTACK...../ INVADE...... it's possible/ probable success rate is zilch.
