RSS
Protecting Poland
Following it’s aggression in Georgia, the Russian bear issued a nuclear threat to the nation of Poland. Poland, for its part, agreed to host the missile component of the U.S.’s missile shield. Russia has reserved the “right” to use nuclear weapons in a first strike if Poland goes ahead with the missile deal with Washington. The Russians calculated this threat incorrectly. By demonstrating their willingness to nuke a country for doing nothing more than protecting itself from undue aggression, the Russian menace has demonstrated its imperialistic desires with regard to Eastern Europe. While Poland was some what reluctant to host the missiles before the Georgian invasion, no such reluctance now exists. It is akin to them putting on a bullet proof vest after their neighbor has been shot and the shooter then turned their sites to Poland.
Damn Russia.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:57 am
So, let me get this straight: Abkhazia and South Ossetia, with majority Russian populations, peacefully declare autonomy from Georgia after the break-up of the Soviet Union, requiring the presence of Russian Federation troops to stem Georgian attempts to force them back under Georgian control since the early 1990s, and finally the Georgians begin sniping Russian Federation troops in South Ossetia, generating the expected Russian response, and this is Russian aggression. Got it.
Subsequently, a Russian general makes some disturbing remarks in response to NATO expansionist attempts to install missiles which are ostensibly for defensive purposes but which could reasonably be considered, oh, what’s the word I’m looking for… missiles, that’s it. Yes, his verbiage was over the top, but he’s not the one who would make the call to launch a nuclear strike.
And you, disregarding Mary’s call to pray for the conversion of Russia and Jesus’ command to pray for our enemies, say “Damn Russia.” Nice.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
What do you suppose the “conservative” response would be if the Russians were pressuring Mexico to install Galosh missiles (tipped with nuclear warheads), ostensibly as a defense against Chilean aggression (knowing full well that Chile doesn’t possess the long-range missiles capable of hitting Mexico)? Or what if they wanted to install missiles which, although not equipped with nuclear warheads as the Galosh system is, instead were equipped with EKVs which were unproven and useless against the threat they were alleged to protect against? And which could be quickly refitted to deliver other weapons systems?
August 18th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Vercingetorix-
peacefully declared autonomy? Umm, no. this battle, like most in the old world, has been going on for a very long time. Never was “autonomy” declared, but independence and definitly not by peaceful measures nor by a democratic vote of the people but by Russian backed and armed rebels. Geesh.
Prayer for Russians is great and all but I call evil what it is (the Russian government) and damning it seems more than apporpriate. But hey, this is the least of my concerns but if it makes you feel more noble to chastize me, cool.
You are so quick to place the U.S. and the Russians on an equal level, they are anything but. Either you do not believe America stands for liberty, democracy and justice or you believe the Russia does too. Either way, you are wrong.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Bill, your ignorance is astonishing. Abkhazia declared independence in 1992 and Georgia was subsequently militarily defeated there and the Georgian population mostly left the region, and despite Georgian attempts to regain control, they have twice offered to recognize Abkhazian autonomy, even though no other country does. Not even Russia attempted to force others to recognize the Abkhaz state or impose Russian government there. In fact, in 2006 over 80% of the Abkhazians sought and received Russian citizenship, and the Russians do not collect taxes from them or require them to serve in the Russian military. They issue them Russian passports since noone will recognize the ones issued by the Abkhazian separatist government.
The de facto autonomous region of South Ossetia was recognized by the Georgian Soviet in the earliest stages of the USSR, and there was little (if any) conflict between the two until the end of the Soviet era. Soviet Georgia made an idiotic decision to try to squelch South Ossetian autonomy by outlawing the South Ossetian language and requiring the use of Georgian (and Russian). So, you are in essence taking the side of Georgian communists from the defunct Georgian SSR when you assert that South Ossetia is sovereign Georgian territory. How does it feel to be an apparatchik? Russian interfering and meddling is not what caused all this.
I am not more noble for chastising you. Nor did I ever place America and Russia on an equal level. I asked you to consider what the neocon response would be if Russia said what amounts to the same thing America did with regard to the missile shield; this is not the same as “putting them on the same level. But let me ask you a follow up: by trying to justify setting up American missiles in Poland and the Czech republic, America said they were to protect against the Iranian threat. Iran does not have missiles capable of reaching Poland or the Czech Republic. America has bombed Serbia and launched countless missile salvos there because Serbia did exactly what Georgia has been doing in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. America invaded Iraq under the auspices of the war on terror even though the threat from Hussein was well contained and there was no connection to the terrorist attacks on 9-11-01. American officials continue to make threats against Iran even though its own NIE shows no evidence of any weaponizing nuclear effort and no connection whatsoever to the radical Wahhabi terrorists. The neoconservative clamoring for destruction, the hypocrisy made apparent by the disparate justifications for intervensionism I just listed, the alternative intervensionistic cries of the Left, and so on do not mean that “America” is on a plane with Russia. What, though, should the rest of the world conclude based on the actions of those in charge for the last 16 years or so?
August 19th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Yes, as astonishing as your lack of historical context. How far back would you like to go? 1800’s, 1500’s how about just as far as the 1920’s? I can site atleast a half dozen “independence” or “autonomous” bids by both regions, dating well before the communist regimes in Russia and Georgia. Besides, the two regions have very different timelines and histories. Yet, notably, South Ossetia (which was the context for the recent Russian trap) declared independence with the encouragement and armament of the Russian military.
Yet a history lesson is not the point of this post.
Yes, the U.S. should have been on the level about the Iraqi invasion. Georgie put forth crummy arguments when he simply should have said “Saddam is a tyrannt and we are gonna kill him so we can establish a base for U.S. operations in the middle east.” But he didn’t say that. This does not take away from the legitamcy of our Iraqi campaign.
As to Serbia, that is a tough one. I am not sure which side was/is right in that one. I tend to agree we should have stayed out of the conflict.
Iran. Arming terrorist, attacking U.S. soldiers, threatening U.S. allies. Should I go on?
August 19th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
“How does it feel to be an apparatchik?”
Really? personal insults? You were arguing so well. A pity.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:34 am
As for the apparatchik comment, I’m sorry about that. I guess I could fall back to your “I call evil evil” position, but I won’t. You saw it as a personal attack and truth in these cases can reasonably be said to be in the eye of the beholder.
How far back would I like to go? Well, farther than 20 years would be nice. That’s the current default the Bushies and neos use.
Which two regions were you talking about? Abkhazia and South Ossetia? What’s so different? I mean, just in the last 100-150 years, for the sake of argument.
You seem awfully hung up on the support of Russia for the independence bids. Should we be condemned for giving armed support for the democratization of the Middle East, then? Should China go to the U.N. and lobby for sanctions against us? After all, we’ve insisted on democratization and ended up with increasingly radicalized results. Is not China threatened by the radical Islamists, too? Do the Wahabbis not hate the atheist totalitarian communist/capitalists in China? What about the radical Shi’ites? Are they not a legitimate threat to the Chinese? If they are to us, you have to admit they are to the Chinese, too. And we’re increasing their influence, every month. Musharraf is gone now. The Taliban are strengthening. Our mission in Afghanistan (remember that one?) is going down the toilet. The al-Maliki government in Iraq is a joke, and the Iranians are salivating at the fact that we allowed the Shi’ite ayatollahs in Iraq to gain power. I thought they were our enemy? We installed more of them in the push to give the people there what they want. What they want is radical Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood gets stronger every day. Shouldn’t the Chinese now say “Enough is enough!” Should they not have the same ability to say “These American aggressions will not go unpunished”? If not, using your logic, why not? How in the world can you defend this sort of hypocrisy on the part of the American leadership? The Chinese have a vested interest, seeing as how they share a border with Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Kashmir region, and India, which we would likely all agree is about to get a whole lot more important.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:40 am
You’re right about Serbia, though. Should we now apologize for setting up and strengthening the Albanian thugs who traffic narcotics for the radical Wahhabi terrorists who were moving opium to fund Saudi expatriates devising airplanes-into-buildings schemes?
August 21st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
V: “As for the apparatchik comment….”
Lovely. I have thick enough skin; arrogance from your end will not deter me.
V: “How far back would I like to go? Well, farther than 20 years would be nice. That’s the current default the Bushies and neos use.”
Great, then argue with Bush, this is not my argument.
V: “Which two regions were you talking about? Abkhazia and South Ossetia? What’s so different? I mean, just in the last 100-150 years, for the sake of argument. ”
Ossetians are ethnically distinct from Georgians for one. Abkhazia was not a participant in the recent dust up for another.
V: “You seem awfully hung up on the support of Russia for the independence bids. Should we be condemned for giving armed support for the democratization of the Middle East, then?”
I am hung up on Russian aggression. Georgia is not Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc… They are a validly elected democracy NOT threatening the U.S. You just can separate goodness from evil can you? Is everything so morally relative to you?
V: “Should China go to the U.N. and lobby for sanctions against us? After all, we’ve insisted on democratization and ended up with increasingly radicalized results. Is not China threatened by the radical Islamists, too? Do the Wahabbis not hate the atheist totalitarian communist/capitalists in China? What about the radical Shi’ites? Are they not a legitimate threat to the Chinese? If they are to us, you have to admit they are to the Chinese, too. ”
A threat to China is a good thing. Weakening communism ought to continue to be a priority of the U.S. So if we caused problems for China, excellent. Not our intent, but excellent.
V: “And we’re increasing their influence, every month. Musharraf is gone now. The Taliban are strengthening. Our mission in Afghanistan (remember that one?) is going down the toilet.”
Yes, we ought to prop up Afghanistan’s government more and seek to deliver decisive defeat to the Taliban. Your point is?
V: “The al-Maliki government in Iraq is a joke, and the Iranians are salivating at the fact that we allowed the Shi’ite ayatollahs in Iraq to gain power. I thought they were our enemy? We installed more of them in the push to give the people there what they want. What they want is radical Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood gets stronger every day. Shouldn’t the Chinese now say “Enough is enough!” Should they not have the same ability to say “These American aggressions will not go unpunished”? If not, using your logic, why not? How in the world can you defend this sort of hypocrisy on the part of the American leadership?”
What hypocrisy?! China is also an evil regime. See above; problems for the Chinese are not necessarily problems for the U.S. or any other good nation.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:20 pm
V: “You’re right about Serbia, though. Should we now apologize for setting up and strengthening the Albanian thugs who traffic narcotics for the radical Wahhabi terrorists who were moving opium to fund Saudi expatriates devising airplanes-into-buildings schemes?”
We migh apologize for the criminalization of narcotics that has allowed terrorists and cartels to flourish and fund crime.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:17 pm
B: “Lovely. I have thick enough skin; arrogance from your end will not deter me.”
Dude, I apologized. I pointed out that I could have followed suit but didn’t. I told you I wasn’t making a personal attack and you obviously took it that way and I a-pol-o-gized. Nice mercy. Very gracious.
B: “Great, then argue with Bush, this is not my argument.”
A) Why’d you ask in the first place?
B) You tried to make lack of historical context seem to apply to me when in fact you were the one ignoring history by accusing Russia of aggression and pretending Georgia was as pure as the driven snow. Uh huh. So, really, yeah, it kinda was your argument.
B: “Ossetians are ethnically distinct from Georgians for one.”
Rrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiight! That is why they wanted independence after Soviet Georgia forced them to give up Ossetian language and tried to militarily keep them under a Georgian yoke when the USSR fell. Which makes your argument about Russian protection and support for their independence (not subsuming them into the Russian country) amount to nil.
B: “Abkhazia was not a participant in the recent dust up for another.”
Let’s wait until the hysterical, unstable Saakashvili decides to provoke Russia again. History shows tin-pot bullies like him don’t quit after attempting to take over Kuwait, er, South Ossetia, right?
B: “Georgia is not Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc… They are a validly elected democracy NOT threatening the U.S.”
Georgia is a front for Western oil interests and the puppet government foolishly continues to oppress freedom and independence and democracy in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and this makes them our enemy, according to your own standard already articulated elsewhere.
B: “You just can separate goodness from evil can you? Is everything so morally relative to you?”
Nothing is morally relative. Stop putting this nation state on a pedestal, though, Bill. It’s better, but floundering thanks to a lot of muddle-headedness like your next few comments. Legalize soul-destroying narcotics? Providing a platform for China to be legitimately outraged at us for strengthening terrorism? What’s with you, man?
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
1) Ok, “apology” accepted. Not necessary, but accepted. Let’s move on.
2) My point is that this conflict is not new. Yet Russia is still wrong for attacking Georgia. Is Ossetia right? Is Georgia right? Who has the better claim? I didn’t dive in to these. My point is that Russia had no business beating up on Georgia.
3) Russia does not want an independent Ossetia, it wants to OWN Ossetia.
4) Georgia is a front? Gotta love conspiracy theories.
5) Soul-destroying narcotics? haha. What of alcohol? Tobacco? Pain pills? Where is the legitimate government interest?
6) We are fighting terrorists, not encouraging them. If that angers China, who cares?
7) America should be on a pedestal. We are the world’s greatest example of freedom and good governance.