US GAME PLAN IN THECAUCASUS

Why does Russia have the privilege to defend its interest while the west does not?

Shouldn't you treat the Russian invasion of Georgia like the coalition invasion of Iraq?

I think "in the interest of peace" Russia will have to stop treating former Soviet republics as if they were Russian vassals.

 

Yea, kinda interesting how once again another person makes those who do the same that the US do be right while we are always wrong. Of course, Bahu does not mention all the sense killing that Russia is currently doing as well. Why mention that Russia problem is the Georgian Gov't and their way of deal with problems is killing innocent civilians by bombing the hell out of them. But the US was evil when we went into Iraq doing everything we could to avoid civilian casualties.

Bahu, Interesting article although seems to be very sympathetic towards Russia's invasion.

Here is my contributions to this:
-Tensions between Russia and Georgia have been escalating since Mikheil Saakashvili was elected to office in 2004.
-the 2000 you mentioned being killed were also Russian citizens and also sympathetic towards Russian influence rejecting President Saakashvili's Western influence and all yet to be 'verified'.
-Georgia's flex of muscle towards the people in South Ossetia (North Georgia) and Abkhazia as they were trying to separate themselves from Georgia seeking out their own sovereignty. Georgia had every right to go in and regain 'control' of their region under their sovereignty (although the 'ethnic' cleansing was not). Russia's invasion is not fully justified.
-I agree the US cannot and should not help at this time in manpower but can and should help militarily with weapons to help Georgia to defend herself. As sad as this may be we need to clean up our current messes (Iraq and Afghanistan). Although Georgia is not a 'member' of NATO gained a status of "Intensified Dialogue" which allows them to have greater influence in political affairs. NATO needs to be heavily involved.

That's all for now.

BTW, I have a friend that was part of the 170 Americans that were convoyed out of Georgia to neighboring Armenia. Her dad is currently still in Tbilisi (the capital) for now.

Isn't that a backward question? it is amazing how good you are in spinning things. both actions are not justified. but since we did it first, how can we act as if we defend the integrity of other nations' borders?

we declared that pre-empyive actions is our policy to protect our interests ... can we then say others cant do the same.

Welcome to the new world-order ... the order of the Jungle.

God knows who else will follow the same policy ....  

The US justification for invading Iraq was the alledgged WMDs that were never there and regime change in Iraq was justified in the name of the war crime committed by Saddam in the Kurdish regions. It is beside the point that since the US invasion more people have been killed iN Iraq than in the 20 years of Saddam Husseions's regime.

 

There is one basic difference:Georgia started the killing of civillians in  The Republic of South Osettia and the 2,000 odd civillians who were butchered were all of Russian origin. On the eve of the US led invasion the justification was the WMDs that Hussein was accused of possessing. The two situations are not compararable.

The interests of peace will equally be served if the USA stops poaching on the territorial sphere of influence of Russia.

I differentiate between dictatorships that finance the people who try to kill me and democracies who do not.




Maybe you declared that pre-emptive action is your policy. I am neo-conservative. I believe in waiting ten years while the enemy breaks cease-fire after cease-fire. Then I warn them for a few months and THEN I support an invasion.

Pre-emptive attacks, in my book, are only justified if the enemy would otherwise destroy my country.

But I don't see Georgia being quite such a danger for Russia yet.

I am just amused how the doves are so hawkish as long as the US is not involved (and of course they think the US should be).

The way I understand it:

1. The UN cannot legally invade another country because Russia has a veto.

2. The UN cannot stop Russia from legally invading another country because Russia has a veto.

Maybe I just missed it but did Russia even ask the UN before deciding to react to whatever Georgia was doing and invade? I am asking because I remember MONTHS of discussion when the US and Britain wanted to invade Iraq.

And apart from a few pro-Georgian protesters, who is worried about Russia violating "international law" to save an oppressed minority?

Did not the NATO attack Serbia in the name of protecting Bosnian muslims and the very act of Serbia protecting iots territorial integrity led to their leaders being charged with war crimes and not a single Bosnia muslim war lord who too conmittwed atrocities on Serbs was so charged.

Did not the UN with the complitcity of NATO cospire to have Kossovo declare its independence though all UN resolutions speak of maintaining the territorial integrity of Serbia.

Did not USA invade Iraq and affect a regime change though there was no UN vote to sanction this invasiion.

Is not the Sudanese Governemnt effort to protect its territorial intewgrity being questioned by the Western nations in the name of Human Rights. The Chirtian militias in Darfur are just as brutal as the Arab Janjaweed malitias, and the Black christuian mercenaries are being projected as freedom fighters.

Against such precedents there is no use questioning Russia.

Human Rights has become a convinient alibii to cover all kinds of real and imagined sins. When USA talks of human rights it does not carry much conviction in view of what it has done to and in Iraq. After the Nazi invasion of Poland there has not been another brazen invasion of another country on totally trumped up justification. The quisling government of Maliki has even stopped counting the dead in Iraq as the world will start asking USA difficult questions. The crimes of the Black Christian militias in Darfur are being hushed up, while those of the Arabs projected. I may conced that in absolute numbers the Janjaweed has killed more, but the Christian separatists are not a bunch of angels.

No. NATO did not attack Serbia in the name of protecting Bosnian Muslims. NATO weren't involved in the Bosnia war. The UN was and _failed_ to protect Bosnian Muslims.

I think you are confusing Bosnia with Kosovo. But that attack was permitted by the UN. (Kosovo's independence, however, was not.)



Yes. And good thing too. I am with Kosovo.



Actually, there was discussion for half a year. And even though the UN cease-fire with Iraq from 1990 allowed an attack (since Iraq had broken the cease-fire several times), France threatened to veto anyway.

If the authorities refuse to act, a citizen may act himself. It's common law, isn't it?



No?

What western nations question is the need to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Darfurians. It was southern Sudan that sought independence, not Darfur.



Nobody thinks there is a use. We were just wondering why the US and Britain base their attacks on international law and have the UN discuss it for months while Russia moves alone whenever they want against whomever they like. That's all.

China invaded Tibet.

North Korea invaded South Korea.

North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam.

Jordan invaded the West Bank. Egypt invaded Gaza.

Most Arab countries invaded Israel. Three times.

The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. And Czechoslovakia. And Hungary.

Russia invaded Georgia.


Bahu, you are either an unskilled liar or totally ignorant of history.

Serbia did not have a veto.

But a question for Bahu, and the other internationals here.

Why "US Game Plan"? Where is "India Game Plan" or China, or Germany, or UK, or Canada, or

It was difficult but they found a way to make this about the US.

Expect the announcement, in a few days, on Daily Kos or some other left-wing blog site, how the entire thing is George Bush's fault anyway.

Prophetic and true.

Well, while it may not be on the daily Kos, I do believe Bush already has fingers pointed at him since many are questioning what are we gonna do as if somehow this was our war or something. Whether we get involved in some way or not, we will probably end up being responsible for it because if Russia wins here we will be seen as ignoring an ally but if Georgia comes out on top then people will say we risked screwing things up with Russia and Iran for little old Georgia.

Read the Cambridge Hiustory of China a=nd the Chapter on Tibet and you will know that from the Tang period onwarsds the Tibetans had acknowledged the suzerainity of China the Middle Kingdom. Please do not argue about History with me.

Vietnam was one unitwed country even in histiorical times i.e before the creatoin of Indo-Chine of the French and the invasion was only a move towarsd uniofication. and 1968 Chez is an instyasnce of invasion.

About Israel the less said the bettwr because most of the world see Israel as an occupier of land to which it has no title. therefore an invader of Palestine. Please understand that History is more serious than politcal [polemics.

Russian invasion of ASfghainstan did not happen. It was a soviet invasion

Russian invasion as you call it was a humanitariaN INTERVENTION.

I don't care how the world sees Israel. Anti-Semites will always have their own version of history.

Israel's title to "Palestine" is as good as anybody else's title to land they won in a war. How do you think the Arabs won "Palestine" before they lost it to the Turks?




I said "Soviet Union", didn't I?



Of course it was.

There is no place for abnti-semitism in a globalising world nor can Israel use anti-semitism charge to evade its responsibilities under International law.

AS FOR rUSSIA, YES i TOO AM A LITTLE SCEPTICAL ABOUT THAT hUMANITARIAN BIT, BUT iNTERNATIONAL lAW does give states the justification for intervention. Is this not what the West wants to do in Darfur.

Further, Russia cannot allow, given the access to the oil states of Central Asia through Georgia, to fall into the trap of the US. And the recent war games with the USA was predicated on just such a scenarion

That would be the day when Jews can use the anti-Semitism charge to escape discrimination!

Israel's "responsibilities under international law" are very different to other country's responsibilities under international law. International law knows several special exceptions when it comes to the Jewish state:

"Palestinian" "refugees" are, uniquely among refugees, counted as "refugees" even when they are merely descendants of actual "refugees". The same does not apply to Germans or Jews or other descendants of "refugees".

Jewish refugees from Arab countries have never been afforded the status of refugees and there was no UN aid for them and still isn't. Israel absorbed them alone and without UN help.

Security council resolutions call for a permission for refugees to return if they are willing to live in peace, which they have stated they are NOT, but "international law" only considers the first part of the resolution (right of return), not the proviso (if willing to live in peace).

Under international law gaining land through war is illegal, but that point was never accepted as an argument against Arab attempts to invade and annex Israel. But the argument was made against Israel despite the fact that Israel a) offered to give the land back in return for peace, only took land in defensive wars, i.e. when the Arab states had already broken the law, and c) in the case of East-Jerusalem only took land that wasn't legally part of any state or country anyway.

Under international law a country has a duty to stop attacks on other countries from its territory. But Arab countries have allowed and some still do allow such attacks on Israel without being reprimanded or punished by the UN.

Under international law the Suez canal is open for all trade yet Egypt wouldn't allow Israel to use it and the UN did not reprimand or punish Egypt for that breach of "international law".

The UN claim that Jewish "settlements" in occupied land are illegal but no international law actually prohibits such settlements. The prohibition was made up specifically for Israel and Jewish settlers and didn't, for some reason, apply to Jordanians moving to the West Bank when it was under Jordanian control.

Finally, the law about gaining land in a war being illegal has only been applied in Israel's case, not in the case of Russia annexing parts of Germany and Poland and not in the case of Poland annexing parts of Germany.

Ironically Israel is both blamed for treating non-Israeli citizens ("Palestinians") as unequal AND for annexing parts of the occupied territories and granting citizenship to the people living there. "International law" apparently doesn't allow Israel to treat "Palestinians" are non-citizens OR citizens. Whatever Israel does in this regard is "illegal" under "international law".

So if "international law" were equal and the same for Israel and other countries, you might have a point. But until then, I blame anti-Semitism for the unequal application and intent of the law.

If you are in favour of applying international law equally and fairly, I support your position. Let's start with removing the "refugee" status of descendants of Arab refugees and granting it to surviving Jewish refugees.

You may know history, but you do not understand it. One can have a treaty with a country, but that treaty does not span regime change. Ancient history is no excuse for current aggression. You seem to think it is ok for Mexico to invade the US, even though Mexico's claim to the southwest is artifical itself (it was occupied previously by Apache, Navaho, Comanche, etc.). So "historical claims" are the lame excuse used by Hitler to annex half of Europe before he actually started the war in Poland.

Very Lame. South Vietnam at one times was part of Siam. At one time Part of the Mongol Empire. Do we now return the jurisdiction to Mongolia? Yet that is your arguement here. By your logic, Germany should re-conquer Europe (they had it at one time), or perhaps the Vatican should (the Holy Roman Empire anyone?).

You may know history, but you surely do not understand it.

Sorry. I know it's pointless.

Just realise that I am not arguing _with_ you as much as I am correcting you so that others see where you are coming from.

It is difficult to ignore your ignorance of history when you say things like there have been no invasions before 2003 or make it clear that you simply disregard all facts that inconvenience Arab nationalism while demanding that all of Germany's WW2 allies should be treated as such.

I have been trying hard to understand it.

International Law is based on a realistic perception of the past and most would say History is a ggod enough metaphor. If history and historical claims are removed from the practice of statecraft then we have only the law of anarchy-- big fish eating small fish. USA invasdes Iraq and effects a regime change, Russia invades Georgia and annexes territorey(not yet formaslly). Unilateralism will only incraese if historical claims are ignored.

Ancient history is one of the claims on which Israel legitimises itself.

Most Zionists never use that claim. Most Zionists use the claim that Jews bought land, have a right to live on that land, and that Jews must live somewhere.

You might want to get your Funk and Wagnalls out and then read. Unless you truly believe that only history that is defined by you has a valid claim.

Historically, Jews lived in Israel before Palestinians (the illusory people that no one can fine in antiquity). How far back does your selective history go? Who decides the length of history before a claim is moot? Surely your trouble in understanding my post stems from some arbitrary delineation of when history is to be counted and when it is not. So the question remains for you. When does history become irrelevant? Apparently by your reckoning, it is somewhere between 50 and 1500 years ago. Since the claim you support cannot be supported back farther than that, nor sooner than 50 years ago (if even then).

Again, your selective use of history shows a great tendency towards using selective facts to back up an untenable position, but cannot be used in a logic and reasoned excuse for your statements.