Georgia, the Olympics, the US armada and Iran

[Robert]

I still believe that the best plan for the US here is to get Georgia into NATO (and the US was pushing hard for Georgia to get accepted), and this little spat hurt their chances.

I'm not so sure about that. There are two sides to that coin, as smithy pointed out earlier, I think.

Georgia's only hope right now is to just concede S. Ossetia to the Russians and declare the dispute over.

Or just allow them independence, a lá Kosovo?

 

[Robert]

I still believe that the best plan for the US here is to get Georgia into NATO (and the US was pushing hard for Georgia to get accepted), and this little spat hurt their chances.

I'm not so sure about that. There are two sides to that coin, as smithy pointed out earlier, I think.

Georgia's only hope right now is to just concede S. Ossetia to the Russians and declare the dispute over.

Or just allow them independence, a lá Kosovo?

 

[Robert]

I still believe that the best plan for the US here is to get Georgia into NATO (and the US was pushing hard for Georgia to get accepted), and this little spat hurt their chances.

I'm not so sure about that. There are two sides to that coin, as smithy pointed out earlier, I think.

Georgia's only hope right now is to just concede S. Ossetia to the Russians and declare the dispute over.

Or just allow them independence, a lá Kosovo?

 

[Robert]

I still believe that the best plan for the US here is to get Georgia into NATO (and the US was pushing hard for Georgia to get accepted), and this little spat hurt their chances.

I'm not so sure about that. There are two sides to that coin, as smithy pointed out earlier, I think.

Georgia's only hope right now is to just concede S. Ossetia to the Russians and declare the dispute over.

Or just allow them independence, a lá Kosovo?

 

[Robert]

I still believe that the best plan for the US here is to get Georgia into NATO (and the US was pushing hard for Georgia to get accepted), and this little spat hurt their chances.

I'm not so sure about that. There are two sides to that coin, as smithy pointed out earlier, I think.

Georgia's only hope right now is to just concede S. Ossetia to the Russians and declare the dispute over.

Or just allow them independence, a lá Kosovo?

 

[Robert]

I still believe that the best plan for the US here is to get Georgia into NATO (and the US was pushing hard for Georgia to get accepted), and this little spat hurt their chances.

I'm not so sure about that. There are two sides to that coin, as smithy pointed out earlier, I think.

Georgia's only hope right now is to just concede S. Ossetia to the Russians and declare the dispute over.

Or just allow them independence, a lá Kosovo?

 

[Robert]

This guy makes a fair point:

The outcome of six grim days of bloodshed in the Caucasus has triggered an outpouring of the most nauseating hypocrisy from western politicians and their captive media. As talking heads thundered against Russian imperialism and brutal disproportionality, US vice-president Dick Cheney, faithfully echoed by Gordon Brown and David Miliband, declared that "Russian aggression must not go unanswered". George Bush denounced Russia for having "invaded a sovereign neighbouring state" and threatening "a democratic government". Such an action, he insisted, "is unacceptable in the 21st century".

Could these by any chance be the leaders of the same governments that in 2003 invaded and occupied - along with Georgia, as luck would have it - the sovereign state of Iraq on a false pretext at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives? Or even the two governments that blocked a ceasefire in the summer of 2006 as Israel pulverised Lebanon's infrastructure and killed more than a thousand civilians in retaliation for the capture or killing of five soldiers?

You'd be hard put to recall after all the fury over Russian aggression that it was actually Georgia that began the war last Thursday with an all-out attack on South Ossetia to "restore constitutional order" - in other words, rule over an area it has never controlled since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

the rest here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ia.georgia

 

[Robert]

This guy makes a fair point:

The outcome of six grim days of bloodshed in the Caucasus has triggered an outpouring of the most nauseating hypocrisy from western politicians and their captive media. As talking heads thundered against Russian imperialism and brutal disproportionality, US vice-president Dick Cheney, faithfully echoed by Gordon Brown and David Miliband, declared that "Russian aggression must not go unanswered". George Bush denounced Russia for having "invaded a sovereign neighbouring state" and threatening "a democratic government". Such an action, he insisted, "is unacceptable in the 21st century".

Could these by any chance be the leaders of the same governments that in 2003 invaded and occupied - along with Georgia, as luck would have it - the sovereign state of Iraq on a false pretext at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives? Or even the two governments that blocked a ceasefire in the summer of 2006 as Israel pulverised Lebanon's infrastructure and killed more than a thousand civilians in retaliation for the capture or killing of five soldiers?

You'd be hard put to recall after all the fury over Russian aggression that it was actually Georgia that began the war last Thursday with an all-out attack on South Ossetia to "restore constitutional order" - in other words, rule over an area it has never controlled since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

the rest here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ia.georgia

 

[Robert]

This guy makes a fair point:

The outcome of six grim days of bloodshed in the Caucasus has triggered an outpouring of the most nauseating hypocrisy from western politicians and their captive media. As talking heads thundered against Russian imperialism and brutal disproportionality, US vice-president Dick Cheney, faithfully echoed by Gordon Brown and David Miliband, declared that "Russian aggression must not go unanswered". George Bush denounced Russia for having "invaded a sovereign neighbouring state" and threatening "a democratic government". Such an action, he insisted, "is unacceptable in the 21st century".

Could these by any chance be the leaders of the same governments that in 2003 invaded and occupied - along with Georgia, as luck would have it - the sovereign state of Iraq on a false pretext at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives? Or even the two governments that blocked a ceasefire in the summer of 2006 as Israel pulverised Lebanon's infrastructure and killed more than a thousand civilians in retaliation for the capture or killing of five soldiers?

You'd be hard put to recall after all the fury over Russian aggression that it was actually Georgia that began the war last Thursday with an all-out attack on South Ossetia to "restore constitutional order" - in other words, rule over an area it has never controlled since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

the rest here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ia.georgia

 

[Robert]

This guy makes a fair point:

The outcome of six grim days of bloodshed in the Caucasus has triggered an outpouring of the most nauseating hypocrisy from western politicians and their captive media. As talking heads thundered against Russian imperialism and brutal disproportionality, US vice-president Dick Cheney, faithfully echoed by Gordon Brown and David Miliband, declared that "Russian aggression must not go unanswered". George Bush denounced Russia for having "invaded a sovereign neighbouring state" and threatening "a democratic government". Such an action, he insisted, "is unacceptable in the 21st century".

Could these by any chance be the leaders of the same governments that in 2003 invaded and occupied - along with Georgia, as luck would have it - the sovereign state of Iraq on a false pretext at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives? Or even the two governments that blocked a ceasefire in the summer of 2006 as Israel pulverised Lebanon's infrastructure and killed more than a thousand civilians in retaliation for the capture or killing of five soldiers?

You'd be hard put to recall after all the fury over Russian aggression that it was actually Georgia that began the war last Thursday with an all-out attack on South Ossetia to "restore constitutional order" - in other words, rule over an area it has never controlled since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

the rest here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ia.georgia

 

[Robert]

This guy makes a fair point:

The outcome of six grim days of bloodshed in the Caucasus has triggered an outpouring of the most nauseating hypocrisy from western politicians and their captive media. As talking heads thundered against Russian imperialism and brutal disproportionality, US vice-president Dick Cheney, faithfully echoed by Gordon Brown and David Miliband, declared that "Russian aggression must not go unanswered". George Bush denounced Russia for having "invaded a sovereign neighbouring state" and threatening "a democratic government". Such an action, he insisted, "is unacceptable in the 21st century".

Could these by any chance be the leaders of the same governments that in 2003 invaded and occupied - along with Georgia, as luck would have it - the sovereign state of Iraq on a false pretext at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives? Or even the two governments that blocked a ceasefire in the summer of 2006 as Israel pulverised Lebanon's infrastructure and killed more than a thousand civilians in retaliation for the capture or killing of five soldiers?

You'd be hard put to recall after all the fury over Russian aggression that it was actually Georgia that began the war last Thursday with an all-out attack on South Ossetia to "restore constitutional order" - in other words, rule over an area it has never controlled since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

the rest here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ia.georgia

 

[Robert]

This guy makes a fair point:

The outcome of six grim days of bloodshed in the Caucasus has triggered an outpouring of the most nauseating hypocrisy from western politicians and their captive media. As talking heads thundered against Russian imperialism and brutal disproportionality, US vice-president Dick Cheney, faithfully echoed by Gordon Brown and David Miliband, declared that "Russian aggression must not go unanswered". George Bush denounced Russia for having "invaded a sovereign neighbouring state" and threatening "a democratic government". Such an action, he insisted, "is unacceptable in the 21st century".

Could these by any chance be the leaders of the same governments that in 2003 invaded and occupied - along with Georgia, as luck would have it - the sovereign state of Iraq on a false pretext at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives? Or even the two governments that blocked a ceasefire in the summer of 2006 as Israel pulverised Lebanon's infrastructure and killed more than a thousand civilians in retaliation for the capture or killing of five soldiers?

You'd be hard put to recall after all the fury over Russian aggression that it was actually Georgia that began the war last Thursday with an all-out attack on South Ossetia to "restore constitutional order" - in other words, rule over an area it has never controlled since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

the rest here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ia.georgia

 

[Glaucus]

You know, just because the US has done some really nasty things doesn't mean others can't do nasty things. Russia is no saint, and as little as I trust the US, I mistrust Russia just as much if not more. I got a good chuckle when i read about the Russian foreign minister claim that Georgians rocket bombed populated cities when the Russian did the same and far far worse in Chechnya. Not only did they use tube rocket artillery, they used air-fuel bombs as well. Grozny was pretty much raised to the ground, yet I hear hardly anyone talking about that. So ya, I thought it was quite funny to hear the Russians making those accusations.

And I'm not sure what the two sides of the coin are. From what I can see is that Russia is quite annoyed with NATO expansion around it's borders and it seems it drew the line in the sand in Georgia. It's Russia that benefits the most from an unstable Georgia. It's Russia that benefits the most from an ongoing border dispute with Georgia. All the Russians have to do is never make any formal agreements and to keep tensions high and Georgia's chances of NATO membership are pretty much zero. The US will of course provide as much assistance as it can to Georgia, and even military support if it comes down to it, but without NATO Georgia is in a weak position. The US doesn't want to be locked down in Georgia right now, it has enough problems to deal with.

- Mike

 

[Glaucus]

You know, just because the US has done some really nasty things doesn't mean others can't do nasty things. Russia is no saint, and as little as I trust the US, I mistrust Russia just as much if not more. I got a good chuckle when i read about the Russian foreign minister claim that Georgians rocket bombed populated cities when the Russian did the same and far far worse in Chechnya. Not only did they use tube rocket artillery, they used air-fuel bombs as well. Grozny was pretty much raised to the ground, yet I hear hardly anyone talking about that. So ya, I thought it was quite funny to hear the Russians making those accusations.

And I'm not sure what the two sides of the coin are. From what I can see is that Russia is quite annoyed with NATO expansion around it's borders and it seems it drew the line in the sand in Georgia. It's Russia that benefits the most from an unstable Georgia. It's Russia that benefits the most from an ongoing border dispute with Georgia. All the Russians have to do is never make any formal agreements and to keep tensions high and Georgia's chances of NATO membership are pretty much zero. The US will of course provide as much assistance as it can to Georgia, and even military support if it comes down to it, but without NATO Georgia is in a weak position. The US doesn't want to be locked down in Georgia right now, it has enough problems to deal with.

- Mike

 

[Glaucus]

You know, just because the US has done some really nasty things doesn't mean others can't do nasty things. Russia is no saint, and as little as I trust the US, I mistrust Russia just as much if not more. I got a good chuckle when i read about the Russian foreign minister claim that Georgians rocket bombed populated cities when the Russian did the same and far far worse in Chechnya. Not only did they use tube rocket artillery, they used air-fuel bombs as well. Grozny was pretty much raised to the ground, yet I hear hardly anyone talking about that. So ya, I thought it was quite funny to hear the Russians making those accusations.

And I'm not sure what the two sides of the coin are. From what I can see is that Russia is quite annoyed with NATO expansion around it's borders and it seems it drew the line in the sand in Georgia. It's Russia that benefits the most from an unstable Georgia. It's Russia that benefits the most from an ongoing border dispute with Georgia. All the Russians have to do is never make any formal agreements and to keep tensions high and Georgia's chances of NATO membership are pretty much zero. The US will of course provide as much assistance as it can to Georgia, and even military support if it comes down to it, but without NATO Georgia is in a weak position. The US doesn't want to be locked down in Georgia right now, it has enough problems to deal with.

- Mike

 

[Glaucus]

You know, just because the US has done some really nasty things doesn't mean others can't do nasty things. Russia is no saint, and as little as I trust the US, I mistrust Russia just as much if not more. I got a good chuckle when i read about the Russian foreign minister claim that Georgians rocket bombed populated cities when the Russian did the same and far far worse in Chechnya. Not only did they use tube rocket artillery, they used air-fuel bombs as well. Grozny was pretty much raised to the ground, yet I hear hardly anyone talking about that. So ya, I thought it was quite funny to hear the Russians making those accusations.

And I'm not sure what the two sides of the coin are. From what I can see is that Russia is quite annoyed with NATO expansion around it's borders and it seems it drew the line in the sand in Georgia. It's Russia that benefits the most from an unstable Georgia. It's Russia that benefits the most from an ongoing border dispute with Georgia. All the Russians have to do is never make any formal agreements and to keep tensions high and Georgia's chances of NATO membership are pretty much zero. The US will of course provide as much assistance as it can to Georgia, and even military support if it comes down to it, but without NATO Georgia is in a weak position. The US doesn't want to be locked down in Georgia right now, it has enough problems to deal with.

- Mike

 

[Glaucus]

You know, just because the US has done some really nasty things doesn't mean others can't do nasty things. Russia is no saint, and as little as I trust the US, I mistrust Russia just as much if not more. I got a good chuckle when i read about the Russian foreign minister claim that Georgians rocket bombed populated cities when the Russian did the same and far far worse in Chechnya. Not only did they use tube rocket artillery, they used air-fuel bombs as well. Grozny was pretty much raised to the ground, yet I hear hardly anyone talking about that. So ya, I thought it was quite funny to hear the Russians making those accusations.

And I'm not sure what the two sides of the coin are. From what I can see is that Russia is quite annoyed with NATO expansion around it's borders and it seems it drew the line in the sand in Georgia. It's Russia that benefits the most from an unstable Georgia. It's Russia that benefits the most from an ongoing border dispute with Georgia. All the Russians have to do is never make any formal agreements and to keep tensions high and Georgia's chances of NATO membership are pretty much zero. The US will of course provide as much assistance as it can to Georgia, and even military support if it comes down to it, but without NATO Georgia is in a weak position. The US doesn't want to be locked down in Georgia right now, it has enough problems to deal with.

- Mike

 

[Glaucus]

You know, just because the US has done some really nasty things doesn't mean others can't do nasty things. Russia is no saint, and as little as I trust the US, I mistrust Russia just as much if not more. I got a good chuckle when i read about the Russian foreign minister claim that Georgians rocket bombed populated cities when the Russian did the same and far far worse in Chechnya. Not only did they use tube rocket artillery, they used air-fuel bombs as well. Grozny was pretty much raised to the ground, yet I hear hardly anyone talking about that. So ya, I thought it was quite funny to hear the Russians making those accusations.

And I'm not sure what the two sides of the coin are. From what I can see is that Russia is quite annoyed with NATO expansion around it's borders and it seems it drew the line in the sand in Georgia. It's Russia that benefits the most from an unstable Georgia. It's Russia that benefits the most from an ongoing border dispute with Georgia. All the Russians have to do is never make any formal agreements and to keep tensions high and Georgia's chances of NATO membership are pretty much zero. The US will of course provide as much assistance as it can to Georgia, and even military support if it comes down to it, but without NATO Georgia is in a weak position. The US doesn't want to be locked down in Georgia right now, it has enough problems to deal with.

- Mike

 

[Robert]

You know, just because the US has done some really nasty things doesn't mean others can't do nasty things.

True.
I don't think any of us want to see Russia setting up miltary bases all over the planet and arming countries who don't get on with the US.
But if they did, you can bet that the US would be the loudest critics and the UK 'liberal' media would happily trumpet the criticism, all the while neglecting to mention the gorilla in the room.

Georgians rocket bombed populated cities when the Russian did the same and far far worse in Chechnya.

Exactly and just because Russia did it, doesn't mean it's OK for Georgia to do it either.



There is rank hypocrisy on all sides.

Russia is no saint

I couldn't agree more but what I have problem with is the "Russia bad, Georgia good" blanket coverage. I've no idea what the Canadian press are making of it but over here it's almost unanimous condemnation of Russia and promotion of absurdly hypocritical US sound bites.
Georgia has almost completely escaped criticism here.

Having said that, I did see a Russian military commander on TV last night. He was asked (assuming the traslation was accurate)when they would leave and he said whenever they are ordered to. He was then asked about US demands they do so immediately, to which he responded along the lines of, "We don't demand they leave Iraq. They took Baghdad and, if we so choose, we'll take Tblisi."

Here is Mr. Mikheil Saakashvili's own explanation of the situation:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... gia.russia

Take from that what you will.

It would be nice to have an article from Medvydev or Putin for balance.

 

[Robert]

You know, just because the US has done some really nasty things doesn't mean others can't do nasty things.

True.
I don't think any of us want to see Russia setting up miltary bases all over the planet and arming countries who don't get on with the US.
But if they did, you can bet that the US would be the loudest critics and the UK 'liberal' media would happily trumpet the criticism, all the while neglecting to mention the gorilla in the room.

Georgians rocket bombed populated cities when the Russian did the same and far far worse in Chechnya.

Exactly and just because Russia did it, doesn't mean it's OK for Georgia to do it either.



There is rank hypocrisy on all sides.

Russia is no saint

I couldn't agree more but what I have problem with is the "Russia bad, Georgia good" blanket coverage. I've no idea what the Canadian press are making of it but over here it's almost unanimous condemnation of Russia and promotion of absurdly hypocritical US sound bites.
Georgia has almost completely escaped criticism here.

Having said that, I did see a Russian military commander on TV last night. He was asked (assuming the traslation was accurate)when they would leave and he said whenever they are ordered to. He was then asked about US demands they do so immediately, to which he responded along the lines of, "We don't demand they leave Iraq. They took Baghdad and, if we so choose, we'll take Tblisi."

Here is Mr. Mikheil Saakashvili's own explanation of the situation:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... gia.russia

Take from that what you will.

It would be nice to have an article from Medvydev or Putin for balance.