russia/ georgia

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I'll bet there were some in this country who didn't want to see the collapse of the Soviet Union. Namely, the military-industrial complex, along with certain chickenhawks in the current administration and elsewhere in the government. Remember, the best way to keep their stranglehold of power over the sheeple is to have an neverending pseudo "war" with vague, non-distinct enemies. It keeps everyone in fear, allows for the state to take more of our money and liberties, and paints anyone who challenges this "threat" as traitorous, unpatriotic, and un-American.

What do "chickenhawks," "sheeple" and fear mongering have to do with Putin's aspirations? This seems like you're going off on a bit of rant/tangent.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Putin is only responding to our government's zeal to "spread freedom" throughout the world -- which, as we all should know by now, including the Russians, is an elaborate ruse. The only real purpose is to establish empire, to maintain commitments to corporate interests, and to feed the suicidal, hawkish desires of those who do nothing but glorify war, and long for the days of having an "evil empire" to contend with. It's only human nature.

So you really believe that Putin really just wants to re-establish the USSR because he doesn't agree with our foreign policy? I don't think you know Putin too well if you think he's just afraid that our invasion of Iraq is just the first step in our march toward Moscow.

Also, I think it's kind of silly to attribute our foreign policy objectives to one monolithic force that is simply bent on world domination. That makes for a nice John Wayne-style world that is divided between the "good guys" and the "bad guys," but life is a tad bit more complicated than that. Our foreign policy is influenced by 1 President, 1 Vice President, dozens Executive Branch advisors and employees, a Congress of over 400 people and thousands of Congressional advisors, thousands of lobbyists (including, yes, corporate lobbyists), and MILLIONS of members of the voting public like me and you. It's kinda silly to say our government's foreign policy is motivated and controlled by one set of evil values and people, don't you think?

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I don't put the blame solely at the feet of today's Bush Administration. America's long history of "tough" foreign policy goes back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt and World War I and can be directly traced to many, if not most of the world's problems we see today.

I think you are, yet again, oversimplifying things. To say that one single country is responsible for most of the world's problems is not realistic. We have done some serious harm around the world via armed interventions, supporting military dictatorships, etc. and we should recognize those problems. But we should also recognize the good that our country has done around the world. Instead, our society seems to be divided between two camps: the first of which refuses to admit that we can do any wrong; and the second of which seems to love self-flagellation and to attribute every bad thing to the American capitalist conspiracy. That you believe that the invasion of Iraq caused Putin to invade Georgia tells me you are in the latter camp.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

What do "chickenhawks," "sheeple" and fear mongering have to do with Putin's aspirations? . . . [do] you really believe that Putin really just wants to re-establish the USSR because he doesn't agree with our foreign policy? I don't think you know Putin too well if you think he's just afraid that our invasion of Iraq is just the first step in our march toward Moscow.

It is the policies set forth by the chickenhawks in this administration and elsewhere in the government that Putin is responding to. The sheeple -- whom I classify as apathetic citizens, oblivious to the actions of their government, yet who continue to vote for the same two-party system that gets us into messes like this -- blindly go along with it. What we have seen from Putin is a reaction, not an unwarranted offensive. I will say that if Putin does long for the days of Soviet domination of the East, our government has done a fine job of pushing him in that direction.

Putin's aspirations are directly tied to U.S. military adventures in the middle east, the stationing of over 130,000 U.S. troops in Russia's back yard, by the U.S. government's support of Georgia's admittance into NATO, and by insistence on the part of our government to establish anti-missle systems in Poland. To me, there appears to be a strong faction in Washington, D.C. hell bent on rekindling the Cold War. You call that "silly," but I call it a simple observation of the facts.

Also, I think it's kind of silly to attribute our foreign policy objectives to one monolithic force that is simply bent on world domination. That makes for a nice John Wayne-style world that is divided between the "good guys" and the "bad guys," but life is a tad bit more complicated than that . . . It's kinda silly to say our government's foreign policy is motivated and controlled by one set of evil values and people, don't you think?

Actually, I don't think the neocons' ultimate goal is "world domination." I just don't think they're content with simply being the world's lone superpower. There's more to it than that, and their actions would indicate that they'd like to take it a step further. Take the fact that our military sent advisors to Georgia long before this crap started going down. Also consider eyewitness accounts of U.S. troops already fighting in Georgia. Then you also have reports of the U.S. Marines Corps training the Georgian military. You seem like a reasonable guy, SGG. And you obviously follow this stuff. Can't you admit that there have been calculated attempts by our government to back Russia into a corner by gobbling up former Soviet republics into NATO for God knows what purpose? Why does NATO even exist anymore?

The Warsaw Pact was dissolved, but NATO sure as hell wasn't. NATO, whose sole function was to repel Soviet aggression, is trying to expand. What for? The Soviet Union collapsed, and even made strides toward implementing capitalism for their citizens. But it's main foe never went anywhere. In fact, it's re-arming, growing in the number of its member nations, and setting up new defensive installations on the edge of the Russian border. And yet you're mystified as to why Putin and the Russians are reacting so harshly? I'll ask the question I posed earlier: What would the U.S. reaction be if the "Evil Empire" was carrying on like this just south of our border, or it's navy was cruising around at will in the Gulf of Mexico?

You express doubts that our government is controlled by 'evil values' or that it's been hijacked by a 'monolithic force'. I don't know that I'd classify it as "evil". Misguided and bordering on suicidal, yes. But not evil. And I'm not sure why you find it so hard to believe that "one set of people" are in complete control of things. There are 'political winds,' so to speak. Trends that periodically lead us in one direction or the other, depending on who has power. This particular 'tough foreign policy' trend got started with Theodore Roosevelt and his "Great White Fleet," and continued with Woodrow Wilson's involvment in World War I. Then it kicked into high-gear with the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned the American people of in his farewell address to the nation as his second term came to an end.

I could go on and on pointing to various interventions, violent overthrows of foreign governments, and covert operations all over the face of the Earth that the United States government organized, funded, or initiated since the earliest days of the 20th century which would prove my point. Thankfully, you're aware enough of history so that I won't have to rehash them all. But I don't think it's out of the question to say that this country -- this government, if you prefer -- is headed in the wrong direction when it comes to foreign affairs. But make no mistake, this trend is real. It permeates our government's outlook towards foreign policy to this very day by politicians on both sides of the aisle. And it's going to get a whole lot of people killed if we're not careful.

I think you are, yet again, oversimplifying things. To say that one single country is responsible for most of the world's problems is not realistic. We have done some serious harm around the world via armed interventions, supporting military dictatorships, etc. and we should recognize those problems. But we should also recognize the good that our country has done around the world. Instead, our society seems to be divided between two camps: the first of which refuses to admit that we can do any wrong; and the second of which seems to love self-flagellation and to attribute every bad thing to the American capitalist conspiracy. That you believe that the invasion of Iraq caused Putin to invade Georgia tells me you are in the latter camp.

For the record, and forgive me if I gave this impression, I don't believe Putin's response in Georgia was initiated by our war against Iraq. I just think it has made Russia nervous -- just as it made us nervous when they tried to use Cuba as a launching pad for some ICBMs back in 1962. To the contrary, Putin (no longer the president, by the way) and his government were fully aware of Georgia's intention to put the smackdown on South Ossetia. That's why they had their own troops positioned on the Georgian border in anticipation of the hostilities before Saakasvili's invasion of the breakaway province ever took place. That Georgia started this conflict is not in dispute. But I also believe Washington knew precisely what was about to take place. With all of the spy satellites and surveillance measures we take in that region of the world, there's no way the Bush administration was in the dark about what Saakashvili was prepared to do.

You also make reference to the notion that I'm looking at this as if it's black and white, or that it's a simple case of the good guys against the bad guys. It's the neocons and the blowhards in talk radio who characterize it that way. There's a lot of gray area in war, just as there is here. I've always understood that.

The United States is the best country in the world, and there's no place I'd rather live. But I also know we make mistakes -- a lot of them recently, especially in the realm of foreign affairs. I'm also upset by the casual attitude Americans take towards war, and the reflexive willingness to wrap ourselves up in the flag while refusing to take the time to look at issues like these from a different point of view; to recognize that we don't always carry the banner for righteousness -- that maybe our government is up to no good. Why is it we admit that can be the case on domestic issues, but with foreign policy we always walk amongst the angels?

Far more Americans fall into the 'we can do no wrong' camp than mine.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Also consider eyewitness accounts of U.S. troops already fighting in Georgia.

I enjoyed reading the majority of your previous post. While I think that bring up some valid points I have reservations about believing the eyewitness account of US troops fighting in Georgia. I want to make it very clear that I am not saying that it did not happen. I am going to point out why it is not likely.

First, I will start out petty and work my way up.

1. The woman said that us markings were worn on the forearm. We wear them on the shoulder. Petty... I know, words can get lost in translation.

2. Most U.S. service members fight in large groups and wear the standard ACU uniform. On these uniforms the U.S. REVERSE-SIDE FULL-COLOR U.S. FLAG CLOTH REPLICA. is worn. These uniforms are not "black".

3. There are smaller operations teams (I don't have to name them all) that do perform missions like this. However when they do, no one would be able to (positively) identify them as U.S. Troops. This is because there would be no names, no rank, no U.S. REVERSE-SIDE FULL-COLOR U.S. FLAG CLOTH REPLICA., and no U.S. Army (Navy or Marines) on those "black" uniforms.

4. Often times U.S. service members will buddy-up with Foreign Service members and exchange items such as uniforms, flags, rank, bayonets etc. It is not a stretch of the imagination that Georgian forces that train with or who have met U.S. troops, have exchanged some items.

It almost seems as if someone wants people to believe that there was U.S. involvement.

FYI, we train just about any allied nation that wants to be trained...to an extent.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

It is the policies set forth by the chickenhawks in this administration and elsewhere in the government that Putin is responding to. The sheeple -- whom I classify as apathetic citizens, oblivious to the actions of their government, yet who continue to vote for the same two-party system that gets us into messes like this -- blindly go along with it. What we have seen from Putin is a reaction, not an unwarranted offensive. I will say that if Putin does long for the days of Soviet domination of the East, our government has done a fine job of pushing him in that direction.

I would like to know how exactly you know that Putin/Russian action in Georgia is a response to "policies set forth by the chickenhawks." Unless you are Vlad himself, you cannot tell me what is motivating Russian action in Georgia.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Putin's aspirations are directly tied to U.S. military adventures in the middle east, the stationing of over 130,000 U.S. troops in Russia's back yard, by the U.S. government's support of Georgia's admittance into NATO, and by insistence on the part of our government to establish anti-missle systems in Poland. To me, there appears to be a strong faction in Washington, D.C. hell bent on rekindling the Cold War. You call that "silly," but I call it a simple observation of the facts.

See my comments above. Also, I think it is noteworthy that the Russians put the smack down on the Chechen rebels well before the chickenhawks came into power. I suppose they were just anticipating that Bush would get elected, fill his cabinet with chickenhawks, invade Iraq, and put an anti-missile system in Poland?

Don't get me wrong, I think our foreign policy and superpower status irks the hell out of Putin. And, to be fair, many of the Bush administration's policies reek of arrogance and offend many people around the globe. But, Putin seems to long for the days of the USSR - that beast that openly and explicitly declared in numerous manifestos that its goal was world domination.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Actually, I don't think the neocons' ultimate goal is "world domination." I just don't think they're content with simply being the world's lone superpower. There's more to it than that, and their actions would indicate that they'd like to take it a step further. Take the fact that our military sent advisors to Georgia long before this crap started going down. Also consider eyewitness accounts of U.S. troops already fighting in Georgia. Then you also have reports of the U.S. Marines Corps training the Georgian military. You seem like a reasonable guy, SGG. And you obviously follow this stuff. Can't you admit that there have been calculated attempts by our government to back Russia into a corner by gobbling up former Soviet republics into NATO for God knows what purpose?

Wait a second. Your other posts were within the world of reason. If I am reading this post, it is well outside the world of reason. Are you suggesting that our government is deliberately trying to start another Cold War?

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

The Warsaw Pact was dissolved, but NATO sure as hell wasn't. NATO, whose sole function was to repel Soviet aggression, is trying to expand. What for? The Soviet Union collapsed, and even made strides toward implementing capitalism for their citizens. But it's main foe never went anywhere. In fact, it's re-arming, growing in the number of its member nations, and setting up new defensive installations on the edge of the Russian border. And yet you're mystified as to why Putin and the Russians are reacting so harshly? I'll ask the question I posed earlier: What would the U.S. reaction be if the "Evil Empire" was carrying on like this just south of our border, or it's navy was cruising around at will in the Gulf of Mexico?

NATO is a defensive alliance and, unlike the Warsaw Pact, did not regularly engage in offensive operations against "innocent states." Moreover, NATO and the Warsaw Pact were totally different animals. NATO is an alliance of independent states, formed for defensive purposes. The Warsaw Pact was a sham; Moscow controlled every move, decision, and action of the Pact. Moreover, there were even talks of Russia joining NATO. So, do you really think Russia should view NATO as some threat that might ultimately parade through Moscow some day?

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

You express doubts that our government is controlled by 'evil values' or that it's been hijacked by a 'monolithic force'. I don't know that I'd classify it as "evil". Misguided and bordering on suicidal, yes. But not evil. And I'm not sure why you find it so hard to believe that "one set of people" are in complete control of things. There are 'political winds,' so to speak. Trends that periodically lead us in one direction or the other, depending on who has power. This particular 'tough foreign policy' trend got started with Theodore Roosevelt and his "Great White Fleet," and continued with Woodrow Wilson's involvment in World War I. Then it kicked into high-gear with the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned the American people of in his farewell address to the nation as his second term came to an end.

What do you mean by "one set of people." If you mean a bunch of old, rich, white dudes smoking cigars and pulling levers behind a giant curtain, then no I don't share your view. People on the fringes of the left and right tend to view the government as one giant corrupt force controlled by a few select individuals (in that "V is for Vendetta" sense).

In reality, our government and its foreign policy is influenced by millions of people. The President often defers to advisors, who receive reports and recommendations from subordinates, and the Vice President. The President also considers "special interests," whether those be NGOs advocating on behalf of certain humanitarian causes or greedy corporations advocating on behalf of their shareholders. The President also has to consider how his policies will be viewed by the general public - that pesky group of 300 million that has the power to vote his ass, or his friends' asses, out of office.

After the President formulates policy, he has to go consult that pesky group called Congress. Yes, the President may make unilateral moves, but the big pricey decisions have to be vetted by Congress. Congress can be spineless, but the President rarely disregards it. Moreover, Congress is made up of about 500 congressmen and thousands upon thousands of staffers. On top of that, you've got tens of thousands of lobbyists representing both "good" and "bad" special interests effectively giving money to congressmen for votes.

In sum, fortunately, there are so damn many people trying to influence policy, that no single group dominates.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

For the record, and forgive me if I gave this impression, I don't believe Putin's response in Georgia was initiated by our war against Iraq. I just think it has made Russia nervous -- just as it made us nervous when they tried to use Cuba as a launching pad for some ICBMs back in 1962. To the contrary, Putin (no longer the president, by the way) and his government were fully aware of Georgia's intention to put the smackdown on South Ossetia. That's why they had their own troops positioned on the Georgian border in anticipation of the hostilities before Saakasvili's invasion of the breakaway province ever took place. That Georgia started this conflict is not in dispute. But I also believe Washington knew precisely what was about to take place. With all of the spy satellites and surveillance measures we take in that region of the world, there's no way the Bush administration was in the dark about what Saakashvili was prepared to do.

I can't agree with the bolded part above. I don't know who "started" the conflict. Some say the Russians did and others say the Georgians did. Russia can be compared to a guy that starts banging his neighbor's wife (i.e., S. Ossetia), the neighbor (i.e., Georgia) finds out and smacks his wife, and Russia then firebombs his neighbor's house. Russia has been trying to provoke Georgia into a military confrontation for quite some time. Moreover, Georgia never attacked Russia. Georgia attacked militants within its own borders.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Far more Americans fall into the 'we can do no wrong' camp than mine.

Maybe, maybe not. I've been living in college towns for the past few years and I'm surrounded by the "I don't eat chicken because I'm not a murderer like you, the U.S.-Israeli government (singular, not plural) masterminded 9/11 so it could take over the world, America is nothing but a bunch of dumbasses, the communists had it right, unlike the rest of America I see reality and am not blinded by the man" crowd.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I would like to know how exactly you know that Putin/Russian action in Georgia is a response to "policies set forth by the chickenhawks." Unless you are Vlad himself, you cannot tell me what is motivating Russian action in Georgia.

You don't have to be a mind reader in order to figure out what's going on here. Russia came to the aid of South Ossetia because their people have cultural and ethnic ties to Russia, and they prefer the Russians to the Georgians. I think at least a part of Putin's brazenness can be a show of force to the United States. A subtle reminder, if you will, that Russians have their sphere of influence too. The policies of the chickenhawks are what had U.S. military advisors and troops training the Georgian military, and it justifiably irritated the Russians.

Also, I think it is noteworthy that the Russians put the smack down on the Chechen rebels well before the chickenhawks came into power. I suppose they were just anticipating that Bush would get elected, fill his cabinet with chickenhawks, invade Iraq, and put an anti-missile system in Poland? . . . Putin seems to long for the days of the USSR - that beast that openly and explicitly declared in numerous manifestos that its goal was world domination.

None of this is to say that Putin, Medvedev, and the Russians government are perfect little angels. As I mentioned earlier, there's a lot of gray area here. It's not a black and white issue. Certainly there's a history of aggression with the rise of Communism in Russia. But the point I'm trying to make is that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the arrogant interventionist foreign policies of our government have done more to alienate the Russians than to accept them with open arms.

Wait a second . . . Are you suggesting that our government is deliberately trying to start another Cold War?

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. I don't know what's so difficult to grasp here. As I've demonstrated multiple times now, setting up missle defense systems at the edge of the Russian border, and snatching up former Soviet Republic after former Soviet Republic into NATO is an alarming action to the Russians which they perceive to be a threat.

Just as we would see it if the situation were reversed. I've posted this three times now, and no one seems to have an answer for it, so I'll say it again: What would the United States do if the Russians had 130,000 troops just to the south of us, if they had established anti-missle systems just off international waters to our west, and if the Russian navy were patroling the Gulf of Mexico, acting as though they had the authority to permit or deny access to the gulf at their sole discretion. We would be livid, and rightly so. That would be seen as an act of war.

NATO is a defensive alliance and, unlike the Warsaw Pact, did not regularly engage in offensive operations against "innocent states." Moreover, NATO and the Warsaw Pact were totally different animals. NATO is an alliance of independent states, formed for defensive purposes. The Warsaw Pact was a sham; Moscow controlled every move, decision, and action of the Pact. Moreover, there were even talks of Russia joining NATO. So, do you really think Russia should view NATO as some threat that might ultimately parade through Moscow some day?

Notice how you're referring to the Warsaw Pact in the past tense and NATO in the present? Again, if the shoe were on the other foot, and the Allies agreed to disband NATO, how would we view it if Russia kept their alliance intact and began to coax former NATO countries to their side? While I don't believe we will one day "parade through Moscow" in triumph, what's critical to understand is that the Russians may see it that way. They perceive our actions as a threat.

What do you mean by "one set of people." If you mean a bunch of old, rich, white dudes smoking cigars and pulling levers behind a giant curtain, then no I don't share your view . . . In sum, fortunately, there are so damn many people trying to influence policy, that no single group dominates.

No, it's not 4 or 5 guys that has complete control of things. Remember my statement earlier when I said that this trend "permeates our government's outlook towards foreign policy to this very day by politicians on both sides of the aisle" ?? I see the military-industrial complex as the prime culprit -- but it's not just a tiny little faction pulling the strings. It's a widespread, elaborate web of corporate lobbyists, and defense contractors pushing each and every congressman to spend billions developing tanks, missles, jets, naval warships and other weapons systems, and they do it in every single district, democrat or republican. It has been said that the B-2 Stealth Bomber has a part made in each of the 50 states -- so that when the time comes to vote for more spending, no member of congress would deny their district a piece of the pie. With each new "crisis" that developes around the world comes more cries for U.S. intervention, calls for more defense spending on the part of our elected officials, and feeds the defense contractors with new work orders, massive contracts, and more jobs for each congressman's district who in turn demands a piece of the action. This creates a never-ending cycle which ultimately ends up obligating our service men and women to every corner of the earth wherever trouble pops up, often resulting in their deaths.

Imagine if every representative or senator who votes in favor of war had to personally inform the family of a soldier or marine that their loved one is now dead.

I don't know who "started" the conflict. Some say the Russians did and others say the Georgians did. Russia can be compared to a guy that starts banging his neighbor's wife (i.e., S. Ossetia), the neighbor (i.e., Georgia) finds out and smacks his wife, and Russia then firebombs his neighbor's house. Russia has been trying to provoke Georgia into a military confrontation for quite some time. Moreover, Georgia never attacked Russia. Georgia attacked militants within its own borders.

What you call "militants" is actually an independent nation which effectively broke away from Geogia in the early 1990's. Now, of course, you, the Georgians, and the neocons in this country don't see it that way. But the Ossetians sure do. If they want to break away and live independently of Georgia, who is the Bush administration or Saakashvili to tell them otherwise? Isn't that what the Americans did 200 years ago when they told the King of England to go kiss off?

This might open up another can of worms, but don't you believe there is a fundamental right of individuals or groups of individuals to disassociate or secede from a union in which they feel their interests are no longer adequately served?

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

This might open up another can of worms, but don't you believe there is a fundamental right of individuals or groups of individuals to disassociate or secede from a union in which they feel their interests are no longer adequately served?

Ok, I'll bite. How do you think this would apply to the Civil War?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by mheisig

Ok, I'll bite. How do you think this would apply to the Civil War?

Yeah, this is a pretty wild tangent -- but down to the perceptual level, don't we as individuals have the right to disassociate with whomever we want? If I feel someone with whom I have a relationship isn't holding up their end of the bargain, I have the right to go elsewhere, do I not?

Same should go for nation-states. I don't know what the ramifications would have been for the south in the War of Northern Aggression (some call it the Civil War), but sooner or later, the two sides would have come to some sort of agreement and we'd have been one happy nation again.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Same should go for nation-states. I don't know what the ramifications would have been for the south in the War of Northern Aggression (some call it the Civil War), but sooner or later, the two sides would have come to some sort of agreement and we'd have been one happy nation again.

Wow, did you really just call the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression? I have so many issues with that one; the least serious of which is that the South fired the first shot.

Also, are you saying that, if I so please, I should be able to declare my independence from the United States because I am dissatisfied with my government?