Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
As I wrote last week, the Georgian-Russian conflict has led to a humanitarian tragedy in the region that demands a careful and calibrated response--not a reaction that heightens existing geopolitical tensions. But the latter is exactly what we have seen. The conflict has morphed into a justification for a renewed cold war by the mainstream media, John McCain and his neocon brethren, and it threatens to add fuel to a new arms race. Yet crises also present opportunities, and we should seize this moment to rethink our approach to national security and US-Russian relations.
Since the end of the cold war, US policies toward Russia have done more to jeopardize the security of the people of both nations--and those living in nations of the former Soviet Union--rather than enhance it. It's time to pursue an alternative, more sane and effective course. Instead of expanding NATO to Russia's border, shredding arms control agreements, and generally hyper-militarizing relations between our two nations, we need leaders who have the moxie to lay out a just foreign policy for the region.
There are three key elements to such a foreign policy:
1) Ending NATO expansion eastwards and not building US or NATO military bases in Ukraine or Georgia
2) The US and Russia jointly guaranteeing the political sovereignty of Ukraine and Georgia
3) The US reviving the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and abiding by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty's provisions.
The above certainly doesn't describe our current, reckless course.
Indeed, at the height of the Georgia-Russia crisis last week, the US and Poland signed a deal for Poland to host ten interceptor rockets for the unproven,inane and destabilizing US "missile defense shield." The deal included a permanent US base in Poland and the promise "that the United States would be obliged to defend Poland in case of an attack with greater speed than required under NATO."
The agreement still must be approved by the Polish Parliament, as well as the Czech Parliament whose prime minister signed an agreement to house the radar system (much to the chagrin of the Czech people).
Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund and author of Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons, told me the timing of the agreement with Poland is telling. "This is the old trick used by conservatives: use the crisis of the moment to support a pre-existing agenda," he said. "The Iraq war was the most serious hoax [on the American people], but it was preceded by the push to deploy anti-missile weapons after the attack of September 11. President Bush used that tragedy to increase spending for anti-missile systems and to pull out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.... The fact that terrorists don't have missiles and that the attacks had nothing whatsoever to do with the anti-missile systems didn't matter. The tactic worked. The Democrats in Congress folded, least they look 'weak.' $60 billion and several broken treaties later, we still don't have an anti-missile weapon that works and Osama Bin Laden is cavorting safely in northern Pakistan. They are at it again, this time using the Russia-Georgia conflict to justify a project they fear is slipping away. For the past two years the administration has been insisting that the weapons were aimed at Iran, not Russia. Suddenly, the line has shifted, led by Senator John McCain, whose foreign policy seems to have been completely captured by the neoconservatives. They have left one dying host to infect another...."
Cirincione rightly sees this moment as a test of Democratic backbone-- including that of presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama. "The US does not need a rush to deploy a technology that doesn't work against a threat that doesn't exist," he said. "The Senate and the House Armed Services Committees have wisely restricted any funding for missile systems in Poland or the Czech Republic until both parliaments approve the plan and the proposed weapons pass realistic operational tests. Republicans may try to strike that language from the bill in the Senate this September. This is a test for the Democrats. Are they strong enough to stand by their convictions? Will they expose this placebo defense and the hypocrites who push it? Or will we see the traditional democratic dive on defense? September will tell us a great deal about whether the new Obama-led party is serious about charting a new course."
Republican Representative Trent Franks gave the Democrats a hint of the kind of dangerous, militarism run amok rhetoric they are likely to be baited with in coming months, telling CQ: "This is not just about missile defense; this is about demonstrating to Russia that America is still a nation of resolve... and we're not going to let Russian expansionism intimidate everyone."
In response to the US-proposed missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened to point missiles at Eastern Europe, according to the New York Times. Russia is also now moving short-range missile launchers into South Ossetia.
What is needed right now isn't more military equipment in a charged part of the world. Nor do we need the recycled, irresponsible, and ratcheted-up cold war rhetoric of John "Wayne" McCain. We need wise, levelheaded diplomacy--as is finally occurring in the North Korea nuclear disarmament talks. The Bush Administration squandered years on belligerent, unproductive rhetoric before changing courses--and Senator McCain clearly wouldn't do anything to reengage with the world in the way that is now needed. His temperament and recklessness are more like a perfect storm for worsening the military, political and moral authority that we have lost through the unilateral, immoral actions of the Bush Administration.
Senator Obama has wisely seconded a proposal--made by a bipartisan group of policymakers--that the US work toward a nuclear-free world and abolish nuclear weapons. But far more leadership is needed from him. We must end the growing militarization of US policy and call on Russia to do the same. America is at a fateful crossroads: will we be an empire or a democracy? McCain and his neocon radicalism make clear his reckless choice. Will Obama show realism and the courage to chart a new course and end our national insecurity?
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on whats in the news and whats not--but should be.
RSS
Excellent post, Ms. vanden Heuvel.
I highly recommend that readers here also take a look at the latest book from the American Empire Project by the retired Army colonel and Vietnam vet, Andrew Bacevich, "The Limits of Power".
It appears to be a direct appeal to Mr. Obama to heed the grave danger of the rapidly creeping Imperial ambitions of the Washington establishment and apparently out of control military industrial complex. The book is infused with the liberal use of powerful quotes from Reinhold Niebuhr who has been named as a preferred intellectual influence of Barack Obama.
Let's hope that he hears the clarion call and summons up the courage to take strong action to roll back a pernicious and growing force in American politics.
Here is a strongly recommended link to the recent Moyers interview of Mr. Bacevich:
www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/watch.html
Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/19/2008 @ 12:34pm
Well, Ms vanden Heuvel, I'm half of a mind that McCain is merely ACTING "tough" for an election year.
The man basically panders to any audience, any position, in his desperate bid to achieve what he thinks was stolen from him in the primaries of 2000.
If elected, I think he'd sell out the hawks more than they'll like. His "hint" that he'd support the Obama/al-Maliki 16 month withdrawal plan a few weeks back (with an immediate "correction" 'lest his base get more nervous) seems to indicate that.
Is it worth him winning? No. He's be too beholden to his LVLIB, HAPPY, PONTI Hard Right base and his judges would be disasters. He also, given his temper, is not Mr. Cool Under Fire and his tendency would be to be hawkish.
But remember the "old McCain" who said we "have to" talk to Hamas in Palestine? If he was President...he might come back.
Still...not worth the risk. I just wonder if Obama will be more hawkish, so as to not give ammo to his opponent in 2012.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 12:35pm
Posted by frankgrits at 08/19/2008 @ 12:48pm
Ms vanden Heuvel, please keep in mind that FRANK is a Hillary supporter, whose support of McCain is simply to guarentee that 2012 will be open for her.
He has contradicted himself on numerous occasions to serve that end.
I say this, so you don't confuse him with the normal run-of-the-mill right-wing "Grrrr, grrrr" neo-con types.
Oh and what SPECIFIC "tougher measure" has your stooge McCain offered, anyway FRANK?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 12:55pm
>>>America is at a fateful crossroads: will we be an empire or a democracy? McCain and his neocon radicalism make clear his reckless choice. Will Obama show realism and the courage to chart a new course and end our national insecurity? <<<
Thank you, Katrina for once again pointing out this important issue.
I think Obama feels he has to sound tough toward Russia or he will be portrayed as "weak" in the media. But you are correct, the mainstream media has got this all wrong, and seem to be controlled by forces who want a new Cold War.
While a new Cold War will help military contractors to continue to fleece the US taxpayer, we must be smart enough and courageous enough to stop their scheme for more tax dollars right in its tracks.
Threatening and isolating Russia is wrong-headed! The Obama' advisers who have bought into this must be summoned and CHALLENGED to construct a truly POST-Cold War strategy that includes Russia as a partner rather than a foe.
If NATO is not to be completely dismantled as an out-dated security mechanism, then it must be dramatically re-vamped to include Russian security as part of the"Greater European" security scheme.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/19/2008 @ 1:11pm
Good Article Katrina, You'd think that the people of this country would wise up. War after war after war after war.
The military industrial complex has to keep this nation at war at all times to justify the gross spending we do on weapons systems as well as defense spending.
Now, we aren't just happy making weapons, we're installing them in other countries as well. Pretty soon, we'll be arming the whole entire world to protect agains martians.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/19/2008 @ 1:25pm
Pretty soon, we'll be arming the whole entire world to protect agains martians.----Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/19/2008 @ 1:25pm
Think we have some time before we'll need that.
LVLIB indicated he thinks there are as much as "50%" of Muslims who might be terrorists and that's a good 500 MILLION PEOPLE he'd want to "Dresden'ize"!
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 1:43pm
I dunno...Empire sounds kinda nice...
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/19/2008 @ 1:58pm
I think that this is overall an excellent article, but I disagree with your second contention, not for its sentiment, but because I highly doubt that Russia in its current configuration is in any mood to guarantee such sovereignty. It must be noted that the transformation of Russia into an authoritarian, corporatist state with imperial designs fundamentally limits the ways in which the United States can work in unison with the Russians. Let us suppose for a moment that Barack Obama is elected President in November, and that in two years troops will be withdrawn from Iraq and we will once again be party to the ABM treaty. It is likely that even under such circumstances, we will have an antagonistic relationship with the Russians due to the fact that the government in the Kremlin is determined to assert its traditional authority over its near-abroad, including the Ukraine and Georgia, not to mention the numerous former Soviet republics in Central Asia. Even with a dramatic draw down of military deployment around the world, the US will remain the guarantor of national sovereignty for a host of nations where the Russians will attempt to assert their dominance, regardless of whether the US turns away from its own imperalistic stances in the coming years. We must work with the Russians where we can, especially on North Korea and Iran, but there must also be an acknowledgment that even if we revolutionize our foreign policy for the better, it is highly likely that multiple confrontations with Russian interests will arise--the trick will be to limit these conflicts to diplomatic squabbles and ultimately draw the contrast between the US as a beacon of democratic liberty and Russia as a dangerous autocratic hegemon without coming off as hypocritical.
Posted by stuckinthemiddle at 08/19/2008 @ 2:02pm
"Russia is at the brink of inviting stronger measures."
Posted by frankgrits at 08/19/2008 @ 12:48pm
That is not a good idea at the present time. Putin, who is still very much in charge, is not a man to be trifled with. I have noticed he doesn't bluff.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/19/2008 @ 2:12pm
>>>It is likely that even under such circumstances, we will have an antagonistic relationship with the Russians due to the fact that the government in the Kremlin is determined to assert its traditional authority over its near-abroad, including the Ukraine and Georgia, not to mention the numerous former Soviet republics in Central Asia.<<<
What PROVOKES them to assert authority over these provinces is OUR policy of trying to co-opt these provinces into OUR sphere of influence.
I say stop the provocation, and you get a different response from Russia. Our provocation is based on old Cold War thinking about spheres of influence and balance of power. I know many of these foreign policy analyst were trained during the Cold War era and maybe can't help themselves. But THAT is the problem - our inability to shake Cold War thinking- not Russia.
Why are we constantly trying to INCREASE our sphere of influence? What is the sort of thinking that motivates this?
Instead of spheres of influence and old balance of power thinking, why aren't we CHALLENGING these analysts to construct a new balance of power that includes Russia rather than balances against their power?
I am certainly no fan of missile defense since I think it is simply pork and welfare for the defense industry, but if you are going to pursue such a defensive scheme and it really is aimed at Iran, why not locate the interceptors in Russia?
This is the smarter approach that the foreign policy analysts in both the McCain and Obama camp should be pursuing, but both camps appear to be stuck in the past.
Let's move on!
Posted by Metteyya at 08/19/2008 @ 2:16pm
All he has to do is name Hillary and he's guaranteed to win the election.-----Posted by frankgrits at 08/19/2008 @ 2:08pm
And you'd vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket, FRANK?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 2:22pm
Don't know FRANKGRITS. That could possibly be the WORST thing he could do,as it will eliminate any possibility of drawing any conservatives or semi conservatives to his side. And this time, with so many mad at McCain over such things as immigration, Obama has a good chance to draw on nominally non Democratic voters, moreso than other DEM candidates have in the past.
My own personal feeling is that Obama represents an opportunity to put away the race obsessed, oversensitive do nothing facets so embedded in the baby boomers, what I have come to think of as, and am part of The Lousiest Generation. After sixteen years of Clinton/Bush/Cheney/Pelosi/Gore/Dean/Gonzales et al, I'm ready to take a chance on the Magic Wand. Obama picking Hillary would be about the one thing that will change my mind.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/19/2008 @ 2:25pm
Sorry FRANKGRITS that should be nominally NON REPUBLICAN voters.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/19/2008 @ 2:27pm
No, right the first time (too much jack&coke for lunch)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/19/2008 @ 2:29pm
I am in agreement with this article and it's recommendations. I will add that we do not have the conventional military strength to back up McCain's mouth. We have a volunteer army fighting two wars that cannot be sustained for any length of time. If we are to fight in Afghanistan, we must leave Iraq. If we do not have troops to properly fight two wars, how are we going to take on Russia. A nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia means "Mutually Assured Destruction". The Missile Defense system is worthless. Any preemptive Nuclear attack by Russia on former members of the Warsaw pact along her borders would mean that Western Russia would suffer collateral damage. Any war would be conventional and not nuclear.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 08/19/2008 @ 2:30pm
>>>If we do not have troops to properly fight two wars, how are we going to take on Russia.<<<
This why we know it is a Cold War mindset issue, not a military threat.
The problem with McCain is I think he really believes he can take on the Russian army AND fight two wars elsewhere at the same time.
The guy really is an idiot, and would be extraordinarily dangerous and reckless as president of the United States.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/19/2008 @ 2:37pm
Posted by frankgrits at 08/19/2008 @ 2:35pm
Since the end of the Cold War, NATO is no longer about deterring Russia; and if you believe it still is then it is you who are stuck in the past.
NATO is about the collective security of the European continent, which includes Russia. And if it is not up to that task, it needs to be dismantled and replaced by an organization that is.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/19/2008 @ 2:42pm
I doubt that the U.S. would bluff when dealing with Putin.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/19/2008 @ 2:31pm
That is my point Frank. A high probability of nasty consequences since we are currently not in our best position for diplomacy or negotiations.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/19/2008 @ 2:46pm
"When there is a bully in the schoolyard who'ds picking on the little kids, he needs his ass kicked."
Posted by frankgrits at 08/19/2008 @ 2:35pm
I do believe Georgia was the bully and they did indeed get their ass kicked.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/19/2008 @ 2:53pm
Posted by frankgrits at 08/19/2008 @ 2:45pm
Then why don't you tell us FRANKGRITS how McCain is going to back up his tough talk against Russia with ACTION while fighting a war for 100 years in Iraq and God knows how long in Afghanistan?
And if the answer is that he can NOT back up his tough talk, then the guy truly is an idiot!
Posted by Metteyya at 08/19/2008 @ 2:55pm
This article represents the idiotic wishful thinking that has been keeping the left out of power for years.
"Gosh, if we were just nice enough to the Russians I just know they would straighten up and fly right!"
Give me a fucking break! Let me try to explain to you how the world works Sweet Cheeks. The Russians are assholes. The Russians have always been assholes and they always will be assholes. They have been bullying and intimidating their neighbors (and anyone else they thought they could get away with) from time immemorial. From the Czars to the Bolsheviks - they are dicks. And the only thing they understand (or respect) is power - and the resolve to use it.
Katrina, if you want to voulenteer to fly over there, drop to your knees and suck Putin's dick go for it. Maybe if you do a real good job he'll change his ways - but I seriously doubt it
Posted by vertigoskippy at 08/19/2008 @ 3:00pm
What can we possibly threaten Russia with? McCain lives in an old frame of mind. It didn't work then it won't work now. The only thing that stopped this world from exploding was the self-collapse of Russia. Is Frank saying now that he supports Reagan too? Being hard-nosed with Russia doesn't work because Russia isn't afraid of the US. If we point our guns they will point theirs it will just be us waiting around to see who fires.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 3:10pm
Posted by vertigoskippy at 08/19/2008 @ 3:00pm
You are obviously stuck in the past as well!
Did you notice that the Berlin Wall has fallen?
Did you know there are Russian capitalists on Wall Street?
Where have you been for the last 20 years?
What if we had isolated all of Germany after WWII instead of INCLUDED Western Germany in a new alliance with us? Don't you think they would have sought out new partners, regroup and once again become a threat to us?
Unless we stop this wrong-headed Cold War mentality, we will simply be repeating history with another Cold War.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/19/2008 @ 3:10pm
Posted by frankgrits at 08/19/2008 @ 2:36pm
No, FRANK, read quite well...such as-
"All he has to do is name Hillary and he's guaranteed to win the election."-----Posted by frankgrits at 08/19/2008 @ 2:08pm
But see that CONTRADICTS your assertion that "millions of Hillary supporters will go to McCain"??!?!??
I mean, how does Obama GUARENTEE his victory with Hillary as Veep...if "the majority of Hillary supporters" (represented so admirably by YOU)...are STILL going to vote for McCain?!??!?!?
Care to explain?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 3:11pm
"The Russians are assholes. The Russians have always been assholes and they always will be assholes. They have been bullying and intimidating their neighbors (and anyone else they thought they could get away with) from time immemorial. From the Czars to the Bolsheviks - they are dicks. And the only thing they understand (or respect) is power - and the resolve to use it.
Katrina, if you want to voulenteer to fly over there, drop to your knees and suck Putin's dick go for it. Maybe if you do a real good job he'll change his ways - but I seriously doubt it"
You are already kissing bush's ass, so I guess that spot is taken.....
we are much better than russians, they ONLY attack neighbors, we spend over half of our taxes to attack the whole world......
who still says "sweet cheeks"??? you and mcbush?????
bush and mcbush is like peas and carrots.....
these bozos couldn't run a lemonade stand, yet one is president and fools still might vote for the other, who doesn't even know who we are at war with, which states borders iraq, where georgia ia, doesn't know anything about internet, never heard of email, says he knows nothing about the economy, berates Obama then turns around and copies him over and over and over....flip flopper.....mcbush '08 yee haw
Posted by jrs112 at 08/19/2008 @ 3:11pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/19/2008 @ 3:10pm
HAPP, who ARE our "key allies" now after the fantastic foreign policy of Dubya?
Who's still in the "Coalition of the Willing" besides the UK?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 3:12pm
>>>As for your referring to the next President of the United States as being an idiot, I think you have McCain confused with our present leader. On that we can agree.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/19/2008 @ 3:12pm<<<
No agreement at all - I know that BOTH George Bush and John McCain are two peas in a pod.
They both like to talk tough, they both are completely clueless as to our real capabilities and the consequences of their military actions, and they both think American bravado and dominance will make us safe when all it does is piss off other nations and groups so that they are motivated to harm Americans.
They are BOTH idiots!
Posted by Metteyya at 08/19/2008 @ 3:36pm
However, there are enough Hillary supporters who will vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket to swing the election solidly to Obama. A good percentage will still support Mccain because of the simple fact the Hillary will only be VP to the guy who will still be less experienced than McCain.----Posted by frankgrits at 08/19/2008 @ 3:27pm
Now you're "hedging" FRANK.
BEFORE it was all "millions of Hillary supporters will turn to McCain"....then it was (earlier in this thread) "Obama picks Hillary has Veep, he wins"....then when reminded of your PREVIOUS statement, suddenly it becomes the "nuanced" "Well, ENOUGH of the Hillary supporters will swing to Obama, but many will still vote McCain".
Sounds a little....confused, eh, FG?
How about this? You are so wrapped up in the glories of Hillary that (like McCain on many things)...you want it both ways.
BOTH the rejection of Obama (aka YOU, to try to give her 2012) AND the "Hillary can win it for poor young Obama" (given her miraculous powers)
Or maybe you can explain why "enough" Hillary supporters will reject YOUR argument that REGARDLESS they should vote for McCain?
Are THEY the cultists and you the "rational analysis"?
Or could it be that even in your fevered mind, you know that Obama WON'T pick Hillary and so you can continue this quest for her for 2012.
But you want some CYA in case he does and it's a "win-win" since if she loses as Veep this year, you'll say she can still "come back in 2012"?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 3:45pm
he will have to Last line reads, 'deal with a democratic Congress.'---Posted by frankgrits at 08/19/2008 @ 3:28pm
That's FRANK's rationalization for making us suffer under "four more years" just to win an election for some politician he idolizes.
Makes me feel TONS better...how about you?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 3:47pm
You know what I'm curious about. With all this preaching about the situation in Iraq doing swimmingly and military enrollment up and a lessened need for a military presence, why are they still stop lossing soldiers? Bush was supposed to have just cut down on deployment lengths yet I heard about a soldier 3 days who is a friend of a friend who got stop-lossed and sent back. I am just curious if everything is going as well as w are being told why are they still having to stop-loss soldiers?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 3:56pm
Posted by frankgrits at 08/19/2008 @ 3:56pm
FRANK, screaming "reading comprehension problem" every time I point out you contradicting yourself or some inane bit of illogic from you....doesn't fly.
Neither does this "MASK has a problem with women". All that does is show the straw-man conflated HOOPS you want to jump through....that being-
1. FG--"MASK criticizes me for cult-like devotion to Hillary!"
2. "Hillary is a woman"
Ergo "MASK has a problem with women because he's attacking me for being obsessed with the political fortunes of a female politician!"
(The argument wouldn't fly even if it WAS logical since you can't find one post where I said I would NOT vote for Hillary if she became the nominee...in fact, made it quite clear that I would.)
Whether it's voting for McCain to "avenge Hillary" (your words) or "Obama can prove he's smart by picking Hillary for Veep and guarenteeing his victory" (paraphrase)....it's all about "Hillary".
And everybody here knows it.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 4:03pm
Ignor my typos. I'm rushed. Later.----Posted by frankgrits at 08/19/2008 @ 4:04pm |
Actually, he just got through listening to rush.
heheh
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 4:05pm
"What PROVOKES them to assert authority over these provinces is OUR policy of trying to co-opt these provinces into OUR sphere of influence.
I say stop the provocation, and you get a different response from Russia."
Metteyya, I wish this were the case but I just don't see it this way. These aren't provinces (though they once were), they are sovereign nations, and must be treated with an according level of respect. To be sure, there is a level of US provocation inherent when the main airport road in Tblisi is named after our current President, and we back the independence of Kosovo over Russian objections, and we object to Russia invading Georgia while we twiddle our thumbs in Iraq, but the US, even if we reform our foreign policy, only has but so much control over what will provoke Russia. I say that if we are to pursue a just, peaceful foreign policy free of hypocrisy, we are bound to provoke the Russian government anyways, whether through support for Kosovar independence, Georgian/Ukrainian sovereignty, or closing the matter of the poisoning death of Alexander Litvinenko. Ultimately, what concerns me most is that while we should be able to work with the Russians on certain matters, they increasingly do not come across as rational actors when it comes to what they consider their 'near-abroad'--a development that is alarming to say the least. The problem isn't that we should stop provoking the Russians and abandon the Cold War mentality--we should--but that an authoritarian Kremlin headed by ex-KGB hardliners can't/won't shake that mentality, and in the times in which we live, such a choice represents a very basic threat to peace and stability throughout the world. Mettenyya, I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by stuckinthemiddle at 08/19/2008 @ 4:11pm
>>>I say that if we are to pursue a just, peaceful foreign policy free of hypocrisy, we are bound to provoke the Russian government anyways, whether through support for Kosovar independence, Georgian/Ukrainian sovereignty, or closing the matter of the poisoning death of Alexander Litvinenko.<<<
The question really is whether we are going to embrace the peace dividend of ending the Cold War by eliminating East and West distinctions, or are we going to use this "ending" of the Cold War as an opportunity to expand the West and shrink the East.
The latter IS a direct result of residual Cold War thinking, and this is what is provoking Russia - Western "expansion".
Traditional foreign policy thinking is trapped in this East-West balance of power thinking, as this is all these analyst know and all they were taught in graduate school. They simply do not know any other way.
Part of an astute presidency would be to recognize this vacuum in foreign policy thinking and re-direct these advisers to think anew about how they can construct a different, more powerful balance of power that truly stabilizes the world.
The example I cited in one of my posts above, would be to locate the missile interceptors in Russia instead of Poland. This sends the clear signal to Russia, that they are now included in this new balance of power as a partner not an adversary, and this would even make a former KGB person realize the change in thinking from the West.
But as long as we continue an East-West duality, in which the objective appears to be a larger and more powerful West at Russia's expense, they will feel threatened and provoked.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/19/2008 @ 4:44pm
Checks and balances. Posted by frankgrits at 08/19/2008 @ 3:57pm
Proven that they don't work by Bush.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 5:10pm
Hello Katrina vanden Heuvel,
You said "We must end the growing militarization of US policy and call on Russia to do the same."
I can imagine Vladmir Putin will do whatever you ask him to!
You also said "It's time to pursue an alternative, more sane and effective course."
Whenever words like that are spoken, you know the wrong policy is being advocated.
A few years ago I read a book about Robert F. Kennedy by Arthur Schlesinger. In this book he was describing a time when RFK was over in West Germany, traveling in his role as an unofficial advisor to his brother.
The book described some of RFK's traveling party discussing, probably over dinner as I remember, the subject of the Soviet Union and the cold war which manifested itself most demonstratably at that time in Germany.
The consensus among those there was that it made no sense to be confrontational with the Soviets, it made sense to accept the Soviet Union as a given and work together peacefully.
This consensus was in contradiction to what RFK's own brother advocated and believed, and as we know now, history has proven this line of thought wrong.
Yet you are promoting it again!
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 5:33pm
I like that frankgrits is voting on a person who has to be held in place by checks and balances. His only hope is that Congress makes sure he doesn't mess up the US too much. Instead of the person who is likely to advance policies he agrees with. Does that even make sense to everyone?
"I'm am voting for this person because I think they will advance this nation and Congress will be able to keep them in check to make sure they don't pass all the crappy policy I know they will pass."
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 5:34pm
This consensus was in contradiction to what RFK's own brother advocated and believed, and as we know now, history has proven this line of thought wrong. Yet you are promoting it again! Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 5:33pm
How has history proven it wrong? We haven't tried doing it? Something can't be proven wrong if it hasn't been tried.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 5:38pm
I dunno...Empire sounds kinda nice...
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/19/2008 @ 1:58pm
Unless you are being empired, of course.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/19/2008 @ 6:02pm
Posted by frankgrits at 08/19/2008 @ 2:08pm
Suppose he does, Frankie boy.
Will you disavow your support of Boosh's Wingman?
Posted by skeletonman at 08/19/2008 @ 6:04pm
Check your history of past Presidential handling of Russia,(formerly the USSR) and you'll find that McCain is spot on in his dealing with Russia.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/19/2008 @ 2:41pm
Whether "spot on" or not, McCain is so ... pre-9/11 in his mindset.
Give him credit (minimally) for at least tying the countries he wants to attack to actions of their own.
Boosh would attack Iceland to punish Georgia for its cheek.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/19/2008 @ 6:12pm
I would rather be in an empire than have to fight one in the making....
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/19/2008 @ 6:11pm
You'd be one of those creepy pseudo-Sith guards that the Emperor employed in Return of the Jedi.
Seriously, think about what you just wrote. It boggles the mind that anyone could make such a statement.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/19/2008 @ 6:16pm
as Russia seems to want to do...
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/19/2008 @ 6:11pm
Imagine for a moment that you are Putey-Pute and you see American troops in the ME with lots of saber-rattling with respect to Iran.
You would see an aggressive nation (the US) causing a distortion in the balance of power and would move to fill the vacuum.
Not saying that we should trust the guy or his intentions, just that there is more than one point of view that can be considered here.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/19/2008 @ 6:21pm
Hello Cccomfo1,
What was wrong was accepting the existence of the Soviet Union as inevitable, and it was not necessary to do that. We defeated it instead. If it had been up to those in RFK's traveling party, they probably would have promoted policy that would have resulted in the continued existence of the Soviet Union today.
Now, in 2008, Russia is acting beligerent, and Katrina Vanden Heuvel is promoting policy designed to not anger or stir up Russia.
Some amount of the implication is here again, this time by Ms. Vanden Heuvel, that our actions cause justifiable beligerence on their part.
Instead of that, Putin needs to be told to knock it off, and we will continue to do what we do, whether he likes it or not.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 6:28pm
I thought I had better add to my last post, because people will post in telling me we have no right ordering people around.
The United States does not order free democracies around. We don't tell Germany what to do, nor the U.K., nor Italy, nor Australia, nor Japan, nor France (even though France could use economic advice in a bad way), nor Canada. (despite a perception by some that Canada has essentially become a 51st U.S. State)
The countries we do seek to bend to our will are places like North Korea, where the people live in misery, places like Saddam's Iraq, modern-day Iran, etc. Places where there is oppression or who seek to oppress others.
Like Russia is doing in Georgia.
The U.S. is not the "imperialist" that is sometimes portrayed by those on the Left. For all the power we have, military and economic, we seek to impose our ways much less than those countries cited as "empires" in the past, such as the British Empire, or when the Nazis tried to take over Europe or the Japanese wrecked havoc in Asia, or way back to even the Roman empire.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 6:37pm
Instead of that, Putin needs to be told to knock it off, and we will continue to do what we do, whether he likes it or not. Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 6:28pm
That's also the road that led to us and the Soviet Union almost destroying the entire world. Great. Maybe this time it won't be 3 seconds from launching it will 0 seconds from launching. Our policy almost got the world nuked, genius.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 6:44pm
>>>The countries we do seek to bend to our will are places like North Korea, where the people live in misery, places like Saddam's Iraq, modern-day Iran, etc. Places where there is oppression or who seek to oppress others. <<<
This is such BS!
How much oppression do you think is going on in Saudi Arabia? What about Oman? What about Tajikistan?
There are a whole bunch of oppressive regimes in the world that do what we want so we look the other way.
Our foreign policy has never been about freeing anyone, and is almost always about some US multinational corporation trying to loot the natural resources of other countries on terms favorable to them.
No coherence, no consistency, and no long-term strategy - this has been the hallmark of US foreign policy for decades.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/19/2008 @ 6:56pm
Russia flexing its muscles....AND getting away with it thanks to one person...
Dubya.
His ignoring of them while he concentrated on a country like Iraq who posed NO threat whatsoever.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 7:50pm
nice post, katrina, although...
i'm rapidly losing confidence in putin's russia acting like anything other than a national socialist monstrosity and not sure being soft on them is going to work at this point.
especially since our reckless stupidity in iraq has truly dinked any claim to moral superiority on our part.
the election of obama would go a long way toward erasing the shame of the current illegal obverse democratic fascist pack of stupid, bloodthirsty morons...sort of like pushing restart on a bad video game...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/19/2008 @ 7:56pm
"Katrina, I see nothing wrong with a defense sheild in eastern Europe as Russia has been known to run over smaller countries every time they think that that country is leaning toward democracy or threatening to join NATO. History has shown that Russia cannot be trusted."
Not that anything like this has ever happened in Central and South America. We are no different than the old Soviet Union: democracy is other people choosing the life we want, not the one they want. The difference is, at least for those of us who are US citizens, is that we have much greater control over our government than Russia's. Of course, it is much easier to blame others than look in the mirror.
Posted by onthehelm at 08/19/2008 @ 8:14pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/19/2008 @ 8:41pm
So NOW you guys are hoping to count on France and Germany?
Will they help us for an order of "freedom fries"???
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 9:05pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/19/2008 @ 9:32pm
Would those be the peace loving muslims the neo-cons want to bring peace and democracy to?
See...it's another flaw in the HAPP (and your former) world-view. It claims to support the war in Iraq and the effort to "spread democracy throughout the Middle East"...
but it constantly brings up how "those Muslims are a bunch of radicals!"
So, obviously, why do the neo-cons think they can "tame" a bunch of radicals? It's contradictory.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 9:51pm
"Ah yes...not insulting those ever peace loving muslims takes prioroty over the first amendment..."
I find nothing in the story that shows the US government took the book off the shelves, which if I remember my civics correctly, is what the first amendment is about. Unless you mean that the Bush Administration quickly issued a gag order on the book.
Posted by onthehelm at 08/19/2008 @ 10:02pm
Still...not worth the risk. I just wonder if Obama will be more hawkish, so as to not give ammo to his opponent in 2012.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 12:35pm
the possibility of that being true numbs the mind.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 10:18pm
Book of the Month Club (it was scheduled to be in the August selection).........
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/19/2008 @ 9:17pm
i'm working on an epic tale of christ's passion for anal sex with horses.
i've got a big publisher interested!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 10:22pm
please, america.
not again.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 10:23pm
WE'RE SCREWED! Compare & see for yourself:
Top CEOs Give 10 Times More To McCain Than Obama... Do the math. Of the massive media multinationals, well.... here's the trickle down:
GOOGLE NEWS:
1,316 for bogus, swiftboat "obama nation"
24 for Pulitzer Prize-winning author Ron Suskind's EXPLOSIVE, FACTUAL Bush expose book "The Way of the World"
- - - - - > 24 vs 1316
Posted by winyahn at 08/19/2008 @ 10:26pm
Results 1 - 10 of about 3,703 for wwe. (0.25 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,127 for $10 trillion. (0.30 seconds)
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 10:38pm
wanna stop the petrothugs?
stop using oil.
invest in the future.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 10:40pm
Neocons don't worry you won't see any coverage of this 24/7 abuse of the fourth estate by the abusers.
Don't worry, that is, unless you give a crap about the CONSTITUTION.
DEMOCRACY REQUIRES A REAL 4TH ESTATE FOOLS!
Posted by winyahn at 08/19/2008 @ 10:46pm
Don't open yourself to truth, don't youtube AARON RUSSO
Don't watch his chat with, for example, Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBOIZmuP1P8
GOOGLE NEWS:
"AARON RUSSO" - did not match any documents
"Freedom to Fascism" - did not match any documents
259 for "brangelina"
Posted by winyahn at 08/19/2008 @ 11:00pm
The US republic ended with Bush v. Gore.
CheneyBush & Co have been building, if that's the right word, empire abroad, while dismantling the substance of a people's democracy at home.
There's very little Obama can do to reverse this. The GOP, indeed too many Dem pols as well, have to do their owners' bidding if they wish to remain in office & qualify as well rewarded lobbyists some day.
Obama hs already given several indications that he'll go along to get along.
Posted by sloper at 08/20/2008 @ 03:02am
Does anyone know the halflife of the Russian made nuke the terroists will detonate in Manhattan? I left my wallet at the bar and I need to go back and get it when it's safe.....
Posted by bleedingheart at 08/20/2008 @ 07:48am
Interesting read:
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_1,00.html
Found it copied to a local website (http://www.villagesoup.com//Forums/forums.cfm?TopicID=10895) where I live.
Cannot get the originating site to load. Anyone else find that odd?
Posted by skeletonman at 08/20/2008 @ 07:49am
SKELETONMAN,
Yes you're right, it would not be great if I were the "empired"
But I'm not, so... ;)
And make no mistake, if the "empired" could reverse their positions, they'd do it in a heartbeat. Not that people or evil or anything like that, its just that everybody likes to be on top
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/20/2008 @ 08:59am
FZ-The Bible doesn't say anything about Jesus and horses,but the koran does mention the rape of this child named A'isha..
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 09:42am
everytime mccain says he doesn't know about something, he "surges"...i.e. the economy, mcbush flat out stated he knows nothing about the economy on meet the press and face the nation, yet now he is "surging" on MSM polls such as CNN, because of economic fears resulting from eight bush years, so now people would like more of the same, since it apparently hasn't gotten bad enough....
please anybody explain the mental processes (or lack thereof) to explain this disconnect...for an informed voter, it is mind-boggling that people would be so gullible and it affects all of us, intellectually curious americans who know our current empire-building experiment is a failure and has to change as well as Cold War era mental midgets such as bush/mcbush....
btw: oil companies have contributed four to one to mcbush's campaign and he has lobbyists ON HIS CAMPAIGN STAFF, he just attended an abramoff fundraiser A CRIMINAL...he is transparent about the fact HE IS A CRIMINAL LIAR AND CHEAT; FOR GOD SAKES, AMERICA, DONT ELECT ANOTHER LIAR PRESIDENT;
stop this madness america......
Posted by jrs112 at 08/20/2008 @ 09:58am
The dangers of militarism and a new and expanding war climate is not confined solely to the Russian circumference.
In addition to the McCain drumbeat for a fourth war front - now in Georgia, along with Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan - and Condi Rice/ Bush's expansion of Nato into Eastern Europe and Poland, today's edition of Israel's' Haaretz newspaper reports two sobering articles. First, that the Israeli arms industry has concluded two arms and security deals with India worth $1.75 BILLION: to develop and upgrade the Break surface- to- air missiles, and to purchase the Spider defence system. Recent political change in Pakistan, coupled with a renewed ratcheting up India's military profile, adds an additional front to the already incendiary and toxic climate at hand. But,second,again in today's Ha'aretz, not to be ignored is Russia's renewal of ties with, and increasing military aid to, Arab states, with Assad of Syria visiting Moscow. A resurgent Russia coupled with a belligerent US is a disaster waiting to explode.
Posted by leuihgingdak at 08/20/2008 @ 11:07am
The dangers of militarism and a new and expanding war climate is not confined solely to the Russian circumference.
In addition to the McCain drumbeat for a fourth war front - now in Georgia, along with Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan - and Condi Rice/ Bush's expansion of Nato into Eastern Europe and Poland, today's edition of Israel's' Haaretz newspaper reports two sobering articles. First, that the Israeli arms industry has concluded two arms and security deals with India worth $1.75 BILLION: to develop and upgrade the Barak surface- to- air missiles, and to purchase the SpyDer defence system. Recent political change in Pakistan, coupled with a renewed ratcheting up India's military profile, adds an additional front to the already incendiary and toxic climate at hand. But,second,again in today's Ha'aretz, not to be ignored is Russia's renewal of ties with, and increasing military aid to, Arab states, with Assad of Syria visiting Moscow. A resurgent Russia coupled with a belligerent US is a disaster waiting to explode.
Posted by leuihgingdak at 08/20/2008 @ 11:13am
Ah yes...not insulting those ever peace loving muslims takes prioroty over the first amendment... Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/19/2008 @ 9:32pm
I was under the impression that Random House could do whatever they wanted with what they owned. The first amendment only applies to government not companies. If they choose to pull something because they are afraid it will bring a bad light to their company then that is of their own prerogative.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 12:08pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/19/2008 @ 9:32pm
Kill the Muslims!
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 12:09pm
Hi CCComfor1,
You remarked above, regarding the U.S and Soviet situations in the past:
"Our policy almost got the world nuked"
Actually, it didn't. It was the Soviet intent to impose communism on the world that did that.
Going all the way back to Lenin himself, their intentions were clear. Kruschev did declare at the U.N. that they would bury us.
As I look back at the last century, especially the part before World War II, I see no noticable concern on the part of America regarding the Soviet Union, until bit by bit it became clear that they had intentions towards us. As far as imposing Communism on us.
Once World War II was over (during which circumstances drove us to be allied with the Soviets), the cold war was on in earnest.
After the first World War, most Americans were not much concerned about the outside world, much less the Soviets.
On either The Nation web or maybe The Progressive web some time ago somebody who was clearly Russian put forth a whole big argument about the West getting involved and trying to interfere with the Russian Revolution and establishment of the Soviet Union in the 1917-1918 time frame. Thus, they were trying to construct an argument that Soviet hositlity towards the west was justified in defense. This person was really stretching things. Until the 30's or the 40's most Americans didn't care what happened on the other side of the world.
The Soviets then tried to spread "revolution" anywhere they could, which led to all the standoffs and proxy wars, most noteably Vietnam, when we tried to contain the communism.
We were defending ourselves against Communism, and were not responsible for creating a situation where the world was close to nuclear war.
Our only policy to avoid this would have been appeasement.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/20/2008 @ 12:45pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/20/2008 @ 12:45pm
I think we were. It takes two to tango. War is never one sided.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 12:49pm
Nuclear proliferation is never one sided.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:08pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:08pm
Okay, LL, I'm curious.
What SPECIFICALLY would you (or Reagan for that matter) DO about the Russian invasion of Georgia?
Feel free to list as many as possible things.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 1:11pm
``To be prepared for war,'' he said, ``is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.'' Continued next post. Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:06pm
I agree with you that you must always be prepared to defend yourself. But looking to pick fights is not the road he meant.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:12pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:19pm
You know why the Russians aren't afraid of us. How would we fight them? Our economy is stalled. We are already embroiled in two wars. We don't have enough military personnel to confront Russia. They are free to do whatever they want until we finish with Iraq and Afghanistan. This is one of those situations that was warned about, you know not having enough military to deal with a real problem elsewhere.
Would you want to us to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, which according to you would be ceding control of them to Al Qaeda in order to fight the Russians? Which is more important to stop, Communism or Terrorism?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:42pm
Because we know the Russians will just go back to Commernism once they take over the world.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:43pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:59pm
"Whereas the left only sees the US that way."
Patent falsity and a lie.
"What additionally betrays the anti-US bias (and also of Israel) of so many on the left (despite the protestations to the contrary) is that you on the left never use the same language about Iran, Russia, Hezbollah, and Hamas, to name a few."
Also a lie.
"But at it's core, it amounts to the same thing."
And another lie.
We will go in order. I am all for us defending ourselves. I was FOR catching Osama Bin Laden because he ATTACKED the US and it's allies. Most of the left was for finding him because he attacked us. Iran has no attacked us. Iraq did not attack us.
"defend |diˈfend| verb [ trans. ] resist an attack made on (someone or something);"
We weren't attacked by anyone when it came to Iraq and we haven't been attacked by anyone when it comes to Iran.
We don't use the same language on Iran as you guys because we don't view them the same way. That doesn't betray an anti-US bias and the fact that you call it that is proof of your demonization of anyone who doesn't share your views. I am not anti-Israel, I am anti-Israel determining US foreign policy. I don't put Israel before my fellow Americans like you do.
""But at it's core, it amounts to the same thing.""
That is the most patent lie of all. Being anti-imperialist does not make you anti-US. Early Presidents warned of not engaging in imperialism. Does that make them anti-US? You are so rapped up in your dislike of anyone that doesn't agree with you that it clouds your thoughts and you feel the need to lie to justify your twisted belief that anyone who isn't conservative hates America. One of the dumbest accusations I have ever heard.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 2:13pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:59pm
It's a typical strategy of your side to present anyone who doesn't agree with you as Anti-America, Anti-Troop, Anti-US. The problem is you aren't in a venue where everyone else is a foaming at the mouth idiot who is willing to believe the line of bullshit. You are amongst a group of people who know that to be patently false and fabricated lie that has been proliferated by a group who only want to see ONE paradigm represented in this country.
As long as you call me Anti-American I will call you an America Hating Fascist because anyone who demonizes other people who don't agree with their view points obviously wants a totalitarian government. The tactic you employ is that of people like Hitler, Stalin, Castro and many other dictators who turn everyone who doesn't agree with them into a traitor to their country. People like you reveal your true country every-time you say that your opponents are anti-US.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 2:24pm
Will Obama chart a new intl course for the US?
Only if he wants to achieve real change from US policy & practice building empire since the end of WW2.
And thereby get himself assassinated.
Even the NYTimes has written about that possibility, front page no less.
Posted by sloper at 08/20/2008 @ 3:14pm
1. My answer is a special session of NATO with a proposed resolution announcing NATO's support of Georgia and an offer of assistance in emergency aid.
----Okay, so pass a resolution.
2. I would stage a NATO Naval force excursion into the port city of Batumi as a message to the Russians.
---To what end? What message is sent? That we'll land troops in Georgia if you don't get the message?
3. I would also use Sec Rice to pressure the EU (of which Georgia is officially scheduled to join next year) to take a stand in support of Georgia.
----Again, another resolution.
4. It is imperative that Russia and especially Putin be put on notice that their attempts to re-establish a new Soviet style empire will not be tolerated the way they were allowed to in the 1940's and into the 1950's.
---And if he does? We'll pass a resolution and have some ships sail past?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/16/2008 @ 12:31pm |
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:19pm
BTW, though "have an exercise in Batumi" SOUNDS tough, the problem with a THREAT is....if the other guy knows you won't go much past that threat...it doesn't work?
(continued)
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 3:22pm
So what am I saying? Actually THREATEN to land NATO troops in Georgia to push the Ruskies out? No...that would lead to World War-III. They know it, we know it.
Tough TALK is futile in this situation. THEY KNOW the U.S. isn't going to counter-invade Georgia (our troops are tied up in Iraq...Thanks to Dubya) and again, they know it would lead eventually to nuclear holocaust.
So military "shows" are useless.
What you do is...hit them where it HURTS. Cut them out of the G-8. Freeze Russian oligarch bank accounts in Switzerland.
THEN talk.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 3:23pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/20/2008 @ 3:42pm
US citizens were seized by Iran in 1979.
So we are supposed to legitimize an attack on Iran NOW because of something they did 30 years ago?
"Interesting tirade and it seems the truth hit a nerve."
No. Lies hit a nerve. You have bought into some group-think mind set have actually deluded yourself into thinking your moronic talking points are the truth. Liars go to hell last I checked.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 4:05pm
If it was the truth I wouldn't care. But your fanatical religious right followers believe you can be the only people to love your country. Which shows a rampant ignorance that makes me wish the world was well rid of people are so willfully ignorant of the facts when it comes to other people and instead delude themselves into believing things that are so obviously BS that an infant could figure it out.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 4:07pm
We don't use the same language on Iran as you guys because we don't view them the same way." That is a lame attempt to sidestep the question.
"What additionally betrays the anti-US bias (and also of Israel) of so many on the left (despite the protestations to the contrary) is that you on the left never use the same language about Iran, Russia, Hezbollah, and Hamas, to name a few."
That wasn't a question begin with. So since there was no question how can I have sidestepped one. And I directly addressed what you pointed out. You said that we do not address these people as you do. The reason we don't share the same method of addressing people like you do is because we do not view them on the same terms you do. How is that not directly addressing your accusation.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 4:09pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/20/2008 @ 3:42pm
I'll be glad when the world is rid of fossils who follow this type of mentality. I'm glad the newer generations seem to be a bit more open minded and less zealot like and fanatical as you do. Fanaticism something you can share with the terrorists.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 4:13pm
So you want to see the world rid of those in this country with a different viewpoint. Conservatives never make similar statements.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/20/2008 @ 4:19pm
Poetic license? Never?
Never say never, right?
Mr. Google has a bad habit of disproving such absolute statements.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/20/2008 @ 4:36pm
Here's what I think LVL. I think you are the ones who hate this country. I don' think you want Democracy because it seems whenever other peoples views are represented you guys are always the ones to call them Anti-American. I think what you want is a right wing totalitarian rule. You want a 1984-ish world that represents only YOUR world view. You can have your right leaning totalitarian government. I happen to like America with diverse view points. I don't feel the need to demonize everyone I disagree with and turn them into traitors. I happen to be a little open minded and don't stay willfully ignorant.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 4:38pm
So you want to see the world rid of those in this country with a different viewpoint. Conservatives never make similar statements. Again that puts you on the fringe in this country.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/20/2008 @ 4:19pm
No again you take a statement and twist it. I want to see the nation well rid of people like YOU. Not conservatives. I am talking about fanatical zealots who believe that anyone who doesn't share a view point similar to theirs is a traitor to their country. You have expressed a like for the times when those on the left would have been shot as traitors so don't even tell me about people not making statements like that. At least I am acknowledging that your viewpoint is dying out naturally instead of saying you should be shot.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 4:41pm
"Religious faith had nothing to do with my responses. You are the one bringing religious faith into this."
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/20/2008 @ 4:19pm
I call you religious right because that's a term for fringe right. People like you. Who are completely dogmatic about their believe.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 4:43pm
You see those millions of liberal Dems don't think this is an imperialist nation. But you do. That puts you on the political fringe.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/20/2008 @ 4:19pm
I actually don't think this country is imperialistic and I believe that to keep it that way we must keep control of it out of the hands of you fringe right who would be well fine destroying anyone who disagrees with you.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 4:44pm
Posted by Benchrest at 08/20/2008 @ 4:36pm
LVL must be getting old. HE has expressed a want of being rid of liberal views.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 4:45pm
Religious faith had nothing to do with my responses. You are the one bringing religious faith into this.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/20/2008 @ 4:19pm
That's not STRICTLY true, is it, LL?
You have said on some occasions that your view of Middle Eastern foreign policy is tempered with "What's best for Israel, even to the exclusion of the US, due to its part in 'God's plan'", haven't you?
So your religious faith DOES impact your views on foreign policy, doesn't it?
Ref: "2. Ultimately Israel is more important than the US in God's plans..... But my first allegiance is to God, with country a very distant second."---Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/03/2008 @ 12:48pm
WILL MCCAIN RECEIVE THE FARRAKHAN TREATMENT?...Posted by Ari Berman at 02/29/2008 @ 4:44pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 4:46pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 4:46pm
Anyone who puts another country above their own is no patriot. They are just using their countries resources to protect the one they truly care about. I'm sure he would sacrifice the United States on a spit if it meant saving Israel.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 5:11pm
Posted by RedRiver_. at 08/20/2008 @ 5:07pm
And here comes another fanatic slathering at the mount making sure his ignorance is known.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 5:12pm
Cccomfo1,
You mentioned above "I think we were. It takes two to tango. War is never one sided."
My argument is that the Soviets started it.
Once the cold war was ongoing, one could make the argument that both sides were hostile to each other. (although I feel we had a right to be hostile towards them)
But in my opinion, the Soviets started it to begin with.
In the early part of the last century, between World War I and II, I just do not see any American concern toward the Soviet Union until it started emerging that they had designs on us.
This was through their public comments and by efforts to inflitrate elements of our society, especially in union organizations.
This is some of what Ronald Reagan ran into when he began his adult life as a FDR supporter and Democrat, but then as president of the Screen Actors Guild he saw efforts by communists to influence the actor's unions. This is what propelled him to the attitude he had about communism and what he felt needed to be done about it.
He then pursued a course in his life into political activity which led ultimately to his being President, where he had a chance to do something about it.
As I mentioned, I came across a blogger who felt the West (not just the U.S. but also the U.K and France) tried to interfere in the emergence of communism in the Soviet Union in 1917 -1918, but I think he was overstating any impact by Western elements during that time.
I do not see from history any concern by Americans towards the Soviet Union until it became apparent they would be a threat to our way of life.
You say it takes two to tango, but the Soviets were the ones that left us no choice but to dance.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/20/2008 @ 5:26pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/20/2008 @ 5:26pm
I agree with you Russia did start it. But that is a kids excuse. "He started it!" The more intelligent man can solve a problem without a fight. We have the capability of being very intelligent and America has proven it time and again. Sometimes you need to stop and take a breath before you put up your dukes.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 7:20pm
My faith does require that Christians submit to the ruling authorities, except when it violates their service to G-d.
And if Obama is elected, I will support his presidency and pray daily for him as I have 11 other presidents. That doesn't mean I will always agree.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/20/2008 @ 7:06pm
An excellent post.
"Against such things there is no law."
Posted by Benchrest at 08/20/2008 @ 8:23pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 5:11pm
I pushed him on it and that was his response.
BTW, as far as his "open-mindness" claim now....Google up LVLIBERTY and "we used to shoot traitors, now we call them anti-war activists" and watch how he tries to spin THAT one!
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 9:35pm
An excellent post.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/20/2008 @ 8:23pm
I meant point, not post.
My bad.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/20/2008 @ 9:57pm
Posted by skeletonman at 08/20/2008
page loaded with no problem.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2008 @ 10:13pm
And I will add one clarification. Some on the left do not see their views as anti-US. Instead they believe they are merely illuminating what they see as arrogant or imperialist policies and doctrines of the US. But at it's core, it amounts to the same thing.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:59pm
that does not compute.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2008 @ 10:17pm
What you do is...hit them where it HURTS. Cut them out of the G-8. Freeze Russian oligarch bank accounts in Switzerland. THEN talk.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 3:23pm
cool,
then the russians can sell their oil and gas to the chinese instead of the europeans.
in december.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2008 @ 10:18pm
And unlike you and your fellow libs, I never demonized Clinton's presidential decision making.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/20/2008 @ 7:06pm
well, you should have.
a big part of the mess we're in now is the fault of his administration.
subprime, tell-us-communications, private armies........
you should have.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2008 @ 10:22pm
I agree with you Russia did start it.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 7:20pm
well, maybe before.
i'm not so sure about this time.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2008 @ 10:23pm
Hello Cccomfor1,
The problem with the "fight" that took place between the Soviets and the United States, ( i.e., the cold war) is that it was a fight that could only be solved by their winning or we winning.
It was solved by us winning.
It was a struggle between two completely different ideologies, containing both political and economic elements.
They advocated an economic system in which everybody in their country was equal - equally poor. And they enforced this by denying their people freedom, because they knew if people had freedom they would choose to get rid of the system they had.
We had the opposite.
Not only that, but they sought to impose their ways upon other people in the world over and over again. The "proxy wars" that were mentioned earlier. Each and every one of them came about as a result of our response to Soviet efforts to cause upheaval in various parts of the world, upheaval designed to create allies to their cause.
And they made clear, even back to Lenin, they intended to impose communism on us.
As for our country, some people such as John F. Kennedy told the communists they were wrong and their communism someday would be defeated. But all of our responses over the years were designed to stop Soviet expansion and designs on our way of life. I remember no overt American desire to take over and remake the Soviet Union. In fact, most people advocated "peaceful coexistence".
So this was not a fight to be solved by not putting up our dukes. The Soviets were not about to back down, but fortunately they eventually were defeated. Even Gorbachev did not want to eliminate communism, just "reform" it, but events got away from him and them and they couldn't hold on any more.
I will have to continue in a 2nd post- about to hit the word limit.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/20/2008 @ 11:25pm
Not only that, but they sought to impose their ways upon other people in the world over and over again.
you mean like iraq?
But all of our responses over the years were designed to stop Soviet expansion and designs on our way of life.
you mean like taking out the democratically elected government of iran and installing the shah? how nice?
I will have to continue in a 2nd post- about to hit the word limit.
ah, that's o.k. no need to stress yourself.
Posted by sjchermak
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2008 @ 11:33pm
Type your message here (Characters left: 1800)
Type your message here (Characters left: 1754)
Type your message here (Characters left: 1705)
Type your message here (Characters left: 1657)
Type your message here (Characters left: 1607)
Type your message here (Characters left: 1559)
Type your message here (Characters left: 1510)
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2008 @ 11:34pm
Hello Cccomfor1, ctd.
If we had not "put up our dukes" then we would be communist today.
The argument at hand was not just some economic or trade disagreement or disagreement about a particular territory (as to who owned it, etc.).
The argument was about the whole Kahuna, if you will. Our entire way of life. There was nothing to work out, they sought to impose communism on us, we sought to prevent them from doing that.
We did not seek to impose our way of life on the Soviets. We just sought to prevent them from imposing it on others.
Of course, many including me thought what they did for their own people was wrong, and many hoped that it could be stopped. (as it has been). But there was no overt goal or intention of America to specifically reform the Soviet Union, but rather to eliminate communism on our way of life.
It was too large of an agreement to just be "worked out"
And acutally, some of what you advocate was done, because we did "peacefully coexist" with them for many years rather than take overt action to bring things to a head.
We never sought military action against the Soviet Union itself, Ronald Reagan used economic pressure, and rebuilding our military, to force them into a situation where they could not keep up with us, and thus their system went down.
Some people said if the Soviets defeated us, then so what, they said "Better Red than Dead".
But in the state of New Hampshire, they believe otherwise. Their license plates say "Live Free or Die".
The sentiment of the people of New Hampshire has prevailed. The United States acted properly by putting up its dukes against the Soviets.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/20/2008 @ 11:38pm
Hello frosty zoom,
You imply we imposed our ways on Iraq.
I suppose, gee I guess it was wrong to take down Saddam and have it now where people are not run through shredding machines, put into rape rooms, shot whenever Saddam or his cronies felt the urge, etc.
How horrible we were to stop this! How mean of us to deny Saddam his enjoyment!
It is a myth that the Iraqis do not want us in Iraq and resent our having intervened. Plenty of people in Iraq would contend that life is better now, that Iraqis have hope and a future.
http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/03/18/iraqis-glad-saddam-gone/
Posted by sjchermak at 08/20/2008 @ 11:46pm
dude,
reagan stroked saddam's mustache.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2008 @ 11:56pm
I agree with you Russia did start it.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 7:20pm
Thursday August 7th: After a tentative ceasefire agreement made only hours earlier Georgian forces pounced against South Ossetian separatists. They shelled the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali, surrounded it with tanks and conducted air strikes.
Friday August 8th: Russia responded by rolling a convoy of tanks into the region. They quickly reinforced existing peacekeepers on the ground, pouring troops and armour across the border into South Ossetia.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/21/2008 @ 01:21am
Thursday August 7 - Georgia begins a military operation to retake South Ossetia, which has had de facto independence since 1992, after days of fighting with separatists.
Friday August 8 - The Russian government sends tanks to the region and claims it must protect Russians living in the province.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/21/2008 @ 01:24am
I agree with you Russia did start it.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 7:20pm
my first suspect is the republican party.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/21/2008 @ 01:25am
Hi Frosty Zoom,
You said "reagan stroked saddam's mustache."
I have made comment about this on The Nation web before.
Things changed considerably from the 80's to the 90's and now this decade.
Saddam was bad back then, no doubt, but it had not emerged yet just how bad he was or what a threat he posed to us or others. In addition, he was viewed as a counterbalance to Iran, a country we had lost as an ally. Iran had been an ally to us before 1979, and Iran was geographically located close to the Soviet Union, thus the significance of and importance of our being allied with them.
We supplied Saddam. No, it turns out this was not good but unfortunately we did not see how things would eventually develop, and also many alliances we had with questionable countries or rulers were driven by cold war politics and situations.
This was done in the process of defending ourselves in the cold war, which as I have stated up above was a war we did not start.
In a perfect world these things do not happen, but this is not a perfect world, if it had been there would have been no Lenin or Soviet Union to begin with, and we would not have gotten into situations driven by the need to keep our country from becoming communist.
You then commented about the comment I originally made to Cccomfor1 about Russia starting "it", and cited events on Aug 7 and 8 of this year and what Georgia did.
Wonderful, but when I said Russia (I said the Soviet Union) startet "it", I was not talking about what was happening now, I was talking about the cold war in the last century, from 1945-1989/90/91.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2008 @ 06:45am
Wnat to see who is controlling oil and gas prices? Here they are. Read the link below. Free market system my ass. How about price fixing by a bunch of wealthy assholes screwing everyone on the planet over.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26321642/
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/21/2008 @ 06:52am
In a perfect world these things do not happen, but this is not a perfect world, if it had been there would have been no Lenin or Soviet Union to begin with, and we would not have gotten into situations driven by the need to keep our country from becoming communist. Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2008 @ 06:45am
In a perfect world there wouldn't be a George W Bush or Dickhead Cheney either, but we've been stuck with those blithering jackasses for 8 years. They'e created more havoc than Saddam ever could have.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/21/2008 @ 06:54am
my first suspect is the republican party.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/21/2008 @ 01:25am
Frosty, I agree with you wholeheartedly. W and company decided to start sticking missile systems on ex-Soviet countries which now border Russia. Reverse the tables folks. How would you like it if all of a sudden Russia starting putting "missile defense systems" in Canada, Mexico and Cuba?
The U.S. had a damn fit over the Cuban missile crisis. What is the difference here? Once again, since when did the U.S. become the world police force, and also become responsible for putting weapons systems in every country in the world. Kind of reminds me of the NRA. Every household must have guns. Once again, this is defense contractors using our government to make profits, and in this case, at the expense of possible world peace.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/21/2008 @ 07:01am
Hello Wolfgang1,
Saddam was likely to develop stronger ties to terror organizations, and remake WMD, and the havoc potentially caused by Saddam could have been catastrophic.
This was a judgement call. Nobody can prove what would have happened under Saddam, because whatever would have happened or not happended was cut short by our taking Saddam out.
But the signs were more likely than not that havoc was going to happen. Too likely, in the minds of some, to take a chance on not doing anything about Saddam.
A total judgement call, and one in which you and many others do not agree. Fortunately, in my opinion, George W. Bush was President of the United States, and Tony Blair was Prime Minister of the UK, and they made the judgement call I agree with.
Fortunately these 2 were in office and not Algore or John F. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, by the way) or perhaps you or Maskdelta or crabwalk or Frosty Zoom or Katrina Vanden Heuvel or Dennis Kucinich or whoever, that would have opted on taking a chance.
Since it was a judgement call, it leaves wide open the ability for you and others to proclaim it was the wrong call, etc.
Most likely George W. Bush and Tony Blair knew this ahead of time, that they would face crucification afterwards, but they probably felt it was more important to face the crucification, then to do nothing and then if Saddam caused havoc beyond 9/11 or what is happening in the region now, it would be on their conscience that they did nothing when they could have stopped it.
And it would have bothered these 2 if that happened, compared to Slick Willie who did nothing in Rwanda and admitted it. (ABC morning news, Aug 3, 2008). I was waiting for a tear to roll out of Slick Willie's eye, which he can do on command when on camera.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2008 @ 08:57am
Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2008 @ 08:57am
SJ, you can try to re-fight the various (and always changing, as soon as one gets shot down) reasons for invading Iraq....
but one part of it you CANNOT spin out of with the usual Limbaugh talking points.
For all the talk from you guys about "how important, how vital" it was to take out Saddam Hussein....
you still can't explain why....you didn't (and don't) want to PAY FOR IT!
Why for the FIRST TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY, we CUT taxes in war-time rather than raised them OR even just left them as they were before 2001?
Why time after time as the 100s of billions rang up...it had to be a "supplementary appropriation" that is "off the books"?
Seems to me you wanted your "World War-II-Part II"...on the cheap. All the "glory" and "honor" (for the appropriate political leaders of course, maybe some for the troops if they don't complain when they come back)....but NONE of the sacrifice that occurred in WW-2.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 09:14am
Greetings SJ,
The catch is that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, wasn't buidling any nuclear bombs or anything of the sort. Bush and Cheney knowingly lied to the American people and Congress. They used scare tactics, arm twisting, bullying and everything else to shove the acquisition of Iraq down our throats and accused anyone disagreeing with them of being a traitor and have used smear tactics in an attempt to discredit anyone who got in their way.
Evidence has been brought forth proving this and yet people still want to believe the myth that we went into Iraq to rid the world of this horrible dictator and liberate the people of Iraq. That sounds all find and dandy and as American as apple pie, but the truth of the matter is the exact opposite.
I think it was Dan Rather that interviewed Saddam and after the cameras stopped rolling Saddam asked how Bush was able to convince the American people he had weapons of mass destruction when he, in fact, didn't have them. That alone should have raised some eyebrows, but the drumbeat of war was already on and the bloodthirsty business world already had their sights set on that black gold in Iraq. Saddam was a bad leader and he and his sons treated their people horribly. But, Iraq wasn't and isn't an isolated incident. The differnce between Iraq and other dictators is obvious....oil. Saddam wouldn't play ball the way the neocons wanted so it was time to remove him.
And, as Mask pointed out, our grand master W lowered taxes during a war while our deficits sky rocketed and our econonmy took a serious nose dive. We now have more billionaires in the U.S. than we ever had, but the billions made for the few has been at the expense of the rest of the nation. Times ain't so grand for the majority here
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/21/2008 @ 09:44am
Hello Maskdelta and Wolfgang1,
Your comment: "Why for the FIRST TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY, we CUT taxes in war-time rather than raised them OR even just left them as they were before 2001? "
You are aware, aren't you, that when you cut taxes revenue goes up, not down? And you are familiar, aren't you, with all the wasteful government spending that goes on (separate from financing the military, or even the paper-shuffling in the administration of the military) and that nobody seems to be able to or want to stop?
Your comment: "The catch is that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, wasn't buidling any nuclear bombs or anything of the sort. Bush and Cheney knowingly lied to the American people and Congress. They used scare tactics, arm twisting, bullying and everything else to shove the acquisition of Iraq down our throats and accused anyone disagreeing with them of being a traitor and have used smear tactics in an attempt to discredit anyone who got in their way. Evidence has been brought forth proving this and yet people still want to believe the myth that we went into Iraq to rid the world of this horrible dictator and liberate the people of Iraq. That sounds all find and dandy and as American as apple pie, but the truth of the matter is the exact opposite. "
We didn't know prior to the war where Saddam stood with WMD, because of his obstruction. To this day we do not have an accounting of what became of the WMD and when. And we know that Saddam was going to rebuild his WMD once it all blew over and he was off the hook.
As far as lies, etc. your statements are your opinion only, an opinion a lot of others share but also an opinion a lot of others disagree with.
I will have to continue this below:
Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2008 @ 11:14am
Maskdelta and Wolfgang1,
There are basic events that occurred over the years in the timeline of things that happened regarding Iraq.
What I am coming to see more and more is that the two sides of this opinion are looking at many of the same events and interpreting them differently.
For you, you proclaim now (despite what many Democrats said even before the Bush presidency) that Saddam was no threat.
And also, you seem to set the bar extremely high as to what constitues a threat before action can be taken.
And many of you approach this with a built in skepticism at best and knee-jerk reaction many times that if there is trouble in the world we are partly to blame to begin with.
People like me see that there appeared to be a grave threat, and waiting and taking a chance was not an option, that has been the usual course before, and it has yielded disasterous results. (such as before World War II)
Two different ideologies, and never the twain shall meet, apparently. You say lies have been proven, but that is only in your mind they have been "proven"
You then said "I think it was Dan Rather that interviewed Saddam and after the cameras stopped rolling Saddam asked how Bush was able to convince the American people he had weapons of mass destruction when he, in fact, didn't have them. That alone should have raised some eyebrows"
You are joking, aren't you? It WAS Dan Rather who interviewed Saddam. And it is truly bizzarre that you would take anything that Saddam OR Dan Rather said at face value!!!
I don't mean to be like Rese, but I have a comment about Dan Rather that I will have to go to a third posting with. See you in a minute.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2008 @ 11:22am
Maskdelta and Wolfgang1,
In Bernard Goldberg's book BIAS, he brought out something about Dan Rather, and this is something that goes way back.
In an earlier point in his career, Mr. Rather was working for CBS and was in a city one day where he kind of misrepresented some facts.
In this particular town, there were big time problems one day (to say the least). As events unfolded, the local CBS station had to scramble at one point to put the principal of a school on the air to explain that, as kids were sent home early from school that day, they were not told why they were being sent home, and were no doubt cheering about the fact they were being sent home early from school that day, as any kid would.
Probably no point of the station to put this out, the genie was already out of the bottle, and around the world, that kids in a school in Dallas, Texas were cheering upon being sent home for the day probably because a northern liberal President of the U.S. had been murdered in their city a short while before, thus letting the world know about the hatred possessed by Southerners towards northerners and liberals.
No such thing had happened in the school, and the man that sent this little ditty of information on it's way was none other than one Dan Rather. The news director of the local Dallas CBS station told the network to get him out of his television station.
Quite a guy, eh? What a model report and news person, someone all journalism students should emulate?
You brought up two individuals, Dan Rather and Saddam, and I am not sure which one of the two was less credible.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2008 @ 11:30am
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/21/2008 @ 01:21am
Yes....the intentional misrepresentation by the mainstream press concerning who started the war in Georgia is quite troubling and indicative of nefarious influence over the editors and publishers of such media. these corrupters of media obviously have something to gain (usually financially) by NATO membership for Georgia and/or the start of a new Cold War.
The usual suspects of American oil and defense companies and right-wing Israeli AIPAC types appear to be at the root of this misrepresentation in the American mainstream press.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/21/2008 @ 11:40am
From Mideast Times....
Israel has been involved in both training and arming the Georgian military for a number of years and the fears within Israel's military establishment was that Russia, which already supplies arms to both Syria and Iran, could well decide to increase the quantity and quality of these supplies.
Israel's immediate concern is that Russia will proceed with the sale of the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Iran, which would help Iran defend its nuclear installations from aerial attack.
This would be particularly problematic if Israel decides to carry out a preemptive raid on Iran's nuclear facilities as it has been threatening to do for months now.
Israel's military complex has supplied Georgia with some $200 million worth of equipment since 2000. This has comprised rockets, night-vision communications and intelligence surveillance equipment, including Skylark mini-drones and Hermes 450 unmanned aerial vehicles. Israel also upgraded Georgia's Su-25 ground attack fighters.
A Russian jet shot down an Israeli-made drone being operated by the Georgians earlier this year.
The mayor of Tel Aviv, Ronnie Milo and his brother Shlomo (a former director-general of Israel Military Industries), were key players in the Georgian arms sales while senior IDF officers, including Maj. Gen. Israel Ziv and Brig. Gen. Gal Hirsch, were directly involved in training Georgian army infantry battalions.
Hirsch, who was a senior commander in the 2006 Lebanon war, served in an advisory capacity.
One of the Israeli advisers to the Georgian military, who wished to remain anonymous, had befriended some of the Georgian soldiers during his time there and was invited to some of their homes for dinner.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/21/2008 @ 11:45am
He told the Israeli daily Haaretz: "We have their phone numbers, but we haven't been able to reach them. These are people we know and we are all hoping for their success,"
Meanwhile, other Israeli trainers are trying to glean from news reports on the movements of the Georgian army whether their trainees succeeded in internalizing Israeli military techniques.
Two key Georgian ministers are Jewish and fluent in Hebrew. The Georgian Defense Minister Davit Kezerashvili, 30, once lived in Israel after he immigrated to the country as a boy before eventually returning to Georgia.
Georgian Minister of Reintegration Temur Yakobashvili praised the Israel Defense Forces for its role in training Georgian troops and said Israel should be pleased with its military might, during an interview with Israeli Army Radio.
"Israel should be proud of its military which trained Georgian soldiers," Yakobashvili stated in fluent Hebrew.
He added that this training provided Georgia with the know-how needed to defend itself against Russian forces as he explained how a small group of Georgian soldiers had been able to wipe out an entire Russian military division due to the training, despite the inferiority of Georgia's defense forces when compared to Russia's.
"We killed 60 Russian soldiers," said Yakobashvili last week. "The Russians have lost more than 50 tanks, and we have shot down 11 of their planes. They have sustained enormous damage in terms of manpower."
However, Israeli ties to Georgia go further than the arms trade and military training business. Another Israeli interest in Georgia has revolved around the rich oil and gas deposits in the region.
Jerusalem is keen to see the Caspian oil and gas pipelines reach the Turkish terminal port of Ceyhan, rather than the Russian network
Posted by Metteyya at 08/21/2008 @ 11:48am
after Russia turned down a previous Israeli request.
To this end intense negotiations are currently underway between Israel, Turkey, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan for pipelines to reach Turkey and onward to Israel's oil terminal at Ashkelon and to its Red Sea port of Eilat. From there, supertankers can carry the gas and oil to the Far East through the Indian Ocean.
Finally, Israel works hard to increase the number of Jews immigrating to the country in an effort to lessen the "threat" of a demographic time-bomb which sees Israeli-Arabs and Palestinians in East Jerusalem with their higher birth rate as a possible threat to Jewish majority.
To this end the Jewish Agency, which arranges immigration, has organized flights into Georgia to evacuate Jews trapped in the cities as fighting intensifies. Indeed, Israel's national airline El Al was practically the only airline to fly into Georgia's capital Tbilisi after other flights were suspended or grounded.
Several hundred Jews were subsequently evacuated to Israel as new immigrants.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/21/2008 @ 11:49am
SJ, In response to your response, I will say the same thing you did. That's your opinion. The facts differ greatly.
1) Please explain how the Whitehouse GOP Emails just happened to get lost? Circumstantial evidence leading one to believe Whitehouse personnel weren't on the up and up about what they were doing.
2) The continuing saga of "executive privelege" to stonewall any attempt to find out what really did happen. Once again, if Bushco didn't do anything wrong, there's nothing to hide. Kind of like the wire tapping issue in reverse right?!
3) No weapons of mass destruction were reported by the inspection teams, nor were any found after we took Iraq over. You can use fat boy Limbaugh's crap all you want here, but there weren't any WMD's. Just a damn scare tactic including the mushroom cloud video implying that they would nuke us.
The difference between us is that I would be pissed off if a democrat president did this. You rethugs think your boys can just waltz in there, break every law known and it's justifiable.
Look at W trying to keep Harriet Myers from testifying now. They used executive privelege, but now say, well, W wasn't directly involved, but he would be involved in the future. What kind of bullshit is that?!
This secretive, business run White House needs to be exposed for the crooks that they are. They are far from the heroes you make them out to be.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/21/2008 @ 11:52am
SJ, A couple more things. You say Saddam was a threat? How? His military crumbled in weeks. The Iraqi army was pretty much destroyed in Desert Storm.
So, you have one situation or the other. Saddam was no threat and we took Iraq rather easily which is my take. Or there's your take that Saddam was a huge threat and that it was a tough fight taking Iraq. If that's the case, then the military that did it was pretty much the same tattered ruined U.S. military the Clinton administration left over since the rethugs swear that Clinton ruined the military by underfunding it. So, which one is it SJ?
The story about Rather isn't what shocked me. The off the record comment Saddam made is what shocked me. Saddam was playing a game of cat and mouse and screwing around and I don't think he really thought Bush would attack and secondly he probably didn't think Congress would give W permission due to the lack of evidence of WMD's.
Either that, or Saddam was the dumbest guy on the planet. If he had WMD's why the hell wouldn't he use them to defend himself? As we've seen from the outcome of the war, the command and control structure of Iraq was interrupted and Saddam lost all control from the onset. If he had that kind of capability, he would have used it, but there were and are zero traces of that capability. Unless you can produce the evidence of WMD, your agrument holds no water about attacking Iraq whatsoever.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/21/2008 @ 12:14pm
Wolfgang1,
As I said above, we are talking past each other and will continue to do so.
Consider what you said "3) No weapons of mass destruction were reported by the inspection teams, nor were any found after we took Iraq over."
What about that do you think I did not already know, and already commented on above?
I have also commented on this site previously, as well as on The Progressive, that the no WMD the inspection teams were reporting would have led to Hans Blix eventually proclaiming Saddam was free of WMD. The Saddam would have been let off of the hook, and free to make WMD again, as his own people said he was going to do.
Saddam was required to come clean and describe the situation with his WMD programs. This did not mean just let inspectors wander around and not prevent them from going where they wanted to go.
It meant Saddam, if he had no more WMD, was REQUIRED to explain how he got from WMD to no WMD, a complete roadmap. We know that at one point Saddam had WMD. Saddam was required to explain what happened and prove there were none anymore.
He never did this, he never intended to do this, and if it weren't for George W. Bush and Tony Blair, he would have gotten away with it. And free to make WMD again.
Most people and countries and Saddam's own generals believed he had WMD. Even countries like France, who opposed the war for other reasons.
If Saddam says he has no WMD, but you know he had them in the past, wouldn't you like an explanation and roadmap of what happened, before feeling comfortable there indeed were no WMD?
It is impossible to know what your answer would normally be because I would have had to ask you that question back before the war. I know what your stock answers are now.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2008 @ 12:19pm
Wolfgang1,
You keep talking about the state of Saddam's military, and I have seen people on this site post how Saddam didn't have much of a military, not much of an army, navy, air force,etc.
That is not where the threat would have come from.
Saddam would have been remaking WMD. I do not believe he would have been using them himself. Wouln't have dared.
But he seemed intent on being a troublemaker in the Middle East. And engaging more and more with terror organizations and helping out with terror efforts.
I am sure some of these terrorists would have loved to get their hands on WMD made by Saddam. I am sure Saddam would have loved to supply, either free or for a price, terror organizations WMD.
If, as was the case, you had terrorists who liked to kill people, and Saddam who liked to kill people, it is hard to imagine some WMD changing hands freely.
And terrorists would have had no qualms about using WMD.
And you would not need an Army, Navy, Air Force, etc. to disperse the WMD.
So a lot of death and misery, perhaps. Thanks to President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, that is one problem that will not happen.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2008 @ 12:26pm
typo----
I meant "it is NOT hard to imagine some WMD changing hands freely."
Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2008 @ 12:28pm
SJ, I agree with you that Saddam should have shown the weapons inspectors everything and been completely transparent....kind of like the Bush administration should be now, but never will be.
Here's on for you. Do you think the world is safer now than it was before W took office? Before, we had Bin Laden threatening the country....and we still do. AQ didn't exist in Iraq until we took Iraq over. Saddam was ruthless, but he also kept Iraq under control. Iraq was no worse than the Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria or Pakistan and in fact women had more rights under Saddam than in these other countries. Iraq was threatening to come out of the 1200's unlike Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iran, Syria and Pakistan.
A far as W goes, he has been a crappy president. His last legacy after a whole host of messes is posting missile systems near Russia which is a terrible, stupid mistake. Russia, nor any other world power would tolerate that. If we try that with China, how far do you think we'd get? As far as protecting Europe, I say to hell with Europe. Let them protect themselves. They have plenty of money and arrogance to boot. Let them build and pay for their own weapons systems, deploy them and defend them as well.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/21/2008 @ 12:56pm
Hello Wolfgang1,
I found a sentiment out of you that I agree with a little bit.
You said, "As far as protecting Europe, I say to hell with Europe. Let them protect themselves."
It may not be wise to do that, but I do feel that way sometimes myself. They do not meet their obligations to their own people to give themselves the ability to defend themselves, nor do they meet their obligations to the world in general with this - in circumstances where intenational forces of some kind could help like in the Sudan, but most of Europe has little to contribute to any such forces.
So, they spend their money on their socialist utopias they have in their countries instead, and rely on us to defend them should that day come, but still criticize the living daylights out of us every chance they get.
Answering your main question, yes the world is safer with Saddam gone, free of the havoc he might have caused.
He was letting the infrastructure of Iraq go down to ruin, a circumstance that is blamed on our intervention instead.
If, for sake of argument, we had not gone into Iraq, then - if at any point in time in the future some amount of the Iraqi people themselves (with no involvement from us) tried to overthrow Saddam, or down the road Saddam's son or granson, etc. - then I would think that the bloodbath that would have been going on in Iraq would have made the recent (last few years) circumstances in Iraq look like child's play.
The only way that wouln't have happened would be for Iraq to have been forever under Saddam or his succeding family members, and thus under opression and uncertainty.
Some say Iraq was modern under Saddam, but if for some reason Saddam wanted you dead, then you were dead. Sometimes with no warning.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2008 @ 1:12pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/19/2008 @ 9:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
good find. thanks for the heads up. often the left ignores the true threat from radical islam (which appears to be a larger force in their faith than in christianity to be sure) as a kneejerk reaction to the neocon's stupid middle eastern policy.
my contention is that we need to get off the oil as soon as possible, gutting the financial resources of the movement, and fight another containment style cold war against such, including support for moderate, tolerant, secularist regimes in the muslim world and reward such with economic aid while rooting out terorists ruthlessly - where they really are.
lol - it IS funny how many of the same lefties who bemoan the power/danger of the cromwellian christian right (admittedly nasty, i, a resident of redstateland say) ignore the radical muslim threat which calls for subversion of democracy, enslavement or worse of non-muslims, violence against women, homosexuals, and apostates...ie - a regessive, antidemocratic, anti-enlightenment, monstrosity of a facsist theocracy...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/21/2008 @ 7:39pm
Some say Iraq was modern under Saddam, but if for some reason Saddam wanted you dead, then you were dead. Sometimes with no warning.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2008 @ 1:12pm
such profound thought.
have you ever heard of equatorial guinea?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/21/2008 @ 10:29pm
LL
"With Iraq, we had a legitimate legal authority to resume hostilities with Iraq. They were determined by us and even by the worthless UN to be in Material Breach. I've covered the legalities of this on numerous occasions and you and others who attempt this straw-man argument."
And you're still wrong. The UNSC resolutions that declared "material breach" also declared that the UNSC "remained seized of this matter".
METTAYA I disagree with you on the purpose of NATO. The Eastern Question (regarding the level of Russian expansion into Eastern Europe and the Balkans goes back to the 18th century. The utility of a hedge like NATO against a resurgence of Russian power isn't solely a function of the Cold War but of a geopolitical trend that transcends it. One only has to look at the economic coercion Russia has used against Ukraine and the Czech Republic.
Posted by brunowe at 08/22/2008 @ 2:57pm
"I have also commented on this site previously, as well as on The Progressive, that the no WMD the inspection teams were reporting would have led to Hans Blix eventually proclaiming Saddam was free of WMD. The Saddam would have been let off of the hook, and free to make WMD again, as his own people said he was going to do.
Saddam was required to come clean and describe the situation with his WMD programs. This did not mean just let inspectors wander around and not prevent them from going where they wanted to go.
It meant Saddam, if he had no more WMD, was REQUIRED to explain how he got from WMD to no WMD, a complete roadmap. We know that at one point Saddam had WMD. Saddam was required to explain what happened and prove there were none anymore. "
Absolute nonsense, the point is that Blix had said that he'd be able to complete his task in a matter of months. Further, Blix simply reporting "no WMD" without having the information as to how Hussein go to no WMD would not likely have led to the sanctions being lifted because, as you pointed out, he was required to provide that road map.
The bottom line is that your defense of the invasions of Iraq is based on the idea of invading a country because they might, at some conceivable point in the future, become a threat. You need more than that before you shoot up a country.
Posted by brunowe at 08/22/2008 @ 3:06pm
"But he seemed intent on being a troublemaker in the Middle East. And engaging more and more with terror organizations and helping out with terror efforts.
I am sure some of these terrorists would have loved to get their hands on WMD made by Saddam. I am sure Saddam would have loved to supply, either free or for a price, terror organizations WMD.
If, as was the case, you had terrorists who liked to kill people, and Saddam who liked to kill people, it is hard to imagine some WMD changing hands freely.
And terrorists would have had no qualms about using WMD."
Absolute nonsense. He had no relationship with Islamist terror organizations. He was connected with groups that went after Iraqi exiles (who you don't need WMDs to kill), he had Abu Nidal (a was-past-his-prime-terrorist) as a guest/prisoner and he was currying favor with Palestinians by sending money to the families of suicde bombers (which is different than paying people to blow something up).
"If, for sake of argument, we had not gone into Iraq, then - if at any point in time in the future some amount of the Iraqi people themselves (with no involvement from us) tried to overthrow Saddam, or down the road Saddam's son or granson, etc. - then I would think that the bloodbath that would have been going on in Iraq would have made the recent (last few years) circumstances in Iraq look like child's play. "
So you can have a bloodbath now because at some point in the future they may be a bigger one?
Posted by brunowe at 08/22/2008 @ 3:10pm
Because a suicide bomber isn't likely doing it for the money. Thus, Hussein's cash payments aren't likely to be the tipping point. His payments are an attempt to frame himself as some sort of patron of widows and orphans or something like that.
Ultimately it's different because there's no indication of a quid pro quo, no attempt to convince a specific bomber to commit the act based on the payment.
I rather doubt that Islamic Jihad or Hamas are even consulting with Hussein in formulating such plans.
Posted by brunowe at 08/22/2008 @ 8:22pm
It's NOT a small sum on the West Bank or Gaza!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/22/2008 @ 10:19pm
especially when your family has had all it's dignity crushed.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/23/2008 @ 03:06am
"Any study to back that up? Excluding the educated types that did 9/11 or the London subway bombings by British Muslims.......most suicide bombers in the ME itself, almost certainly weighed the prospect of `earning' $25,000 for their families,"
Then how do you explain the use of suicide bombing in Iraq as a current tactic? No Hussein around to give the families money. How about it's use by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka?
Posted by brunowe at 08/24/2008 @ 05:29am