[Lumpy]

I thought the oil motivation was a pretty kooky suggestion until last year when Bush used one of his signing statements to say that a law saying that U.S. federal funds could not be used to secure Iraqi oil fields for America, rather than let Iraq protect them, jeopardized national security.

As for targeting of civilians, I've heard reports of Russia doing likewise, one time firing at a reporter, but that's on a smaller scale (maybe 1:10) than Georgia's atrocities.

[Tiler]

Zipperfish wrote:

Tiler wrote:

words words words

I don't think it's that nonsensical. JJ made the statement that clearly Russia had the intention to invade, occupy and annex Georgia. And yet there is not much evidence that they will do so. They are talking their sweet time, but I imagine they will leave--at elast to South OSsetia--and they don't seem to be in the process of taking out the Georgian government. I was merely pointing out the case for the occupation of Iraq is much stronger, since the US has occupied the country for some five years now.

Dying to defend them? Look, I hate to introduce you to War 101 but when you declare war on a country and invade it you are attacking it, not defending it. Democracy is great. I like it. But what about the children that died in the bombing of Bagdhad in 2003. Did they get to vote? Where were Maher Arar's democratic rights when the US rendered him to Syria? What about the new policies on torture and indefinite arbitrary detainment? Sorry, I don't see the US moral superiority argument at all. Not at all. Not after what I've seen Bush do in the last eight years.

While bringing out statistics of however many babies were killed in a war may score emotional points, it's irrelevant to the real core debate at hand here, which is motive.

What was the motive for the US invasion of Iraq? That is still up in the air, and we'll probably not get the full story until a few decades later, or W. Bush lays himself out on a psychiatrist's couch and spells it out for us. But, in my opinion, I would call the whole Iraq conflict a misguided attempt at nation building. You have an unpopular dictator terrorizing a country with a strong economy, surrounded by unstable nations. What better place to try to create a reverse 'domino effect'? The resulting chaos in mismanagement, and the subsequent dead babies and whatnot, wasn't borne from a malicious intent to seize control of a nation and it's precious oil deposits, more than human incompetence. If you look at Iraq today, with the violence seemingly at an end, an independent democracy, and making oil deals with China of all places... that is why I call the idea that of a US trying to control Iraq to be nonsense.

On a further note, in case you haven't noticed, the US is not at war with Iraq. America is fighting rebels who want to overthrow the Iraqi Republic. Hence, the American soldiers in Iraq are dying for Iraq. While the death of innocent people is a tragic thing, there is a marked moral difference between collateral damage and a massacre, even if the effects are the same, just as there is a moral difference between murder and negligence, even if they both result in death.

I've already said my views on Russia's intentions in Georgia, but I'm going to adopt a wait and see stance. Regardless, America's actions don't have any consequence on the morality of Russia's actions. Two wrongs don't make a right, if you want to look at it that way.

[Scape]

'We Are All Georgians'? Not So Fast.

Quote:

It is unclear how the simmering tensions between Georgia and South Ossetia came to the boil this month. The Georgians say that they were provoked by the shelling of Georgian villages from Ossetian-controlled territory. While this may well be the case, the Georgian response was disproportionate. On the night of Aug. 7 and into Aug. 8, Saakashvili ordered an artillery barrage against Tskhinvali and sent an armored column to occupy the town. He apparently hoped that Western support would protect Georgia from major Russian retaliation, even though Russian "peacekeepers" were almost certainly killed or wounded in the Georgian assault.

The real goal of Kremlin strategy is to reassert Russian influence in a part of the world that has been regarded, by czars and commissars alike, as Russia's backyard. Russian leaders bitterly resented the eastward expansion of NATO to include Poland and the Baltic states -- with Ukraine and Georgia next on the list -- but were unable to do very much about it as long as America was strong and Russia was weak. Now the tables are turning for the first time since the collapse of communism in 1991, and Putin is seizing the moment.

The bottom line is that the United States is overextended militarily, diplomatically and economically. Even hawks such as Vice President Cheney, who have been vociferously denouncing Putin's actions in Georgia, have no stomach for a military conflict with Moscow. The United States is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and needs Russian support in the coming trial of strength with Iran over its nuclear ambitions.

Instead of speaking softly and wielding a big stick, as Teddy Roosevelt recommended, the American policeman has been loudly lecturing the rest of the world while waving an increasingly unimpressive baton. The events of the past few days serve as a reminder that our ideological ambitions have greatly exceeded our military reach, particularly in areas such as the Caucasus, which is of only peripheral importance to the United States but of vital interest to Russia.

[Psudo]

Quote:

Even hawks such as Vice President Cheney [. . .] have no stomach for a military conflict with Moscow.

When I repeatedly claim no one is wants a war with Iran, people ignore me or announce I'm wrong without further comment. Why is it more believable when it's written on a different website by a different person? It's the same logic.

Zipperfish wrote:

I don't think I ignored any relevant points. I think I tried to address them all.

"Ignored" was probably too strong a term. "Glossed over", then.

An example:

Zipperfish wrote:

The dictator's been deposed. Five years ago. [. . .] And the Americans are still there. Building military bases.

Tiler wrote:

Zipperfish's arguments about how long an occupation is taking is utterly irrelevant and nonsensical; consider the continued US 'occupation' of Japan, Germany, and South Korea.

Zipperfish wrote:

when you declare war on a country and invade it you are attacking it, not defending it.

These are just snippets, but the third point here, while true, doesn't actually refute the second point. It's a longer-winded version of interjecting "Bloodthirsty bull$***!" and storming out.

We literally invaded those three countries, and they're all better off for it (now, at least; perhaps not so much then). Hundreds of thousands died in each of those wars too, and we still have a military presence in each. So why doesn't Iraq belong on the same list of nations where a US invasion and overthrow of government was a ultimately beneficial catharsis that freed and prospered the people a generation later? The only obvious difference is that a generation hasn't passed yet.

That's what I mean by glossed over. And, yes, I recognize the irony of glossing over the opposing view to my own arguments, but my primary purpose here is to exemplify a tactic, not to persuade people that US aggression is a unicorn kiss of sweet, sweet freedom.

[CanadianJeff]

frankly I hadn't even heard of this until now.

That's the part that worries me. I mean I read the news on a daily basis whenever I can and bbc is the only place I've even seen a hint of this. It really seems as if America's media doesn't want to even think about dealing with Russia when there's so much in the air at home.

So the real question I'm seeing from this is simple. In the future does america benefit from getting militarily involved in the affiars of other countries or will the Iraq war spawn a new generation of politicians that are more focused on the US rather then world affairs?

That and no matter how you try to slice the pie you have to admit that no side is really innocent in this so how can you really get invovled without showing favortism?

[Psudo]

BBC is the only place you've seen this? I don't have a working TV, and yet I've seen it on TV twice in a week. The top two Google News results for "war" are about Georgia, one from the Houston Chronicle and one from the New York Times. It's on the radio every news break, which is every half-hour on the stations I listen to.

What news is it you're reading that is so out of the loop?

[LorpiusPrime]

It is premature to say that Russia's ultimate objective is to annex the separatist provinces. Russia has enough problems with its own unruly minorities to want to throw even more into the mix at the moment. For the moment, Putin is probably content just using them against Georgia and Sakaashvili.

[Ombrageux]

The first thing is people need to abolish the word 'democracy' for understanding foreign affairs. Does an Iraqi killed in sectarian violence as a direct result of the dismantling of the Iraqi state by the U.S.A. care whether or not the U.S.A. is a democratic country? He is still dead. Russia may not be a classic electoral democracy, but Mr. Putin is enormously popular among the Russian people and they support him on this crisis. These are two aspects of democratic legitimacy that President Bush can no longer claim.

The link between what we have come to call 'democracy', which isn't literally democratic anyway, we are ruled by a combination of bureaucrats, businessmen, and politicians, the latter are held periodically to referendum, none of this constitutes the people actually 'ruling', is very tenuous. Two peoples that hate each other can each elect leaders to go to war against one another..

The cartoon, I think, would be better applied to the Iraq War. The difference would be, that it was the U.S.A. who summoned that genie, and is now struggling to put it back in the bottle amidst a genuine civil war and threatening regional war..

[Psudo]

Ombrageux wrote:

The link between what we have come to call 'democracy', which isn't literally democratic anyway, [. . .] is very tenuous.

True enough. We tend use the word "democratic" as kind of a cheap shortcut term for "validly and justly governed" instead of the precise, narrow definition that is essentially rule by town meeting. Nevertheless, doesn't a valid government require not just the consent of the governed but a mechanism by which the governed can exercise their will upon government? The popularity of a leader does not alone justify or validate a government.

Mr. Putin is indeed popular; in this he could be compared to FDR, the USA's only four-term President. But though FDR was resoundingly popular with the American electorate, it was reasoned thereafter that such extended rule, even by popular mandate, was a corruption of government. Presidential term limits were imposed.

One difference in Mr. Putin's case is that term limits already exist and he has served to their limit. His continued hold on power is through a work-around to avoid the laws the last generation of Russians established as a check against Presidential power. This point alone is not the deciding factor between labeling Russia "free" or "not free" in the popular black-and-white sense, but Putin's behavior in this area clearly opposes the rule established by the Russian people; his gray is a shade darker for it.

As for whether democracies attack other democracies, I've never been a strong believer in that popular theory that democracy equates to peace. There may be a statistical correlation if a wide enough view is taken, but that hardly determines whether a given democracy can attack another democracy one specific time. No matter how many dice you roll, sometimes they all come up ones.

Ombrageux wrote:

The first thing is people need to abolish the word 'democracy' for understanding foreign affairs. Does an Iraqi killed in sectarian violence as a direct result of the dismantling of the Iraqi state by the U.S.A. care whether or not the U.S.A. is a democratic country? He is still dead.

You seem to suggest the answer is "No, he doesn't care." But a truer answer is "It's impossible to know." It depends on the Iraqi. One Iraqi may prefer to die in pursuit of a "Democratic Iraq", another prefer a death in pursuit of dominion for his sect, and another willingly die in pursuit of peace regardless of who holds the reigns. Obviously most (or all) would prefer not to die at all, but it's flawed reasoning to assume no Iraqi in five years has ever thought death in pursuit of government-by-consent was preferable to the life under the Hussein's government's boot.

Not everyone is a perfect cynic.

Ombrageux wrote:

The cartoon, I think, would be better applied to the Iraq War. The difference would be, that it was the U.S.A. who summoned that genie, and is now struggling to put it back in the bottle amidst a genuine civil war and threatening regional war..

It's strange that you see the threat of a war expanding beyond Iraq while the actual violence and scale of combat in Iraq recedes.

[EBounding]

The biggest difference between the Iraq and Georgian invasions is that Georgia is a sovereign state that is internationally recognized. Iraq was not sovereign state when it was invaded. It gave up its sovereignty when it invaded another sovereign country in the 90's.

[Ombrageux]

Mahatma Gandhi wrote:

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless,
whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism
or the holy name of liberty and democracy?

Quote:

It's strange that you see the threat of a war expanding beyond Iraq while the actual violence and scale of combat in Iraq recedes.

It is arguably beginning to recede now. That has been the central problem of the Iraq War though, the invasion was a spark for a greater civil war. Bush rubbed the bottle and the story has been his struggle to get the war genie back in.. Russia's conflict, it appears, is being perfectly controlled by the Kremlin. He chose to take advantage of the Georgian attack, first with a disproportional riposte, and second by expanding the conflict from Abkhazia, he chose to cool things down in recent days. The cartoon applies far better to Iraq than to Georgia.

Ebounding - Invading a country 10 years prior does not mean your sovereignty is forfeit today. The USA and NATO unilaterally bombed Serbia in the 90s without UN approval, that does not mean that the USA and other NATO nations gave up their sovereignty in the process..

[CanadianJeff]

Psudo wrote:

BBC is the only place you've seen this? I don't have a working TV, and yet I've seen it on TV twice in a week. The top two Google News results for "war" are about Georgia, one from the Houston Chronicle and one from the New York Times. It's on the radio every news break, which is every half-hour on the stations I listen to.

What news is it you're reading that is so out of the loop?

Yeah I know what you mean! I usually am more in the loop then anyone I know in real life. but hey part of all that was on this week was fox news and the local paper which is WAY too focused on the olympics becuase I was way too busy with work to accually take the time to pick up the national and the globe.

It wasn't until my important news tag on my mac started beeping that I couldn't put it off any longer.

That and I usually check BBC world news first becuase I appreciate how they often have five or six reporters from all over the "political spectrum" covering one story.

Acually I would say quite frankly that if you really want to sell newspapers nowadays one either needs to pamper to one specific audience or be prepared to hire a LOT of reporters to cover the same story.

[Psudo]

Ombrageux, quoting a famous person does not constitute a logical argument. I'd be interested to hear Gandhi's argument defending his conclusion, but his conclusion alone is nothing but another person repeating the same claim. I won't concede to the name alone.

I think Ebounding is referring to the treaty at the end of the first Gulf War. The Hussein government retained sovereignty conditional on fulfilling such promises as non-hostility, providing proof of the dismantling of their weapons programs, and not to initiate any new weapons systems. By breaking some of those promises they broke the contract granting them their sovereignty. Was that it, Ebounding?

I like that idea, Jeff, having multiple viewpoints contrasting in a single newspaper or other source's coverage of a given story.

[Ombrageux]

Psudo, you are right that quoting Gandhi is not an argument. It was meant for you to take the point more seriously. There is a reason, for instance, why we didn't bring 'freedom and democracy' to the Soviet Union after WW2. We could have done it given our monopoly on nuclear weapons. It would have meant more horrendous devastation.

Freedom is important but it is not the only thing. There is also peace, and life. In Iraq, the war has meant hundreds of thousands of dead and 4 million refugees (in a country of 27 million). That is a heavy price to pay so the Iraqis might lurch towards a 'freedom' which, I think, will be quite different from what the U.S.A. expects. People in desperate circumstances have in the past voted against 'liberal democracy', in Germany, in Algeria, in the West Bank, in Southern Lebanon.

[Tiler]

And yet, people in even worse straits have voted for freedom in the face of hard times. Japan, Germany, Italy, and many other war torn nations after WWII came down for democracy. The USA, Britain, France, and many other nations, during the depression when people were saying democracy was on the way out, kept through with their ideals.

You have a point to be cynical, but the world isn't all gray and black in terms of morality, just the same in how it's not all roses and bunnies. People have willingly thrown away their lives for a cause, acting seemingly against their natures, whether that cause is a noble cause such as peace or freedom or for a warped ideology based on hatred. Humans, in all their predictable faults, aren't nearly as predictable as many expect.