
Anytime the US proves itself horribly adept at forgetting all of the lessons of history in foreign relations (now when it comes to trade and immigration policy...), trust that Pat Buchanan will probably write a good article about it. Here is the most current error....
Blowback from Bear Baiting
By Patrick Buchanan
Mikheil Saakashvili’s decision to use the opening of the Olympic Games to cover Georgia’s invasion of its breakaway province of South Ossetia must rank in stupidity with Gamal Abdel-Nasser’s decision to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships.
Nasser’s blunder cost him the Sinai in the Six-Day War. Saakashvili’s blunder probably means permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
After shelling and attacking what he claims is his own country, killing scores of his own Ossetian citizens and sending tens of thousands fleeing into Russia, Saakashvili’s army was whipped back into Georgia in 48 hours.
Vladimir Putin took the opportunity to kick the Georgian army out of Abkhazia, as well, to bomb Tbilisi and to seize Gori, birthplace of Stalin.
Reveling in his status as an intimate of George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain, and America’s lone democratic ally in the Caucasus, Saakashvili thought he could get away with a lightning coup and present the world with a fait accompli.
Mikheil did not reckon on the rage or resolve of the Bear.
American charges of Russian aggression ring hollow. Georgia started this fight — Russia finished it. People who start wars don’t get to decide how and when they end.
Russia’s response was “disproportionate” and “brutal,” wailed Bush.
True. But did we not authorize Israel to bomb Lebanon for 35 days in response to a border skirmish where several Israel soldiers were killed and two captured? Was that not many times more “disproportionate”?
Russia has invaded a sovereign country, railed Bush. But did not the United States bomb Serbia for 78 days and invade to force it to surrender a province, Kosovo, to which Serbia had a far greater historic claim than Georgia had to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, both of which prefer Moscow to Tbilisi?
Is not Western hypocrisy astonishing?
When the Soviet Union broke into 15 nations, we celebrated. When Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Kosovo broke from Serbia, we rejoiced. Why, then, the indignation when two provinces, whose peoples are ethnically separate from Georgians and who fought for their independence, should succeed in breaking away?
Are secessions and the dissolution of nations laudable only when they advance the agenda of the neocons, many of who viscerally detest Russia?
That Putin took the occasion of Saakashvili’s provocative and stupid stunt to administer an extra dose of punishment is undeniable. But is not Russian anger understandable? For years the West has rubbed Russia’s nose in her Cold War defeat and treated her like Weimar Germany.
When Moscow pulled the Red Army out of Europe, closed its bases in Cuba, dissolved the evil empire, let the Soviet Union break up into 15 states, and sought friendship and alliance with the United States, what did we do?
American carpetbaggers colluded with Muscovite Scalawags to loot the Russian nation. Breaking a pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev, we moved our military alliance into Eastern Europe, then onto Russia’s doorstep. Six Warsaw Pact nations and three former republics of the Soviet Union are now NATO members.
Bush, Cheney and McCain have pushed to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This would require the United States to go to war with Russia over Stalin’s birthplace and who has sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula and Sebastopol, traditional home of Russia’s Black Sea fleet.
When did these become U.S. vital interests, justifying war with Russia?
The United States unilaterally abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty because our technology was superior, then planned to site anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend against Iranian missiles, though Iran has no ICBMs and no atomic bombs. A Russian counter-offer to have us together put an anti-missile system in Azerbaijan was rejected out of hand.
We built a Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey to cut Russia out. Then we helped dump over regimes friendly to Moscow with democratic “revolutions” in Ukraine and Georgia, and tried to repeat it in Belarus.
Americans have many fine qualities. A capacity to see ourselves as others see us is not high among them.
Imagine a world that never knew Ronald Reagan, where Europe had opted out of the Cold War after Moscow installed those SS-20 missiles east of the Elbe. And Europe had abandoned NATO, told us to go home and become subservient to Moscow.
How would we have reacted if Moscow had brought Western Europe into the Warsaw Pact, established bases in Mexico and Panama, put missile defense radars and rockets in Cuba, and joined with China to build pipelines to transfer Mexican and Venezuelan oil to Pacific ports for shipment to Asia? And cut us out? If there were Russian and Chinese advisers training Latin American armies, the way we are in the former Soviet republics, how would we react? Would we look with bemusement on such Russian behavior?
For a decade, some of us have warned about the folly of getting into Russia’s space and getting into Russia’s face. The chickens of democratic imperialism have now come home to roost — in Tbilisi.
9 comments:
Story brought to you by by Russian News Network iReporter Scott Overpecksky.
I am not for Russia or for Georgia. I am for America which has no right to intervene in a border skirmish nor do we have the right to tell sovereign nations whether they can intervene is secessionist movements. Whether they have the right to secede or not the point. Choosing sides is not in our interest, in choosing to side against the right to secede we have sided against freedom, not for it. If Georgia cared about freedom they would respect the right to secede as well. But America should not factor any of these things into its reaction, we are suppose to base our decisions on the Constitution and follow the founding fathers advise. War (and threats of war disguised as "humanitarian aid delivered by elite fighting Marines" should be reserved to attacks on our soil, imminent threats. Not border skirmishes. Not one time several years ago someone talked smack on my daddy. Not we don't like you and you say mean things about us. Precedent may seem to suggest that these are good reasons to kill people, but the founding fathers and those who care about human life and not just US life, disagree.
Well said Comrade! Mr Putin is awaiting you now for your lunch appointment. From there he will advise you on what to 'blog' about for the next editorial on Russia's emminent near-future attack on Israel. He trusts your candy-coating abilities.
Dasvedanya!
Yes Putin probably does want us to follow our constitution and remain a republic and end our quest for empire. But he is dead wrong in intervening as well. This is a Civil Conflict between to secessionist movements and Georgia. Russia should be supporting them no more than we should be against them. In choosing sides we are both causing escalation, and risking unnecessary lives.
Russia has no interest in Israel and Israel has far more nuclear weapons funded by the US that Russia. So even if they were to be attacked it would be of little consequence to them since 24 hours later Russia would cease to exist even with out our intervention, although there can be little doubt that we would and turn it in to a 100 year occupation.
I think that being too casual about war mongering by war profiteers and ideologues is dangerous and even if only a few hundred people a month look at this site it is my attempt to say "hey, take a look at what they are selling man. there has got to be a better way." I am not a pacifist. I simply think that unnecessary wars not only compromise our security but also put thousands upon thousands of lives at risk. This should be abhorrent to us. For some reason because one foreign leader broke a promise 60+ years ago, diplomacy is now looked at as weak and we feel we need to attack everynation who seems ever so slightly imperialistic (matthew 7 ring a bell). This is not wise.
Not wanting to attack russia is pro american pro peace and pro humanity and even pro georgian (they have no interest in a world war breaking out around them) not pro russian in the sense you are talking about.
Perhaps, but take Ezekiel 38 into consideration. The prophetical attack on Israel by Gog and Magog is something that will eventually (and I believe soon will) occur. You musn't dismiss this strange, yet quiet, close relationship Russia has with Iran.
When you then consider the maniacal and end-times hate speech that comes from the mouth of Ahmedinejad (sp?) and take a look at the amount of support Putin is giving to Iran, you'll notice a scary alliance. I would highly consider looking up some of the works of Joel Rosenberg. His views on Ezekiel 38, Gog and Magog, and Russia and Iran are scary accurate.
Beware of Russia and Iran, no matter we as America should or shouldn't stick our noses into, those two countries have an evil agenda that will eventually come to light. The bible says in the end Israel will stand alone. Currently, the U.S. is her only ally.
I forget who said "all it takes for evil to triumph is for a few good men to do nothing."
Let's not make that mistake on our watch. While I agree the U.S. has some empirical views, so what. Better to be standing on top then being occupied or allowing evil. Your passe views are dangerous. The United States should intervene when necessary, but also learn when to 'bow out.' I'll agree we should've gotten out of Iraq like 2+ years ago. We toppled Saddam's regime and set forth what we needed to accomplish. We should've left then. We've got such liberal views now, that other countries disrespect us and are not afraid (ie Russia) because we're all bark and no bite.
You're very liberal for a Republican my friend.
The US gov't should not make decisions based on prophecy. Also, if your interpretation of Ezekiel 38 is correct (I am not sure) then why should we try to stand in the way of what God has ordained.
Further, why is their relationship that strange? Consider how close mom and son are after an abusive dad. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." We have pushed them together but alienating and threatening them both. It is natural for them to align against us. Of course we should be wary of anyone who make threats or hints at wanting to hurt us, and we should be prepared to strike with deadly force if necessary, but until it is necessary we should be trying to reconcile and repair the relationship, treat them with kindness. To put it biblically "heap burning coals on their head," or as Thomas Jefferson (my personal favorite) said "friendship and commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
If they attack us or anyone else for that matter, let congress decide to declare war and blast them back to stone age, but all these threats, sanctions and bullying only make things worse. Encouraging terrorism and war never is in our favor.
Your accusation of liberalism is completely unfounded. True Conservatives throughout our history have sought to keep the nation as close to the founding fathers vision as possible. Liberals wanted to grow the government, send the military all over the place, etc. As far as intervening when necessary, that is very very subjective. Historically, that was determined by being attacked. Now it is what ever the white house says.
It is the height of hubris to think that we are always correct. One must assume American leaders are always "good" to say that we can and should attack "evil." Imperialism has always led to the destruction of a nation. Power corrupts.
We have started two wars and threatened a few more in the last few years, I don't think anyone is under the impression we are all bark and no bite.
Your opinions bear more resemblance to John Adams than that of Thomas Jefferson. "Mr. A" as his wife had a knack for referring to him as, was a staunch believer, and creator historically, of the separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, was a devious man and was constantly undermining the works of, and destroying the name of John Adams during Adams' presidency. I will concede to the fact that in end, they 'made up' and become good friends before they both died, ironically on the same exact day.
Getting back to the point which as already escaped my mind (I need more coffee...) I believe that the government should put a lot more focus on the bible and use it as a base for their decisions. The bible is a moral compass. While I don't believe in tyranny, of course, I believe that under the right balance of power and using the bible as the gov't's moral compass, this nation could grow and mature in a fashion as never before seen. This, of course, will never happen.
Prophecy is coming true day by day, the end has really never been closer. Of course 'the end is near' has been splattered across fanatics' signs and banners for centuries, but when you consider real life events unfolding that are in the bible itself, the only real piece of prophecy left before the rapture itself is Israel standing alone and being under the gun of 'Gog and Magog'.
I appreciate the diplomatic approach you have to Russia and Iran (which are liberal views), but it won't work. Russia and Iran, in their own minds, have already planned our destruction. Ahmedinejad calls Israel "little satan" and the United States "the great satan" and calls for our destruction, saying we need to "be wiped off the map." That's not just anger, that's hate. There can be no diplomacy for this type of evil. They must be stopped, before it's too late.
You say why should we intefere with what God has ordained? What kind of question is that? Why hasten apocalypse? Would you not defend the life of your spouse based on the fact that she'd go to heaven anyway, were she in danger? Or your son? We should stand by Israel, and nip this new 'axis of evil' in the butt before it gets way out of control. I'm not saying bullying them or making a pre-emptive strike, I just believe we should draw a line, say do not cross and then form a front and hold to it, regardless of the outcome.
Forgive me for using your family as an example, btw. I'm merely making a point.
Where does this information of liberals sending the military everwhere and the conservatives being diplomatic come from? That's so way off it's not even funny. Using Jefferson (a Republican) and Adams (a pre-form of democrat) as an example, Adams kept the peace and used diplmacy to avoid a war with France when Jefferson sided with the people and wanted war. It never happened, as Adams succeeded in peace, but it costed him his popularity and ultimately the new White House. Jumping forward to modern presidents, any democratic president (Ford, Clinton) are extremely diplomatic, wanting to talk and talk and disarming our military (clinton being the worse, shutting down a record number of bases. I'm still mad at him for closing El Toro) while the republicans have used 'cowboy diplomacy,' trying once to use diplomacy and pulling the gun out after that.
While I am a semi-firm believer in Republican policy, I will conceed that I believe Bush Jr has been the worst President in the face of his lies and deceipt to the general public. I'm glad we removed Saddam from power, and I'm glad we went into Afghanistan. But why lie about your intentions and/or the reasoning? Call an ace an ace and state your intentions. Don't lie and cover stuff up. I could go on and on about my dislike for 'W', but that's an arguement for another time.
Point conceeded (my word of the day); power does corrupt.
And using some storyline from 'Dark Knight' perhaps you're right about other countries getting crazy. When you have a super-hero in the world, sometimes that creates super-bad-guys. In the U.S.'s (Batman) quest for good, countries such as Russia and Iran (Joker, Two-Face) have spawned to try to stop us because they believe their views are right. Maybe I just watch too much tv...
Hey, now that I've revealed my identity I've been meaning to call you. I don't go to that biker church anymore and I'm not involved in any bands (full-time). So if you need a guitar player, I'm definitely available and willing now.
Look we can argue for ever about these topics...My only point is that the definition of conservatism has changed dramatically over the years. If it is now liberal to long for a day when our nation reflects the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Common Sense, and other documents which led to the American Revolution, then hey call me liberal. I don't think it makes much sense to use the 2 choice model anymore as the depth and breadth of American politics is so much more now. Also, on your historical analysis of the founding fathers I would check out The Faiths of Our Fathers by Alf J. Mapp, Jr. Great book. mini bios detailing letters and journaling on faith and politics from 11 founding fathers. check it out http://www.amazon.com/Faiths-Our-Fathers-Americas-Founders/dp/0742531147
Every conflict since world war I has been referenced as the beginning of the end. Each time it is wrong. This could be the one (i doubt it) but I am not going to argue that we should wage war on a nation over a very difficult to interpret book of the Bible. There is too much in this world that is black and white to waste so much time and energy on the grey. I know without 15 differing scholarly interpretations that Christ (whom we should model ourselves after if we call ourselves little Christ's or Christians) said Blessed are the peacemakers and whatever you do to the least of these you have done unto Me. I spend the majority of my time on things of that nature, not who God wants me to kill. But perhaps I am way off base.
ooh eeh ooh ah ah, ting tang walla walla bing bang!!
Post a Comment