Georgia says Russia bombed after order to halt war (1 viewing) (1) Guests
Favoured: 0
|
|
|
TOPIC: Georgia says Russia bombed after order to halt war
|
JLD (User)
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 1899
|
|
Re:Georgia says Russia bombed after order to halt 4 Months, 4 Weeks ago
|
Karma: -12
|
RogerWilco wrote:JLD wrote:
RogerWilco wrote:
This thread discusses the Content article: Georgia says Russia bombed after order to halt war
From an op-ed in Harper's:
"For Georgians, the choice was simple. America stood for the ideals of an open society and a free market. It offered the promise of transformation. And America was the paramount military power on earth, a power they could depend upon. But Georgia's confidence in America, and specifically the Bush Administration, may well prove tragically misplaced.
"The Georgian leadership, and indeed a whole generation of Georgians, tethered their hopes to George W. Bush and the hollow promises of his administration. Now at the moment of truth, Bush will almost certainly let them down. Vice President Cheney, whose bellicose rhetoric has done much to provoke the problems now bubbling in the Caucasus, says that the Russian acts of aggression in Georgia "must not go unanswered." But thanks to the serial strategic misadventures that make up Bush-Cheney foreign policy, there is little prospect of Russia's actions being answered by a flex of military muscle of the United States or of NATO. Putin's calculation is that an America bogged down in two conflicts in the Middle East will let him give the Georgians a whipping. Putin is probably right.
Another Bush foreign policy failure.
I wonder what Bush & Putin said to each other at the Olympic Opening Ceremonies, with Russia having just launched their offensive against Georgia? I can imagine Putin's answer to whatever Bush said:
"Bring it on."
You are forgetting to factor into this why Russia invaded Georgia in the first place - Georgia moved to subjugate South Ossetia (spelling?) without, to my knowledge, running that past any of their allies first. As South Ossetia (again, pardon my spelling) is under Russian protection, as it were, the move by Russia to retaliate in their interests is no surprise. What is a shock is the amount of force they used to get the job done.
More force isn't the solution to this.
I'm not advocating more force. I'm merely pointing out that Bush and Cheney told Saakashvili and Georgia that they would support them but have not done so. If they didn't intend to offer military support then they should not have given Saakashvili the encouragement to take on Russia.If you aren't advocating force, what are you advocating? Barring the use of force and further escalating a tense situation, what more can the US do that it isn't already doing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
ThomasK (User)
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 2251
|
|
Re:Georgia says Russia bombed after order to halt 4 Months, 4 Weeks ago
|
Karma: -26
|
RogerWilco wrote:JLD wrote:
RogerWilco wrote:
This thread discusses the Content article: Georgia says Russia bombed after order to halt war
From an op-ed in Harper's:
"For Georgians, the choice was simple. America stood for the ideals of an open society and a free market. It offered the promise of transformation. And America was the paramount military power on earth, a power they could depend upon. But Georgia's confidence in America, and specifically the Bush Administration, may well prove tragically misplaced.
"The Georgian leadership, and indeed a whole generation of Georgians, tethered their hopes to George W. Bush and the hollow promises of his administration. Now at the moment of truth, Bush will almost certainly let them down. Vice President Cheney, whose bellicose rhetoric has done much to provoke the problems now bubbling in the Caucasus, says that the Russian acts of aggression in Georgia "must not go unanswered." But thanks to the serial strategic misadventures that make up Bush-Cheney foreign policy, there is little prospect of Russia's actions being answered by a flex of military muscle of the United States or of NATO. Putin's calculation is that an America bogged down in two conflicts in the Middle East will let him give the Georgians a whipping. Putin is probably right.
Another Bush foreign policy failure.
I wonder what Bush & Putin said to each other at the Olympic Opening Ceremonies, with Russia having just launched their offensive against Georgia? I can imagine Putin's answer to whatever Bush said:
"Bring it on."
You are forgetting to factor into this why Russia invaded Georgia in the first place - Georgia moved to subjugate South Ossetia (spelling?) without, to my knowledge, running that past any of their allies first. As South Ossetia (again, pardon my spelling) is under Russian protection, as it were, the move by Russia to retaliate in their interests is no surprise. What is a shock is the amount of force they used to get the job done.
More force isn't the solution to this.
I'm not advocating more force. I'm merely pointing out that Bush and Cheney told Saakashvili and Georgia that they would support them but have not done so. If they didn't intend to offer military support then they should not have given Saakashvili the encouragement to take on Russia.Did the U.S. enter into an agreement that we would use military force if Georgia was attacked by Russia? Did NATO enter into an agreement as such also?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
JLD (User)
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 1899
|
|
Re:Georgia says Russia bombed after order to halt 4 Months, 4 Weeks ago
|
Karma: -12
|
ThomasK wrote:RogerWilco wrote:
JLD wrote:
RogerWilco wrote:
This thread discusses the Content article: Georgia says Russia bombed after order to halt war
From an op-ed in Harper's:
"For Georgians, the choice was simple. America stood for the ideals of an open society and a free market. It offered the promise of transformation. And America was the paramount military power on earth, a power they could depend upon. But Georgia's confidence in America, and specifically the Bush Administration, may well prove tragically misplaced.
"The Georgian leadership, and indeed a whole generation of Georgians, tethered their hopes to George W. Bush and the hollow promises of his administration. Now at the moment of truth, Bush will almost certainly let them down. Vice President Cheney, whose bellicose rhetoric has done much to provoke the problems now bubbling in the Caucasus, says that the Russian acts of aggression in Georgia "must not go unanswered." But thanks to the serial strategic misadventures that make up Bush-Cheney foreign policy, there is little prospect of Russia's actions being answered by a flex of military muscle of the United States or of NATO. Putin's calculation is that an America bogged down in two conflicts in the Middle East will let him give the Georgians a whipping. Putin is probably right.
Another Bush foreign policy failure.
I wonder what Bush & Putin said to each other at the Olympic Opening Ceremonies, with Russia having just launched their offensive against Georgia? I can imagine Putin's answer to whatever Bush said:
"Bring it on."
You are forgetting to factor into this why Russia invaded Georgia in the first place - Georgia moved to subjugate South Ossetia (spelling?) without, to my knowledge, running that past any of their allies first. As South Ossetia (again, pardon my spelling) is under Russian protection, as it were, the move by Russia to retaliate in their interests is no surprise. What is a shock is the amount of force they used to get the job done.
More force isn't the solution to this.
I'm not advocating more force. I'm merely pointing out that Bush and Cheney told Saakashvili and Georgia that they would support them but have not done so. If they didn't intend to offer military support then they should not have given Saakashvili the encouragement to take on Russia.
Did the U.S. enter into an agreement that we would use military force if Georgia was attacked by Russia? Did NATO enter into an agreement as such also?Good question. Even if the US/NATO did, I'm sure the fact that Georgia is (at least from Russia's point of view) the aggressor might factor into any prior commitments. Georgia is certainly the underdog but by no means innocent in what is transpiring there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
ThomasK (User)
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 2251
|
|
Re:Georgia says Russia bombed after order to halt 4 Months, 4 Weeks ago
|
Karma: -26
|
JLD wrote:ThomasK wrote:
RogerWilco wrote:
JLD wrote:
RogerWilco wrote:
This thread discusses the Content article: Georgia says Russia bombed after order to halt war
From an op-ed in Harper's:
"For Georgians, the choice was simple. America stood for the ideals of an open society and a free market. It offered the promise of transformation. And America was the paramount military power on earth, a power they could depend upon. But Georgia's confidence in America, and specifically the Bush Administration, may well prove tragically misplaced.
"The Georgian leadership, and indeed a whole generation of Georgians, tethered their hopes to George W. Bush and the hollow promises of his administration. Now at the moment of truth, Bush will almost certainly let them down. Vice President Cheney, whose bellicose rhetoric has done much to provoke the problems now bubbling in the Caucasus, says that the Russian acts of aggression in Georgia "must not go unanswered." But thanks to the serial strategic misadventures that make up Bush-Cheney foreign policy, there is little prospect of Russia's actions being answered by a flex of military muscle of the United States or of NATO. Putin's calculation is that an America bogged down in two conflicts in the Middle East will let him give the Georgians a whipping. Putin is probably right.
Another Bush foreign policy failure.
I wonder what Bush & Putin said to each other at the Olympic Opening Ceremonies, with Russia having just launched their offensive against Georgia? I can imagine Putin's answer to whatever Bush said:
"Bring it on."
You are forgetting to factor into this why Russia invaded Georgia in the first place - Georgia moved to subjugate South Ossetia (spelling?) without, to my knowledge, running that past any of their allies first. As South Ossetia (again, pardon my spelling) is under Russian protection, as it were, the move by Russia to retaliate in their interests is no surprise. What is a shock is the amount of force they used to get the job done.
More force isn't the solution to this.
I'm not advocating more force. I'm merely pointing out that Bush and Cheney told Saakashvili and Georgia that they would support them but have not done so. If they didn't intend to offer military support then they should not have given Saakashvili the encouragement to take on Russia.
Did the U.S. enter into an agreement that we would use military force if Georgia was attacked by Russia? Did NATO enter into an agreement as such also?
Good question. Even if the US/NATO did, I'm sure the fact that Georgia is (at least from Russia's point of view) the aggressor might factor into any prior commitments. Georgia is certainly the underdog but by no means innocent in what is transpiring there.Yes they were the aggressor. Just what they think we or Europe would do is a good question. Especially given their geography and location. Maybe they should try be a little more diplomatic in dealing with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Too late now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
|
Generated in 0.48782 Seconds |
