American Actions are Responsible for Russia invading Georgia?

Let's just focus on Russia before getting into the quagmire and our inconsistencies on Iraq. First, Bush 41 promised to Gorbachev not to move NATO east in exchange for the reunification of Germany. Our next president broke that promise. What has to be understood here is Russia's somewhat paranoid view of the west. Three times in the past few centuries, Russia has had to fight wars on its western border. The last time, Russia saw a Western nation break a treaty and as a result it lost 25 million people. Consider that because look how we keep saying that the 3,000 deaths brought by 9-11 changed everything. What if 25 million had died? Russia has, since WWII, been keeping Eastern Europe as a buffer from the west.

Next, not only does Bush continue Clinton's work of moving NATO eastward, he breaks treaties with regards to the development of new nuclear weapons and the ABM treaty. And then, not only does he break those treaties, which triggered Russia's development of new nuclear weapons, he starts moving weapons eastward that, by analysts say, can be part of a first strike--Ballistic Missile Defense weapons, according to the Pentagon funded Rand Weapons Research Institute, not only a defense but a projection of American power and to be used as a deterrent to those planning to use weapons against potentially advancing American troops.

Now we bring in our violations of the Nuremberg Principles with the invasion of Iraq. First, the only thing that Saddamn was cited with in regards to the violation of resolutions was not giving unfettered access to sites to be inspected by UNSCOM. But part of the reason for that is that, under Clinton, the US used UNSCOM inspectors to spy on Iraq.

Second, we had UN inspectors on the ground asking for more time to verify our charges of Iraq's alleged violations of these resolutions. Now this charge of Iraq violating UN resolutions as the basis for our invasion is pure hypocrisy. Israel has been violating double the number of resolutions that Iraq has. So the invasion wasn't in response to Iraq violating resolutions considering that the UN inspectors were not finding those violations and were, in fact, asking for more time to do their work. It was in the fall of 2003 that the chief weapons inspector for UNSCOM concluded that Iraq had destroyed its stockpile of WMDs in 1991. What was found by our troops were some warheads whose shelf life had expired and were already known by UNSCOM inspectors.

Third, we have documented evidence showing that Bush had planned to attack Iraq prior to any legitimate assessment of Iraq's cache of weapons. In fact, in an account of a high level meeting of British officials called the Downingstreet memos clearly stated the British view that the intelligence is being made to fit around policy with regards to attacking Iraq. I believe the memo that reported that was in the summer of 2002. We know from Bush's first secretary of treasury, Paul O'Neil, that Bush planned to attack Iraq from the beginning of his presidency. And we have, on film, both Colin Powell and Condi Rice saying,in 2001, that Iraq did not have WMDs because of the sanctions.

Fourth, let's remember the support the US gave to Saddamn Hussein both prior to and after the first Gulf war. Prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, we were shipping materials to make WMDs. According former CIA analyst, Chalmers Johnson, we made over 70 such shipments between 1986 and 1989. We also were giving Saddamn aid with regards to nuclear weapon technology. After the first Gulf War, President Bush gave Saddamn permission to use aircraft to put down a very threatening Shi'ite revolt stating that we need a strong man to control the area.

Finally, lets pay attention to American efforts to get Iraq to privatize their oil industry and to accept control of a significant amount of their resources to American companies. This has been an unpublished part of the oil revenue sharing bills that Iraq's parliament debated and refused to pass. After their parliament refused to accept these deals, American oil companies, with state dept help tried to make contracts directly with Iraq's oil minister.

In short, we invaded Iraq, not for the noble reasons stated, but for our corporations who have profited handsomely from the invasion. By invading Iraq what we said was that international due process was dead. And what we said by invading Iraq was that we will use violation of the will of the international community as a cover for our aggression because we can't accept the word "no" from the international community.

Let's address Al-Qaeda since most people don't know our role in forming the group. The main players for Al-Qaeda came together because of US-Saudi efforts to support "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan. THe problems here are that first, we recruited questionable people for this cause and; second, we triggered Russia's invasion of Afghanistan by placing these "freedom fighters". Yes, the orders and placement of these fighters in Afghanistan preceded the Russian invasion. This was the work of the Carter Administration.

Next, the UN sanctions on Iraq, primarily driven by the US and UK, were killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children as well as many adults. See, in violation of international law as stated in the Geneva conventions, we decimated Iraq's electrical, water, and sewage capabilities during the first gulf war. The sanctions prevented or severely interfered with the repair of these facilities. Therefore, Iraq had little means to process sewage and treat water. This caused a massive outbreak of disease that killed many children. In addition, our use of DU warheads in southern Iraq is seen as the major cause for the dramatic 10 fold increase in cancer in that region. Finally, we continued with these sanctions even though we knew it was strengthening Saddamn within his own country.

In addition, our unbalanced support of Israel was contributing to the deaths of innocent Palestinians, including children, at the hands of Israel's defense forces. When you compare the number of deaths of Israelis and Palestinians by B'TSelem, an Israeli human rights organization, far more innocent Palestinians are killed by Israeli forces than innocent Israelis are killed by terrorists. Certainly the deaths of both are to be mourned, but the suffering of the Palestinians also played a role in Bin Laden's decision to attack American civilians. To that you can add the American presence in Saudi Arabia.

that, because of the history of the region, Russian peacekeepers were in South Ossetia during Georgia's attack and came under fire from Georgian forces. All of that preceded the Russian response.

Only a Liberal can go on and on and on with a monologue based on misinformation and untruths. Why don't Liberals just come right out and speak clearly Wil? They hate America, Capitalism and want nothing more than to become a totalitarian ruled socialist entity. And hopefully be in the elite power structure somehow. What tripe. Turn the air conditioner Wil, too much hot air.

The difference between our two notes is that mine cites verifiable facts while yours consists of overgeneralizations made on the personal motivations of "liberals." If you really think my note is wrong, then itemize the mistakes you see.

You need a blah, blah, blah, blah filter.

Does time stand still? All your bloviating is juvenile.

part 1: Russia has never been our friend. What do we care how nervous they are? We are for us. Does the US Prez work for Russia? You're just being obstinant.

part 2. - you're lying. Saddam and Iraq violated 14 items on the list. We were compelled to go. And of course W had a plan to attack, silly.

part 3. - again, you're being dim. Allies change, sweetie pie. We use our enemies and allies against each other all the time. So does everyone else. As for profits, wouldn't it have been easier to just pay what Saddam wanted and charge the people here? Clever plan that W had...

part 4 - You're doing the classic liberal patronizing soft bigotry act: some folks do things of their own accord - NOT because the mean white Americans made them. Grow up.

And did you know, Russia tried to make citizens of a separate country so that they could invade? It's like Canada invading us if we "oppress" people who want to be Canadian like Alec Baldwin.

DCat is right. blah blah blah and hot gas is all you got. You've proved you can read, now can you comprehend?

Point 1: Doesn't matter if Russia was our friend or not. What does matter is are we setting a precedent by which others can rationalize their own violence against others.

Point 2: What compelled us to go in? UN resolution 1441 explicitly said that any failure to cooperate with the inspectors would be considered a material breech which risk Iraq to serious consequences. But the same resolution stated that such a material breech would mean that the UN would meet to decide what those serious consequences would be. That was not needed but when the UN inspectors did not find what we said was there, they asked for more time but we said we were invading now. Now if the inspectors did not find the WMDs, what compelled us to go in?

Point 3: allies change, no problem there. THe problem is that we supported Saddamn through most of his worst atrocities until he invaded Kuwait. We were aiding his efforts to build WMDs and that possibly includes the building of nuclear weapons. So when we called him a Hitler to justify attacking him, we were quiet about the fact we helped him as he acted as a Hitler. So if he was guilty of being a Hitler, certainly we are guilty as accessories.

Point 4: your point here is your subjective judgment. I have neither engaged in name calling nor attacked anyone's character. But it seems that that is the only come back from some here. The problem for your side is that you are answering facts that don't favor you with subjective judgments.

I'm giving you constructive criticism. Don't be a recorder, be a thinker. Use your, as Joe Biden might say, JUD-JA-MENT. Use your reasoning faculties.

Reading the encyclopedia back to us is easy. We already know why Russia does what it does. You're trying to equate bad with good. We don't have to let you get away with it.

Here are examples of your constructive criticism

1. You're just being obstinant

2. again, you're being dim

3. You're doing the classic liberal patronizing soft bigotry act

4. DCat is right. blah blah blah and hot gas is all you got

Again, all subjective personal judgments that are not verifiable.

Again, what I have done is to cite one fact after another. I have made no personal comment about anyone here. Here is one possible explanation. An oft used conservative mantra is that liberals make judgments based on feelings not facts. But some conservatives here are the ones supplying the most subjectively based assessments while I have been supplying the most facts. Is it possible that the just mentioned conservative mantra is false if not the opposite?

blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,........OM.

Too many years of debating the Liberal mind leaves only one option. Defeat them, and continue as often as possible whenever possible, they are a scourge to this country.

again, you're stating what you consider to be facts and you're doing so to point out that the US is at fault for all the trouble in the world. It is simply not true. Why don't you state all the facts about Russian cruelty and aggression over the years?

Again, I just give mere observation in a helpful way. Everything I've stated about you is a fact.

Caday, here is the issue. You, unlike most liberals, like to use factual information to back your statements. This is great. But the reality is, that what we have here is a clash of two world views.

In one world view, America is exceptional, especially in the modern era. In the other, America is equally horrible as any other nation. In fact because of our wealth and our ability to dominate, we are worse than others and any resistance to us is justified.

There are many examples showing American Exceptionalism. In 1959, Russia inspired a Cuban revolution and helped Fidel Castro take power. The Soviet installed government was and is brutal to its own people, jailing those who speak against it, and committing atrocities. In the 1950's, America helped set up a Shah, or Monarchy in Iran for the same reason, Cold War politics. This was an unaccountable individual who proved to be corrupt and was hated by Iranians. We still face consequences of putting in place this "benevolent dictator" today. These two interferences in sovereign nations were equally wrong. This does not show American Exceptionalism because they did the same thing as another country for their own self interest with no thought of the Iranians.

In 2001 and 2003, when America entered Afghanistan and Iraq, they attempted in both places to install, support, and encourage a democracy. In both places, they put in place systems to produce elections, tried to make these elections fair, and as much as possible, turned rule of the countries over to their elected governments once there was stability to allow it. This is exceptional. This is different than America in the past installing a Shah or supporting Zia in Pakistan after he initiated a military coup and started a dictatorship in the early 80's. Compare it to Russia. What is the purpose of invading Georgia? Nominally to protect peacekeepers. Who are these peacekeepers? Russian soldiers sent to protct Russian citizens artificially put into place in the 20's and 30's to create Russian Interests and make breaking away impossible for Georgia. This cynical ploy you accept as legitmate not because it is by any measure, but because you are ashamed of American actions and feel that because America has "done wrong" by your standards, we must be tolerant of wrongs done by others to us and our allies.

This is the other world view, a world in which a terrorist blowing up children on a bus is simply expressing his desire for freedom, and ought to be understood in terms of the aggression of others. There is no coming to terms, there is no understanding each other Caday, your views are that America is inherently wrong and anyone else is inherently right to resist America, therefore is understandable if not condoned in their action. Your world view leads to a world in which those who don't care about nebulous world opinion will dominate and destroy the tolerant civilized world because it is unwilling to fight back. American exceptionalism leads to a world in which those nations who want to live a different style of nation are allowed to, but if they harm us or threaten us, we come at them and they pay. France wants to be socialist. Fine, let them. You don' hear anyone calling for an invasion of France. Jordan wants to use Sharia law in its courts. We have no problem with that because Jordan does not sanction (any longer) the destruction of non Muslims or of Israel. It is not the different who need fear American might, it is those who want to injure us. By your unwillingness to even condemn their actions, you imply condoning their actions.

Facts are facts, they are morally neutral. But facts can be arranged in such a way as to lead to a certain conclusion. Here are facts:

1) In war, innocent people die

2) In any nation, there are people who do wrong. This does not condemn the whole nation unless the whole nation supports these actions wrong actions and does not punish them.

3) From any action there is a reaction. Sometimes these reactions are not entirely what you expect

You can arrange these facts to say that America deserved 9/11 if you have a world view that says all opinions are equally valid. You can arrange these facts to say that America has a right to stand up for itself if you have a world view that says that America is different and exceptional. But people with two such vastly opposed world views will never agree, unless one of them abandons their world view. And all the logic and quotations and "hot air" in the world will not change that, and ultimately comes across sounding condescending and arrogant.

But I know you will feel that you must get in the last word and "prove me wrong", so feel free.

I am asking that we invade Mexico, Canada, France, and other foreign countries like Manhattan, Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.

The U.S. cannot, and should not, be the world's 9-1-1.

It seems that the only mantra you can recite is "blah, blah, blah." It is like saying, "don't bother me with the facts."

It is not like your mantra has never been used. When the prophets warned the Israelites about what would happen if they did not repent, the leaders would say "blah, blah, blah." People laughed at Noah. One does not have to be a prophet or Noah to see what will happen if we follow certain practices. This is good since there are no more prophets. But the writing is on the wall if we continue to rely on violence and do what is right in our own eyes.

Again, who is responding emotionally and who is responding with facts and logic

I agree. Nor can we be a world leader in causing others to dial 9-1-1. We have to work in collaboration.

No one is saying that we deserved 9-11 except those some who have suffered from our policies and those who attacked us. But why give people who are on the fence or who are evil a reason, in their own minds, to seek revenge?

BTW, I wouldn't say that facts are morally neutral. When someone commits a crime, the facts are not morally neutral, they indict the criminal. Our problem as a nation is that while we are more than willing, and often justified, to use facts to morally indict others, we deny that consistency demands that the facts can indict us. If our actions cannot morally indict us, then we have no right to see atrocities like 9-11 as indicting others. If our terrorism is not a crime, neither is theirs. But such thinking leaves us with a far worse problem.

It seems that my rejection of a positive American Exceptionalism implies a negative American Exceptionalism--America is inherently wrong. Neither exceptionalism is the case. It is that since we are the most powerful nation on earth, our actions often carry the greatest repercussions.

Our foreign policies have not reflected what you said about letting nations choose their own domestic policies. We overthrew Iran's gov't in '53, Guatamala's in '54, Greece in '67, Chile in '72 and installed dictatorships in place of their democracies. But such practices are not ancient history. We participated in a coup to overthrow Chavez in 2002. What was the result? The general population protested in the streets causing the military to give up the coup. But such an attack led Chavez to start instituting authoritarian measures just as 9-11 move Bush to do the same.

The basic point is that if we are to survive, we cannot continue to rely on violence and the rule of force. This was stated by the Russell-Einstein manifest in the '50s as well as General Eisenhower in the '60s. It is up to us to either stop the trend or cause the end of human history.

What you missed in Iraq and Afghanistan is that we defined them as democracies by redefining the word democracy. We reduced democracy to a single action--voting. But democracy is more than that. If the only action people have in participating in self-rule is voting, then it is possible that their form of gov't is an elected monarchy--electing those to whom they pledge absolute obedience--rather than a true democracy. After all, people voted in places like the Soviet Union and Saddamn's Iraq.

We used warlords to kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan. But the result was that outside of their capital city, the warlords reigned over Afghanistan. Not that they had not ruled over Afghanistan before, their reign preceded the rule of the Taliban. But so harsh was their rule that people first celebrated the rule of the Taliban. This is similar to the Iranian revolution of '79 where people were so tired of the Shah's repressive gov't, they initially celebrated the rule of Khomeini.

In Iraq, you have a gov't that is governed by people who, for the most part, stay behind the Green Line. And our gov't seems to ignore the slight representation they give when it goes against our business designs. Evidence can be seen in how we went directly to the Iraqi Oil Minister to try to negotiate no bid contracts for preferential treatment for our Oil Companies when the Iraqi Parliament rejected American business ownership of their resources.

In addition, not all nations view our actions as exceptional. When the Soviet Union responded to Georgian violence with invading Georgia and showing no concern to be accountable, they were simply following the precedent set by our invasion of Iraq.

Our invasion of Iraq has led to up to 1.3 million Iraqi dead and 4.7 million displaced. If the same percentages of Americans suffered the same fate here we would see 12,000,000 dead Americans and 56,400,000 displaced fellow citizens. This does not include having destroyed their infrastructure to the extent that might be permanently in a state of disrepair. That is what American Exceptionalism has brought to Iraq.

As you mentioned Cuba, you forgot to mention the state of Cuba before Castro where crime and dictatorship was the order of the day. Similarly, before the Sandistas ruled in Nicaragua in the '80s, and American backed dictator, Somoza was his name I think, ruled there.

If what justifies our actions is that we are not as bad as Saddamn or Al-Qaeda, then we have made Saddamn or Al-Qaeda the minimal standard of evil. That is that none of our evil actions count until they exceed the crimes committed by Saddamn or Al-Qaeda.

BTW, I wanted to thank you for your notes because you are engaging with facts and logic. We disagree on how to react to the facts and logic but I very much appreciate it.

Again, the statements I cited were subjective assessments, not facts.

Second, my purpose in pointing out America's sins is not to accuse America of being solely responsible for the troubles in the world, but to point out that our history and present make us no better than anyone else.

I agree that Russian aggression is criminal and causes huge potential as well as significant current problems. As Americans, we have the right and privilege to speak out against their actions. I don't think that the Russians have the same freedoms. But if we are really concerned with morals and principles, we will also speak out against the aggression of every nation including our own.

throw the bait they fall every time. Moral indignation indeed. Get real, and get facts. But they won't and we'll never have an honest discussion, their "truths" are their dogma, and I won't have ythem shoving their "Liberal religion" down my throat with lies falsehoods and distortions. I don't have time to engage Liberals, they are a lost cause. Perhaps Wil, they'll show true patriotism and move to Canada where they'll be welcomed by a nation dependent on American exceptionalism.

You might be wrong. But all some conservatives need is to receive a mission from the President because they regard him as a secular pope.

BTW, moral indignation isn't bad when it is backed by facts and logic.

You've encapsulated the whole thing with this excerpt.so simple and clear

"Russian leaders want the perks of economic ties without the constraints of political ties. Like China, with a vibrant economy but a repressive regime, Russian leaders, hope to be the same."

I love Mac's comment..."when I looked into Putin's eyes I saw three letters, K G and B"...

The problem with Mac's comment is that is plays to the inherent self-righteousness of the crowd. What does the world see when it looks into America's eyes?

who leads the world in foreigners wanting to come here? Hint: it's us.

Sorry you don't have the courage to admit that we're the greatest country and idea that man has come up with so far. More people can lead happier lives here than anywhere else at any time in history.

Name some other countries that are better overall. Even in war, we are merciful to the extent that our own soldiers are put at unnecessary risk so that we don't kill the civilians. Very few other countries would care to do that.

First, the statistics do not support your last claim. Second, there are benefits to living here and many people in the world respect that. But many of those same people will rightfully protest our foreign policies.

See, the lives that we have made for ourselves here do not imply that our foreign policies are benign or innocent.

feeding the Libs. They'll dry up and go away.