stevendedalus stevendedalus

Not So Fast

▼

Not So Fast

South Ossetia Doesn’t Want To Be Georgian

from JoeUser Forums

Though the Russian overreaction with tanks reminiscent of old Soviet tactics should be condemned we must keep in mind that overreaction by the US serves no purpose, especially in light of Georgia initiating the attack on Tskhinvali. Bush’s condemnation that invasion of territorial rights is not acceptable in the 21st Century is laughable. McCain’s bluster shows he’s still a cold front warrior in a time when our resources are spread too thin. Secretary of State Rice has no business in Poland for a missile agreement and antagonizing the Georgian situation. Missiles in Poland is hardly any different from missiles in Cuba, and only a Democratic President can set a new mindset in diplomacy to rid the US of its perennial "tough talk" particularly when in reality we are now reduced to a paper tiger. Even with our military at full strength, Kennedy was shrewd enough to remove missiles from Turkey.

As usual, MSN offers little information—as in the run-up to Iraq—in sizing up the full story in Georgia and particularly its president Saaskashvili who seems eager to provoke Moscow—give an inch and take a mile—particularly in his wanting to become a part of NATO; further, he is not exactly the darling of democracy to his own constituents and adamant when it comes to South Ossetia’s desire to join the North making them part of the Russian Federation.

We should take a deep breath and consider unexpected consequences: we have already bitten off more than we can chew. Even Biden—and he’s on Obama’s short list for veep!—is ludicrous in wanting to send $billions to Georgia for reconstruction in face of our own debts and deteriorating infrastructure. And just how far does NATO want to expand before it becomes pointless? It appears it won’t be content till its extension reaches China—why, they might even want Iran to join.

 

 

Copyright © 2008 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: Aug 21,  2008.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

http://www.lulu.com/rrkfinn

south tskhinvali politics
18,647 views 58 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top

We were faced with an attack on our soil and Iraq providing help to the attackers, add to that the fact that there were tons of unaccounted for WMD in Iraq and the choice was simple. Invade or wait till we get attacked again. The right choice was to invade
How can you say this when you know this was not the case. As for the case that the Gulf War was more or less a truce and the coalition was technically at war. I uysed this precise argument in the beginning but that doesn't change the fact that it was not strong enough probable cause to send grunts while we had the nofly zone under control.

Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top

How can you say this when you know this was not the case.

Are you suggesting that we were not attacked on 9/11?

Are you suggesting the AP reports of wounded as well as healthy terrorists showing up in Iraq after we invaded Afghanistan was untrue?

Are you suggesting that the Bush Doctrine of attacking any nation that supports, harbors, or aids the terrorists of 9/11 is not valid in the case of Iraq?

Are you suggesting that the tons of WMD that the UN said was unaccounted for was accounted for prior to the war?

As the leader of a nation that was just attacked, seeing the leader of Iraq cheering the terrorists the next day is something that would tend to upset a person. When the president announced the Bush Doctrine it became the policy of our nation unless outlawed by the Congress and supported by the Supreme Court. Senator Daschel wrote a law to back up the doctrine and the President signed it into law.

I will restate, when you have AQ receiving protection from Iraq that was justification to attack. When Iraq failed to account for the WMD he said he had that was not destroyed, we had justification to invade. There is more but this alone was reason enough to invade and eliminate the leader of Iraq.

SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top

Are you suggesting that we were not attacked on 9/11?
Wise ass question! Answer, no, but not by Iraq.

I will restate, when you have AQ receiving protection from Iraq that was justification to attack. When Iraq failed to account for the WMD he said he had that was not destroyed, we had justification to invade. There is more but this alone was reason enough to invade and eliminate the leader of Iraq.
Perhaps but not by grunts; rather, continuation of air attacks on Hussein's headquarters and any suspected WMD sites.

 

Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top

Perhaps but not by grunts; rather, continuation of air attacks on Hussein's headquarters and any suspected WMD sites.

Please tell me you are not serious! We had lost track of his WMD’s bombing was not accomplishing anything other than providing innocent dead people to be paraded in front of the cameras. The threat was he would give some of his weapons to the AQ types in his country, which had a means of delivering them to the US. The only choice we had was to invade.

Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top

The threat was he would give some of his weapons to the AQ types in his country, which had a means of delivering them to the US. The only choice we had was to invade.
Don't you ever tire of beating a dead horse? Especially when it is nbot factual.

Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top

Don't you ever tire of beating a dead horse? Especially when it is nbot factual.

Tell me just how you know this is not factual? You may choose not to believe it but that does not change the fact that it was a fear we had to face.

Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top

fear we had to face
I'll cry uncle if you stop this nonsense. Remember FDR: the only thing you have to  fear is fear itself.

Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'll cry uncle if you stop this nonsense. Remember FDR: the only thing you have to fear is fear itself.

 

What nonsense? You have yet to explain what you mean. Try it and maybe you will see what I am talking about.