Yeah what Doc said.

The Russians have proven (again) that they cannot be trusted. Any appeasement at this point would just embolden their hunger for the "good ol' days". They are now threatening Poland with a nuclear attack... over 10 interceptor missiles! And you don't want to antagonize them! Well, I for one hope the Patriot missiles the Poles asked for are on a C-5 and headed their way now. The main problem I see is that Europe has not learned its lesson which is really sad. NATO's statement should have been strong and unified. The Russians smell weakness as they dangle their oil supply in front of the Europeans faces. Maybe Barak (aka president of the world) should fly back to Germany and tell them no oil would be good for the implementation of alternatives, but I digress. The only nations in NATO with any guts are the Eastern Europeans, as the memories of Russian capabilities are still fresh, and the taste of Democracy is still sweet.

You said Rice has no business in Poland? Last I looked Poland was a NATO member, not the Warsaw Pact. I personally admired what she said when she stated that any attack on Poland would be an attack on the US. First that's what alliances are about, second it's in the NATO charter that an attack against one would be an attack against all. I'm sure the Russians have a copy.

The Russians did not get any approval from the security council before acting. I hear a lot of left wing weenies complain about the US action in Iraq in comparison. The US  made its case for Iraq almost 9 months before the invasion and Iraq could have prevented it by complying with the UN resolutions. Georgia had no warning. The US did not support what Georgia wanted to do and advised against it. If the Russians would have taken a diplomatic route, it could have been solved. The simple fact is they want a military victory to get even more popular support at home and overcome the recent memories of Afghanistan and Chechnya. Russia is looking for an enemy.

Perhaps if you lived under the Soviets you'd understand why these people what to join NATO and wouldn't mock them so much. It isn't NATO seeking new members, it's nations asking to become members. Are you really in support of keeping counties out so Russia can have a snack when it wants?

Actually, if she were smart she wouldn't have any business there. You have to zoom out and look at the bigger picture.

At the end of the cold war, Russia was more than willing to form a strategic partnership with the U.S...... Russia as an ally! Imagine that. Gorbachev made an agreement with Bush Sr., which to his credit he stuck by- the cold war would end, Russia would play nice and become a capitalist country, open it's economy AND disassemble the greater Soviet Union.

However, a deal involves two sides. In EXCHANGE for all the changes Russia was making, their only request was that the west would not expand NATO further eastward. This meant if they stayed out of countries like Poland and the Ukraine Russia would continue to be their ally.

George sr. wisely stuck to this agreement. Clinton reneged on the deal and expanded Nato influence eastward, but the government of Yeltsin was simply too weak and plagued with internal problems to do anything about it.

Then Putin took over. Despite what Clinton did, Putin still wanted to play nice and be a major ally with the U.S. They even stood by and let NATO bomb the crap out of Serbia and take Kosovo. The turning point for Russia was the Orange revolution in the Ukraine which was heavily supported and backed by the U.S- Putin saw this as an unforgivable betrayal.

Do you see the significance of what has happened? In courting countries like the Ukraine and Poland, the U.S has lost Russia as an ally. Essentially, U.S policy chose a small snack when they could have had a full steak dinner.

Imagine if the U.S were having economic troubles and you pulled back all your troops and bases to within your own borders. Then China starts putting up military bases in Canada, Mexixo, Cuba, and arming and training troops right on the U.S border. How would you react? Because that's what the U.S has done to Russia.

This is a very foolhardy move, and in continuing to expand NATO in a piecemeal fashion eastward it's essentially one provocation after another against Russia. Georgia (now effectively a U.S satellite) attacking S. Ossetia which was on the border with Russia was the last straw, it was crossing the line and Russia retaliated.

If there were a pro-U.S autonomous region of Mexico that bordered the U.S and Chinese armed and trained Mexican troops decided to attack it, and many of the people living in this area were U.S citizens, would not the U.S intervene in the name of protecting it's citizens? That's exactly the justification the U.S used to invade Grenada!

Besides, putting weapons and major bases on the border with Russia is a strategically stupid move- if it ever came down to a war, those bases and troops would be the first thing to get wiped out (as Big Fat Daddy stated in another thread they would essentially be a speed bump) So putting a multi-billion dollar anti-missile system on the border where it's within very easy striking distance of a plethora of Russian weapons systems illustrates further ignorance!

There is an official treaty that covered the status of South Ossetia. It was to be patrolled by 1 battalion of Georgian, 1 battalion of Russian, and 1 battalion of S. Ossetian peacekeepers. (S. Ossetia is tiny, less than 50 miles by 50 miles!!)

This treaty has been in effect since the 90's. Georgia broke this treaty, and killed Russian forces in the process. They thought, however, that with only a few Russians killed and the entire area taken over in one night that it would be a fait d'acompli and that the Russians would just grumble but not do anything. They miscalculated!

Apples and Oranges. By the way, the U.S military carried out a highly succesful campaign in northern Iraq for several years before the 2003 invasion that allowed the Kurdish north to essentially organize as an autonomous region, as with U.S air support and small fast moving ground support from the U.S. John Abizaid was a colonel at the time and lead much of this operation. There was no international outcry against the U.S then, so there should be no international outcry now against Russia for doing the same thing!

Yeah sounds reminiscent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Russia was hurting economically and needed outside investment, that's why they "played nice". Now that they are flush with oil money, they can care less. You fell for it.

And why would they care if other nations joined NATO (a primarily defensive alliance, it takes an act of god to get them to do anything)? Do they feel threatened by Poland or the Ukraine (the people they have been abusing before, during, and after WWII)? The only reason to care is if you want to hold out any options to invade in the future. It does not affect trade, economics, or "playing nice" one bit. How quickly you forget the purges and even more recently the stifling of opposition to any political rivals. Kind of makes you wonder why the western socialists always support and make excuses for Russia. They must miss communism. Poland chose NATO, good for them.

We'd be kissing their ass and "playing nice" until our economy grew, just like they did. Then we would say they were treating the residents of Nova Scotia poorly and invade.

And with your analogy are you suggesting the US would take control and occupy half of Mexico. Roam the country sinking ships and destroying/seizing military assets, take prisoners and demand US ID for Mexicans to travel past checkpoints? Your scenario is half-baked As you like to say "apples and oranges".

I get a kick out of your Grenada story too, as I've heard it a few times now in different posts. You like to point out the US invaded, sighting the rescue of US students. But like most socialists give a pass to the Cubans (who do not own Grenada) for their invasion of the island in the first place. The US would never have been there if the Cubans didn't go there first. Let me put it in the style of the funny stories you tell so you'll understand:

"Cuba invades Canada (but that's OK right). The US invades Canada because some US citizens are there, removes the Cubans and restores the Canadian government. Those rat US bastards!" Does that about sum it up for you?

Your absolutely right, provided we want war with Russia. So I guess the west wasn't looking at Russia as an enemy then. Imagine that! What you infer is that the Russians are either 1) paranoid, or 2) what to keep eastern Europe intimidated and under their influence. Why are the Russians so afraid of ten defensive missiles? They have many offensive missiles that could easily overwhelm those interceptors. It kind of makes a person wonder. And to threaten Poland with a nuclear attack for having this small capability! Outrageous! Offensive weapons I could understand. Here's a wild thought! Maybe they are intended for defense against Iran whose offensive missile capability is much smaller that Russia's. But why listen to the US when Russia just wants to "play nice".

Yeah, it probably kept Saddam from gassing a few more Kurds, right? Let's just turn away right. Like when Russia showered its love on Chechnya. It's only wrong if the west does it, right. The funny thing is that when people with this line of thinking open up they gates to hell, they always look to the US to close them. 

It never fails to amaze me how the many Socialists of the world claim to have the peoples best interest at heart, yet openly and forcefully criticize the west while hardly making a peep about (or even defend) the most brutal regimes on the planet. I guess on man's purge is another man's social restructuring. Go figure. The US is far from perfect, but it's by far one the best places to live. Even the haters won't leave, that should tell you something.

True - words are cheap. Actions cost dearly.

It may have something to do with the 25% of all of Europes oil comes from Russia, or maybe that 40% of all Europes natural gas comes from Russia, and the little fact that when Russia does not like you they shut off the gas and oil to your country as they have done in the middle of winter to other nations. (That would be Georgia) THis is why Europe will not be of much help this time around.

Yup, and dependance on oil from other countries can be a bad thing. Drill here Drill now sounds like a better idea than get it from your enemies. Europe is truly screwed because it gets oil from Russia and Saudi for the bulk of thier energy needs. They can't afford to piss off either one without causing great hardship on their own citizens. A lesson we had better learn fast.

So Russia went to the UN & waited 10-12 years for compliance with the UN's decrees before publicly warning S. Ossetia that an invasion was about to be launched, then did so with the media in tow to fully report what was going on.  I suppose Russia is going to keep troops on the ground in only S. Ossetia to suppress rebel attacks on civilians and civilian facilities, spend a few billion dollars rebuilding S. Ossetian infrastructure and facilitate free democratic elections.

In that case, 'You go, Russia!'

More a matter of knee-jerk conditioning:  America = BAD/WRONG/EVIL/OIL/HALLIBURTON/YADA/YADA/YADA

Why think?

I don't think that Putin would have attacked Georgia if it were a NATO member. Just look at Kosovo as the model. When Kosovo unilaterally declared independence, (something I didn't agree with), it infuriated Putin, but there was no invasion or occupation. If Putin sent his tanks into Pristina, they would have found themselves in direct confrontation with KFOR. So Putin didn't seem to want that kind of war, at least for now, he'd rather crush a tiny neighbor.

I don't think it's the same. Bush went to war against a dictatorship, while Putin attacked a Democracy.