Since Iraq continually highlighted American planes with missile sights, I suppose we were under attack and the war was justified as a defensive measure.
Guess you support the Iraq war now.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
"LISTEN UP RUSSIAN IDIOTS” (Ed.)
- Thread starter Jeugenen
- Start date
Since Iraq continually highlighted American planes with missile sights, I suppose we were under attack and the war was justified as a defensive measure.
Guess you support the Iraq war now.
Werbung:
Libsmasher
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,151
The position of "the world" (ie euroweenies and pseudo-euroweenies like the canadians) is clear: their principal is anti-US, period. Where ever democratic regimes oppose dictators, they're with the dictators:
Iraq vs the islamofascists? They're with the IFs.
Iran vs the US? They're with Iran.
Russia vs Georgia? They're with Russia.
US vs Cuba? They're with Cuba.
US vs Hugo Chavez? They're with Chavez.
Iraq vs the islamofascists? They're with the IFs.
Iran vs the US? They're with Iran.
Russia vs Georgia? They're with Russia.
US vs Cuba? They're with Cuba.
US vs Hugo Chavez? They're with Chavez.
Shadow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 302
Could well be. The timing would be right. Will be interesting to see just how they play things out now. They seem to have a keen sense of timing about political issues. The US may have crippled itself in more ways than one. Not sure it has the guts for a hot war with Russia. One can only imagine the horrors of such a travesty. and the US would be sinking itself even further .....
Shadow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 302
Washington's Hypocrisy
Washington's Hypocrisy
By Dmitry Rogozin
18/08/08 "IHT" -- The U.S. administration is trying to stick the label of "bad guy" on Russia for exceeding the peacekeeping mandate and using "disproportionate force" in the peace-enforcement operation in Georgia.
Maybe our American friends have gone blind and deaf at the same time. Mikheil Saakashvili, the president of Georgia, is known as a tough nationalist who didn't hide his intentions of forcing Ossetians and Abkhazians to live in his country.
We were hoping that the U.S. administration, which had displayed so much kindness and touching care for the Georgian leader, would be able to save him from the maniacal desire to deal with the small and disobedient peoples of the Caucasus.
But a terrible thing happened. The dog bit its master. Saakashvili gave an order to wipe Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, from the face of earth.
The Georgian air force and artillery struck the sleeping town at midnight. More than 1,500 civilians perished in the very first hours of the shelling. At the same time, Georgian special forces shot 10 Russian peacekeepers who didn't expect such a betrayal from their Georgian colleagues.
The Kremlin attempted to reach Saakashvili, who was hiding, by phone. All this time the Russian Joint Staff forbid the surviving peacekeepers to open return fire. Finally our patience was exhausted. The Russian forces came to help Tskhinvali and its civilian population.
In reply to the insulting criticism by President Bush that Russia used "disproportionate force," I'd like to cite some legal grounds for our response. Can shooting peacekeepers and the mass extermination of a civilian population - mainly Russian citizens - be regarded as hostile action against a state? Is it ground enough to use armed force in self-defense and to safeguard the security of these citizens?
Tbilisi concealed the scope of the humanitarian catastrophe in South Ossetia. Saakashvili's constant lies about the true state of affairs in Georgia were attempts to lay the fault at somebody else's door.
The Russian response is entirely justified and is consistent with both international law and the humanitarian goals of the peacekeeping operation conducted in South Ossetia. I will try to explain.
The Georgian aggression against South Ossetia, which came as a straightforward, wide-scale attack on the Russian peacekeeping contingent - Russian armed forces legally based on the territory of Georgia - should be classified as an armed attack on the Russian Federation, giving grounds to fulfill the right to self-defense - the right of every state according to Article 51 of the UN Charter.
As for the defense of our citizens outside the country, the use of force to defend one's compatriots is traditionally regarded as a form of self-defense. Countries such as the United States, Britain, France and Israel have at numerous times resorted to the use of armed force to defend their citizens outside national borders.
Such incidents include the armed operation of Belgian paratroopers in 1965 to defend 2,000 foreigners in Zaire; the U.S. military intervention in Grenada in 1983 under the pretext of protecting thousands of American nationals, who found themselves in danger due to a coup d'êtat in this island state; the sending of American troops to Panama in 1989 to defend, among others, American nationals.
We also have to keep in mind the present-day military interventions by the U.S. and its allies in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan. By the way, the last three cases are examples of tough American interventions when its own citizens did not need direct protection. But in spite of those countries' massive civilian losses at the hands of American soldiers, no one blamed Washington for a "disproportionate use of force."
Of course, the history of international relations is full of abuses committed under the pretext of defending citizens.
In order to draw a clear line between lawful and unlawful use of force, one can single out a number of objective criteria: first, the existence of a real threat to life or systematic and violations of human rights; second, the absence of other, peaceful means of resolving the conflict; third, a humanitarian aim for an armed operation; and four, proportionality - i.e., limitation on the time and means of rescue.
Russia's actions were in full compliance with these criteria. In conducting its military action, Russian troops also strictly observed the requirements of international humanitarian law. The Russian military did not subject civil objects and civilians on the territory of Georgia to deliberate attacks.
It is hard to believe that in such a situation any other country would have remained idle. Let me quote two statements:
One: "We are against cruelty. We are against ethnic cleansing. A right to come back home should be guaranteed to the refugees. We all agree that murders, property destruction, annihilation of culture and religion are not to be tolerated. That is what we are fighting against. Bombardments of the aggressor will be mercilessly intensified."
Two: "We appeal to all free countries to join us but our actions are not determined by others. I will defend the freedom and security of my citizens, whatever actions are needed for it. Our special forces have seized airports and bridges... air forces and missiles have struck essential targets."
Who do you think is the author of these words? Medvedev? Putin? No. The first quote belongs to Bill Clinton, talking about NATO operation against Yugoslavia. The author of the second quote is the current resident of the White House, talking about the U.S. intervention in Iraq.
Does that mean that the United States and NATO can use brute force where they want to, and Russia has to abstain from it even if it has to look at thousands of its own citizens being shot? If it's not hypocrisy, then what IS hypocrisy?
Source:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20543.htm
Washington's Hypocrisy
By Dmitry Rogozin
18/08/08 "IHT" -- The U.S. administration is trying to stick the label of "bad guy" on Russia for exceeding the peacekeeping mandate and using "disproportionate force" in the peace-enforcement operation in Georgia.
Maybe our American friends have gone blind and deaf at the same time. Mikheil Saakashvili, the president of Georgia, is known as a tough nationalist who didn't hide his intentions of forcing Ossetians and Abkhazians to live in his country.
We were hoping that the U.S. administration, which had displayed so much kindness and touching care for the Georgian leader, would be able to save him from the maniacal desire to deal with the small and disobedient peoples of the Caucasus.
But a terrible thing happened. The dog bit its master. Saakashvili gave an order to wipe Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, from the face of earth.
The Georgian air force and artillery struck the sleeping town at midnight. More than 1,500 civilians perished in the very first hours of the shelling. At the same time, Georgian special forces shot 10 Russian peacekeepers who didn't expect such a betrayal from their Georgian colleagues.
The Kremlin attempted to reach Saakashvili, who was hiding, by phone. All this time the Russian Joint Staff forbid the surviving peacekeepers to open return fire. Finally our patience was exhausted. The Russian forces came to help Tskhinvali and its civilian population.
In reply to the insulting criticism by President Bush that Russia used "disproportionate force," I'd like to cite some legal grounds for our response. Can shooting peacekeepers and the mass extermination of a civilian population - mainly Russian citizens - be regarded as hostile action against a state? Is it ground enough to use armed force in self-defense and to safeguard the security of these citizens?
Tbilisi concealed the scope of the humanitarian catastrophe in South Ossetia. Saakashvili's constant lies about the true state of affairs in Georgia were attempts to lay the fault at somebody else's door.
The Russian response is entirely justified and is consistent with both international law and the humanitarian goals of the peacekeeping operation conducted in South Ossetia. I will try to explain.
The Georgian aggression against South Ossetia, which came as a straightforward, wide-scale attack on the Russian peacekeeping contingent - Russian armed forces legally based on the territory of Georgia - should be classified as an armed attack on the Russian Federation, giving grounds to fulfill the right to self-defense - the right of every state according to Article 51 of the UN Charter.
As for the defense of our citizens outside the country, the use of force to defend one's compatriots is traditionally regarded as a form of self-defense. Countries such as the United States, Britain, France and Israel have at numerous times resorted to the use of armed force to defend their citizens outside national borders.
Such incidents include the armed operation of Belgian paratroopers in 1965 to defend 2,000 foreigners in Zaire; the U.S. military intervention in Grenada in 1983 under the pretext of protecting thousands of American nationals, who found themselves in danger due to a coup d'êtat in this island state; the sending of American troops to Panama in 1989 to defend, among others, American nationals.
We also have to keep in mind the present-day military interventions by the U.S. and its allies in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan. By the way, the last three cases are examples of tough American interventions when its own citizens did not need direct protection. But in spite of those countries' massive civilian losses at the hands of American soldiers, no one blamed Washington for a "disproportionate use of force."
Of course, the history of international relations is full of abuses committed under the pretext of defending citizens.
In order to draw a clear line between lawful and unlawful use of force, one can single out a number of objective criteria: first, the existence of a real threat to life or systematic and violations of human rights; second, the absence of other, peaceful means of resolving the conflict; third, a humanitarian aim for an armed operation; and four, proportionality - i.e., limitation on the time and means of rescue.
Russia's actions were in full compliance with these criteria. In conducting its military action, Russian troops also strictly observed the requirements of international humanitarian law. The Russian military did not subject civil objects and civilians on the territory of Georgia to deliberate attacks.
It is hard to believe that in such a situation any other country would have remained idle. Let me quote two statements:
One: "We are against cruelty. We are against ethnic cleansing. A right to come back home should be guaranteed to the refugees. We all agree that murders, property destruction, annihilation of culture and religion are not to be tolerated. That is what we are fighting against. Bombardments of the aggressor will be mercilessly intensified."
Two: "We appeal to all free countries to join us but our actions are not determined by others. I will defend the freedom and security of my citizens, whatever actions are needed for it. Our special forces have seized airports and bridges... air forces and missiles have struck essential targets."
Who do you think is the author of these words? Medvedev? Putin? No. The first quote belongs to Bill Clinton, talking about NATO operation against Yugoslavia. The author of the second quote is the current resident of the White House, talking about the U.S. intervention in Iraq.
Does that mean that the United States and NATO can use brute force where they want to, and Russia has to abstain from it even if it has to look at thousands of its own citizens being shot? If it's not hypocrisy, then what IS hypocrisy?
Source:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20543.htm
BUSH IRAQ WAR FAUCETS
The Podhoretz Neo-Con Republican president, George Bush, got elected on his solemn promise that there would be “no nation building”; then, on the notorious pretense of a nuclear threat, he illegally turned on two faucets: out of one flows the American People’s precious wealth, and out of the other faucet flows their priceless blood, to the sole benefit of Israel: now exceeding 4000 young patriots and 1 trillion dollars.
This heinous treasonous betrayal of the sacred trust of the American People is a black mark on his family name which can never be erased, and will damn him forever in American history.
Google: “Mearsheimer Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy”; “Evans Blacklisted by History: Untold Story of Joe McCarthy”; “Wall Street Journal McCain-Feingold”; Stricherz Why the Democrats are Blue; “Human Events Ron Paul Interview”; Schlafly “Supremacists”; McClelland "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception"; Ron Paul, “The Revolution A Manifesto”; McCain Keating Five; Abramoff Israel McCain; and, Sharon to Perez “We control America”
The Podhoretz Neo-Con Republican president, George Bush, got elected on his solemn promise that there would be “no nation building”; then, on the notorious pretense of a nuclear threat, he illegally turned on two faucets: out of one flows the American People’s precious wealth, and out of the other faucet flows their priceless blood, to the sole benefit of Israel: now exceeding 4000 young patriots and 1 trillion dollars.
This heinous treasonous betrayal of the sacred trust of the American People is a black mark on his family name which can never be erased, and will damn him forever in American history.
Google: “Mearsheimer Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy”; “Evans Blacklisted by History: Untold Story of Joe McCarthy”; “Wall Street Journal McCain-Feingold”; Stricherz Why the Democrats are Blue; “Human Events Ron Paul Interview”; Schlafly “Supremacists”; McClelland "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception"; Ron Paul, “The Revolution A Manifesto”; McCain Keating Five; Abramoff Israel McCain; and, Sharon to Perez “We control America”
We have been supporting Israel since its creation. This is not a Bush creation.
Shadow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 302
didn't say it was. I said it factored in to the reason for the Iraq invasion./occupation.
Werbung:
The simple fact here is that any moral ground Russia had to blast the US on it's invasion of Iraq or afganistan, its recognition of Kosovo and its "bullying" of the world. Has just flown out the window.
how can you say this is pay back for kosovo when Russia firmly opposed that as ground of territorial integrity. And then recognize independence of two regions. One mind you that was never part of the south ossentia invasion in the first place. on the grounds that the regions "could never resolve to live peacefully with georgia after the slaughter of poor innocent ossentians." Yet fight fervently for retention of kosovo, which was a larger recorder incident of genocide. It has no more moral ground to do so.
Russia moved quickly the destroy georgia, then proceeded to loot and pillage the country even after it had stopped fighting. Continued to rape it and pillage it destroying everything in its path. Not even bothering to protect ethnic georgians who became targets for ossentian irregulars.
America has spent billions of dollars rebuilding Iraq and afghan. we put our military between the various ethnic groups vowing and doing our best to protect both going after both shiite and sunni militias. We rebuild areas that once bitterly opposed america and killed thousands of our soldiers. Even going so far as to protect them also.
Also America spent years building it's case for the wars even though most of it turned out to be fluff in the end we did more to garner support for our decisions than russia did at all, of course under the pretense of protecting russian citizens. But that argument is tantamount to WMD's in Iraq. Could not the US have simply given US passports to the millions of Shiite and then simply invaded Iraq on the pretense of protecting it's citizens.
especially when you consider all of the pretenses the Russians seemed to orchastrate to justify the invasion. The moves so quickly after the invasion to declare independence of the two regions. and the now ongoing expulsion of georgian civilians from those regions through force. All of this seems to indicate that Russia was already prepared to do all this and the only thing that caught Russia by surprise was the western response.
well DUH!, You cannot draw comparions between this war and US wars we simply have better PR than russia does and plan for world reaction while russia simply expects to be given a get out of jail card because, "Hey the US started it with Iraq and Kosovo." Gimme a break the US has paid a heavy price world wide for our actions in Iraq, and we continue to do so militarily, politically and financially as for Kosvo, the russians shot themselves in the foot on that one. The no longer have any moral ground to stand on with kosovo at all. Unless the Russians suddenly want to be known for double standards and political doubletalk like their much hated and supposedly less moral US counterparts. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
If you try expect the world to balk and tell you to your face. "You done screwed up... big time."
how can you say this is pay back for kosovo when Russia firmly opposed that as ground of territorial integrity. And then recognize independence of two regions. One mind you that was never part of the south ossentia invasion in the first place. on the grounds that the regions "could never resolve to live peacefully with georgia after the slaughter of poor innocent ossentians." Yet fight fervently for retention of kosovo, which was a larger recorder incident of genocide. It has no more moral ground to do so.
Russia moved quickly the destroy georgia, then proceeded to loot and pillage the country even after it had stopped fighting. Continued to rape it and pillage it destroying everything in its path. Not even bothering to protect ethnic georgians who became targets for ossentian irregulars.
America has spent billions of dollars rebuilding Iraq and afghan. we put our military between the various ethnic groups vowing and doing our best to protect both going after both shiite and sunni militias. We rebuild areas that once bitterly opposed america and killed thousands of our soldiers. Even going so far as to protect them also.
Also America spent years building it's case for the wars even though most of it turned out to be fluff in the end we did more to garner support for our decisions than russia did at all, of course under the pretense of protecting russian citizens. But that argument is tantamount to WMD's in Iraq. Could not the US have simply given US passports to the millions of Shiite and then simply invaded Iraq on the pretense of protecting it's citizens.
especially when you consider all of the pretenses the Russians seemed to orchastrate to justify the invasion. The moves so quickly after the invasion to declare independence of the two regions. and the now ongoing expulsion of georgian civilians from those regions through force. All of this seems to indicate that Russia was already prepared to do all this and the only thing that caught Russia by surprise was the western response.
well DUH!, You cannot draw comparions between this war and US wars we simply have better PR than russia does and plan for world reaction while russia simply expects to be given a get out of jail card because, "Hey the US started it with Iraq and Kosovo." Gimme a break the US has paid a heavy price world wide for our actions in Iraq, and we continue to do so militarily, politically and financially as for Kosvo, the russians shot themselves in the foot on that one. The no longer have any moral ground to stand on with kosovo at all. Unless the Russians suddenly want to be known for double standards and political doubletalk like their much hated and supposedly less moral US counterparts. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
If you try expect the world to balk and tell you to your face. "You done screwed up... big time."
