Excellent analysis of Putin's moves in Georgia

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

It has everything to do with the prevailing philosophy of the left, espoused by Obama and likely to be emphasized by him when he assumes the presidency. There are no bad guys in the world (except ourselves) and that countries will behave reasonably if only would you talk to them. It is a philosophy which has been applied to Putin's Russia for over a decade now, and pandering has only emboldened the slide into authoritarianism. Putin has been running circles around the Europeans and the UN... don't you find it a little suspicious that Germany's Prime Minister Gerhard Schroder - the fierce critic of the US - coincidentally pushed Russian energy interests onto Europe while in office and went to work for Gazprom when he left? The world is a lot more aggressive, confrontational, and unresponsive to lofty idealism than the left believes.

 

As for Bush, so what? He's painted himself into this corner and it's too late for him to do anything about the relationship now. It's ancient history.

so, let me see if I understand this...

 

In your left and right world, the right has selectively engaged with some bad guys like Russia, and refused to engage other bad guys like Iran, isolated the US from most of its former allies (such as Germany), and in the past 8 years has pandered its way into making the world a lot more aggressive, confrontational, and dangerous. And now the left, with its lofty idealism, will will lead us into disaster because they have no clue what the world is really like. Does that about sum it up?

[PastaJoe]

It has everything to do with the prevailing philosophy of the left, espoused by Obama and likely to be emphasized by him when he assumes the presidency. There are no bad guys in the world (except ourselves) and that countries will behave reasonably if only would you talk to them. It is a philosophy which has been applied to Putin's Russia for over a decade now, and pandering has only emboldened the slide into authoritarianism. Putin has been running circles around the Europeans and the UN... don't you find it a little suspicious that Germany's Prime Minister Gerhard Schroder - the fierce critic of the US - coincidentally pushed Russian energy interests onto Europe while in office and went to work for Gazprom when he left? The world is a lot more aggressive, confrontational, and unresponsive to lofty idealism than the left believes.

 

As for Bush, so what? He's painted himself into this corner and it's too late for him to do anything about the relationship now. It's ancient history.

 

The left understands there are bad guys, but you need allies to build a coalition to stand up to them, and use diplomacy and sanctions when possible, and military force as a last resort. McCain comes across as having a short fuse, and more likely to jump to the last resort quicker than is prudent.

 

What do you propose the U.S. do, blockade Russia? Send troops into Georgia?

[GG]

so, let me see if I understand this...

 

In your left and right world, the right has selectively engaged with some bad guys like Russia, and refused to engage other bad guys like Iran, isolated the US from most of its former allies (such as Germany), and in the past 8 years has pandered its way into making the world a lot more aggressive, confrontational, and dangerous. And now the left, with its lofty idealism, will will lead us into disaster because they have no clue what the world is really like. Does that about sum it up?

 

Is that why in the last elections in France & Germany, voters selected candidates whose platforms were pro-American?

 

You do realize Chirac & Schroeder are no longer in power, and more importantly their views have been exposed as self-servingly shallow and counterproductive?

[PastaJoe]

Is that why in the last elections in France & Germany, voters selected candidates whose platforms were pro-American?

 

You do realize Chirac & Schroeder are no longer in power, and more importantly their views have been exposed as self-servingly shallow and counterproductive?

 

Pro-American doesn't equal Pro-Bush policies. And I doubt the first issue a European voter looks at is how their government relates to the U.S..

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Is that why in the last elections in France & Germany, voters selected candidates whose platforms were pro-American?

 

You do realize Chirac & Schroeder are no longer in power, and more importantly their views have been exposed as self-servingly shallow and counterproductive?

ok, but I have trouble believing they were elected because it had anything to do with their support of America and everything about their vision of where to take their respective countries.

 

yes, totally agree, but we created enemies out of allies, regardless of their leadership and there's not much doubt that most Europeans hate the policies and actions of the Bush-led USA.

[KD in CA]

isolated the US from most of its former allies (such as Germany)

 

Germany is no longer an ally?

 

 

I must have missed the memo.

[Joe Miner]

ok, but I have trouble believing they were elected because it had anything to do with their support of America and everything about their vision of where to take their respective countries.

 

Don't our presidential candidates talk about foreign policy ideas in order to get elected?

 

Don't Americans use a candidate's views on foreign policy to help figure out who they want to vote for?

 

Why would Europeans not care about their potential leader's views on foreign policies?

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Germany is no longer an ally?

 

 

I must have missed the memo.

Yeah, you must have missed the memos about Iraq, the International Criminal Court, climate change, US policy toward detainees in the war on terror, where to deploy troops in Afghanistan, how to deal with Iran (diplomacy vs. use of force), and all the rest.

 

Are they an enemy? Of course not, but there deep rifts that still exist between the two countries.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Don't our presidential candidates talk about foreign policy ideas in order to get elected?

 

Don't Americans use a candidate's views on foreign policy to help figure out who they want to vote for?

 

Why would Europeans not care about their potential leader's views on foreign policies?

yes, but the average american cares a lot more about foreign policy than our european counterparts

[Joe Miner]

yes, but the average american cares a lot more about foreign policy than our european counterparts

 

Ahh, so we're just making stuff up and throwing it out as facts now. I get it.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Ahh, so we're just making stuff up and throwing it out as facts now. I get it.

naw, but I've spent a lot of time there and talked to people in those countries. IMO, they just don't get worked up over other countries' politics with respect to their elections. They vote for who will do the most for them. Protectionism carries a lot more weight than who might like the USA. They have strong opinions about the US and other countries, but it doesn't seem to influence who they vote for...

[Joe Miner]

naw, but I've spent a lot of time there and talked to people in those countries. IMO, they just don't get worked up over other countries' politics with respect to their elections. They vote for who will do the most for them. Protectionism carries a lot more weight than who might like the USA. They have strong opinions about the US and other countries, but it doesn't seem to influence who they vote for...

 

You do realize the difference between facts and opinions right?

 

You do realize how statistics and sample sizes are related right?

 

You do realize the difference between conclusions based on actual facts and conclusions based on a relatively few number of opinions right?

 

You do understand what a logical conclusion is right?

 

Because I don't think you can say yes to any of those questions. So far, your facts are likely wrong (or at least unprovable), your sampling of opinions is much to small to draw an accurate conclusion, and your conclusions are completely illogical.

 

To say that Europeans elected their leaders without any thought given to their proposed foreign policies is ignorant on several levels.

 

Even if you happened to be right about average Europeans versus average Americans views on foreign policy(which I doubt you are), caring less than someone else doesn't mean that they don't care at all. It also doesn't mean that it wasn't taken into consideration at all when they voted for the candidate they liked the best.

 

Surely you have something that makes sense that backs up your statements right?

[stuckincincy]

Putin was just waiting for an excuse

 

 

 

scary stuff

 

Oil is King.

 

Solidifying a Congressional seat by pandering to a small but telling voter bloc trumps that King...evidently.

 

And the Euros don't give a FF unless the oil delivery gets stopped.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

You do realize the difference between facts and opinions right?

 

You do realize how statistics and sample sizes are related right?

 

You do realize the difference between conclusions based on actual facts and conclusions based on a relatively few number of opinions right?

 

You do understand what a logical conclusion is right?

 

Because I don't think you can say yes to any of those questions. So far, your facts are likely wrong (or at least unprovable), your sampling of opinions is much to small to draw an accurate conclusion, and your conclusions are completely illogical.

 

To say that Europeans elected their leaders without any thought given to their proposed foreign policies is ignorant on several levels.

 

Even if you happened to be right about average Europeans versus average Americans views on foreign policy(which I doubt you are), caring less than someone else doesn't mean that they don't care at all. It also doesn't mean that it wasn't taken into consideration at all when they voted for the candidate they liked the best.

 

Surely you have something that makes sense that backs up your statements right?

surely you know what IMO means...

 

Not everything comes across in statistics, sample sizes, and hard facts. I didn't say "without any thought". I said it doesn't matter as much as it does to average americans. Go over there, talk to people, read a newspaper during an election year, and you might conclude that they care alot more about their own longevity than whether their next prime minister will kiss up to Washington. It's my opinion, nothing more or less.

[GG]

yes, totally agree, but we created enemies out of allies, regardless of their leadership and there's not much doubt that most Europeans hate the policies and actions of the Bush-led USA.

 

Enemies? Other that cafe drinking set, please list the new enemies that the Bush-led US has created?

 

Why does the "civilized" world still need the US to take the first step in anything?

[finknottle]

The left understands there are bad guys, but you need allies to build a coalition to stand up to them, and use diplomacy and sanctions when possible, and military force as a last resort. McCain comes across as having a short fuse, and more likely to jump to the last resort quicker than is prudent.

 

What do you propose the U.S. do, blockade Russia? Send troops into Georgia?

 

And when has Europe effectively united and stood up against bad guys in the last few decades? I'd be interested in an example of success. It sure wasn't Bosnia. Or Iraq during the sanctions. Or Libya. Or during Russia's cyber assualts on the Baltic states, or the energy embargoes of Ukraine and elsewhere. Or Zimbabwe. Or Iran today. Please, give me a shining success story for diplomacy without the credible threat of military force.

 

Yes, McCain comes across as having a short fuse. But that itself can be an effective deterrent. People are strangely reluctant to be provocative if they think there is a real chance of retribution. They are less reluctant if they think they only risk a non-binding resolution at the UN or half-hearted diplomatic rebukes. Miscalculations more often occur when an opponent's resolve is under-estimated, not over-estimated.

 

As for what I propose, nothing. It's too late to help Georgia. I'm merely pointing out the pitfalls of being a pacifist nation in the modern world.

[chicot]

I prefer this analysis:

 

Cold war reading won't wash

[KD in CA]

Yeah, you must have missed the memos about Iraq, the International Criminal Court, climate change, US policy toward detainees in the war on terror, where to deploy troops in Afghanistan, how to deal with Iran (diplomacy vs. use of force), and all the rest.

 

IMO, they just don't get worked up over other countries' politics with respect to their elections.

 

 

I see. They wait till after their elections are over to get worked up about US politics.

 

Make up your mind.

[chicot]

You are no doubt aware that South Ossetia is part of Georgia, and that there were already troops there, right? And that despite a Georgian cease-fire, their troops were being attacked by Russian-backed insurgents? And that the Russian 'peace-keepers' were either doing nothing or actively supporting the insurgents?

 

What should the Georgian's have done? Let the attacks continue unanswered?

 

If you've been following the news these past few year, you are aware that Russia reacted poorly to the Rose revolution and the possibility of Georgia joining NATO; fuel deliveries from Russia to Georgia have been 'disrupted' over the winters; several Russian military personnel in Georgia proper were arrested on spying charges; Russia responded with a complete economic embargo; cyber attacks have ben shutting down Georgian government services; and that Russian planes have been buzzing Georgian airspace all year.

 

Yeah, Georgia fired the first salvo. I think it is no coincidence that by agreement the last of the Russian bases in Georgia were supposed to have been vacated in 2008. It sure is suspicious timing that Georgia has embarked - according to Putin - on a campaign of genocide against Russians right now. I don't think we'll see the Russian troops withdraw for a long, long time.

 

Borders are not set in stone. They can and do change over the course of history. Why should the current borders of Georgia, established by a certain Josef Stalin (a well-known Georgian) be somehow considered sancrosanct? Riddle me this: if Kosovans have the right of self-determination to decide whether or not they want to be part of Serbia, why should the same right of self-determination not be applied to South Ossetians as to whether or not they want to remain part of Georgia? Or are separatists somehow considered "good" if they happen to be pro-western, "bad" if they aren't.

[GG]

Borders are not set in stone. They can and do change over the course of history. Why should the current borders of Georgia, established by a certain Josef Stalin (a well-known Georgian) be somehow considered sancrosanct? Riddle me this: if Kosovans have the right of self-determination to decide whether or not they want to be part of Serbia, why should the same right of self-determination not be applied to South Ossetians as to whether or not they want to remain part of Georgia? Or are separatists somehow considered "good" if they happen to be pro-western, "bad" if they aren't.

 

You may be right. The Caucasians deserve to go through the same type of European border settling practice that the Balkans' have experienced. That's why Dimitri's boys are there to help.

 

You are of course, the more enlightened lot than the ugly stupid fat Americans.