What Dubya's policies have done to our standing in the world

[Vlad_the_Impaler]

This Russia-Georgia conflict illustrates exactly where Dubya has left us...no where! We have no credibility and no standing with anyone, especially nations like Russia and China.

You can't ask another nation to not invade when you yourself have invaded. Dubya has no military options, and really no diplomatic options. What's Condi going to do over there, say "pretty please"???

[InTenSity]

Russia to U.S.: Choose us or Georgia - CNN.com

Oh snap!

Russia is calling our bluff? I heard tonight on the TV machine, good ole Condi talking about how in the 21st century super powers shouldn't be invading sovereign nations. Russia wants to know when good ole Georgy boy wants to get out of the Sandbox and play with a peer.

[MichState04]

Originally Posted by Vlad_the_Impaler

This Russia-Georgia conflict illustrates exactly where Dubya has left us...no where! We have no credibility and no standing with anyone, especially nations like Russia and China.

You can't ask another nation to not invade when you yourself have invaded. Dubya has no military options, and really no diplomatic options. What's Condi going to do over there, say "pretty please"???

So Russia is justified in their invasion of a country with a democratically elected government because we invaded Afghanistan.

I suppose it's China's turn next, eh?

Wow, we have some top notch posters here tonight

[MattR644]

Originally Posted by MichState04

So Russia is justified in their invasion of a country with a democratically elected government because we invaded Afghanistan.

I suppose it's China's turn next, eh?

Wow, we have some top notch posters here tonight

Boy, you completely missed the point . The point is that even though it's NOT justified, we can't do **** about it because we have no credibility.

[spartyonbeale]

Originally Posted by Vlad_the_Impaler

This Russia-Georgia conflict illustrates exactly where Dubya has left us...no where! We have no credibility and no standing with anyone, especially nations like Russia and China.

You can't ask another nation to not invade when you yourself have invaded. Dubya has no military options, and really no diplomatic options. What's Condi going to do over there, say "pretty please"???

No military options....really is that why the USA is sending troops in?

What freaks me out more is that fact that you relate the US invading of a dictatorship and free people some how the moral equivalent as a moderate dictatorship (Russia) invading a free democratic society.

[MichState04]

Originally Posted by MattR644

Boy, you completely missed the point . The point is that even though it's NOT justified, we can't do **** about it because we have no credibility.

You don't think we were justified to attack Afghanistan????? Are you kidding me?

[SpartanStu]

Originally Posted by MichState04

So Russia is justified in their invasion of a country with a democratically elected government because we invaded Afghanistan.

I suppose it's China's turn next, eh?

Wow, we have some top notch posters here tonight

No, they are justified because no one will stop them.

It wouldn't surprise me after long.

What if we advanced on Iran, Russia would probably take another one of their break away nations. China would also be looking to expand. First it was Tiebet where to next?

This could end up being the Superpower land grab for world resources.

[MichState04]

Originally Posted by SpartanStu

No, they are justified because no one will stop them.

It wouldn't surprise me after long.

What if we advanced on Iran, Russia would probably take another one of their break away nations. China would also be looking to expand. First it was Tiebet where to next?

This could end up being the Superpower land grab for world resources.

You think we are trying to expand, eh?

The Iraqi gov't is trying to stand up on their own as fast as they can so they can send our troops home. And you are going to compare that to expanding

The Russians fought their own war against the Islamic extremists in Afghanistan and got their asses kicked, so I am pretty sure they understand what we are doing there since they have no resources that does us any good.

[MattR644]

Originally Posted by MichState04

You don't think we were justified to attack Afghanistan????? Are you kidding me?

No, I never said that. We were completely justified invading Afghanistan. Iraq, not so much...THAT'S where we lost our credibility.

[SpartanStu]

Originally Posted by MichState04

You think we are trying to expand, eh?

The Iraqi gov't is trying to stand up on their own as fast as they can so they can send our troops home. And you are going to compare that to expanding

The Russians fought their own war against the Islamic extremists in Afghanistan and got their asses kicked, so I am pretty sure they understand what we are doing there since they have no resources that does us any good.

I wish we would have really. Mexico should be ours.... But the point is.... it would be easy for China to believe we are expanding...and Russia is expanding. Why shouldn't China look to expand its resource holdings?

[Vlad_the_Impaler]

My point was this: Any nation that has veto power in the UN has the power to invade any other nation, justified or not! (And as far as justification goes, there are two sides to every story. Russia has a much different version of what's going on in Georgia.) The fact is, when one of these "veto nations" invades or takes any other kind of military action, there ain't a whole lot any other nation can do about it, short of starting a war. This is especially true for the good ol' US of A, now that we've overthrown a leader and installed our own government.

A few other points:

1. For those who think that Georgia has a "democratically elected government", you may want to read up a little bit. The election of Saalikashvile was more heavily disputed than the election of Dubya over Gore.

2. If you think the US of A is not interested in land grabs, thing again. We're not into annexing other nations, but once we invade a nation, we never really leave. There will always be a US miltary presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the "democratically elected governments" of these two nations will be puppets of the US for the forseable future.

[Lochgelly]

I think that Bush's rhetoric is just that....rhetoric...Bush and Putin have an agreement....you guys go ahead and invade Iraq and let us "handle" Chechnya

The agreement has worked so far....in fact...it probably has been extended to Georgia and Iran...

After that...Syria and Azerbejian...

Postuering...

Etc etc...

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by Vlad_the_Impaler

My point was this: Any nation that has veto power in the UN has the power to invade any other nation, justified or not! (And as far as justification goes, there are two sides to every story. Russia has a much different version of what's going on in Georgia.) The fact is, when one of these "veto nations" invades or takes any other kind of military action, there ain't a whole lot any other nation can do about it, short of starting a war. This is especially true for the good ol' US of A, now that we've overthrown a leader and installed our own government.

A few other points:

1. For those who think that Georgia has a "democratically elected government", you may want to read up a little bit. The election of Saalikashvile was more heavily disputed than the election of Dubya over Gore.

2. If you think the US of A is not interested in land grabs, thing again. We're not into annexing other nations, but once we invade a nation, we never really leave. There will always be a US miltary presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the "democratically elected governments" of these two nations will be puppets of the US for the forseable future.

You are wrong about point #2. Yes, we likely will have a permanent military presence in Afganistan.

However, we will NOT have a permanent military presence in Iraq, unless it is with the Kurds in a split of what is now Iraq. That is still a possiblity. Much is yet to play out in Iraq as regards to its final shape. The current Iraqi government is pretty much a failure, although you won't hear much about it. Kirkuk is a major dilema which has already caused the originally scheduled October Iraqi provincial elections to be postponed into a yet to be determined date in 2009 (bet most people don't have a clue about that little development).

Funny, but as it stands, If a central Iraq "unity" government succeeds, the U.S. military will be OUT, period. If the country becomes split into 3 entities, either totally seperate or as semi-autonomous states in a weak federal goverment, the U.S. might be able to work out a deal with the Kurds to maintain a military presence.

Watch and see. Lots of interesting developments going on beneath the surface in Iraq that 99.9% of Americans haven't a CLUE about.

[Lochgelly]

Everyone thinks we are a joke now...

Reagun reinstated America's stature that was lost after Nam...

Bush I and Clinton either etended it or at least did nothing to harm it...

Bush has reduced our status to the point that other countries look at us like we're nothing but a big bully (who is not nearly as tough as he thinks he is...)

Thanks, Bush

[Feckweed]

Georgia/Russian War: Blame Obama

By Warner Todd Huston Tuesday, August 12, 2008

General Wesley Clark had one thing right during his tenure as a general in the U.S. military. He understood the portentous nature of the Russian’s move to take control of the airport in Pristina, Kosovo at the end of the 1999 NATO engagement in Yugoslavia. He ordered NATO forces to gear up to prevent the Russians from taking the airport but was opposed by British Gen. Michael Jackson, at the time head of the Kosovo peacekeeping forces, who reportedly told Clark that he wouldn’t help him start a third World War.
I don’t know if Clark fully realized what the investment of the Pristina airport might have meant for future Russian actions, but he seemed to know then that it wasn’t a good thing. In retrospect, we can see that, even though they backed down in 1999, it taught the Russians the lesson that they could act with impunity without fear of any real consequences. Later, though, the Russians found that they could not count out any action with Bush in the White House.
Now, let’s face the truth about Russia. She has never, ever been part of the club. No Russian leader has ever seemed convincingly interested in joining the western world and act as a responsible member of an international community. Oh, there was that brief, shining hour when Boris Yeltsin came close, and then only just. But none before and certainly none after have been interested in joining the enlightened world. And, once again, we are seeing Russian belligerence hold true. In this case, instead of purely militaristic aims, we are seeing a Russia planning on an energy hegemony over Europe and willing to act the bad boy to achieve those aims.
Certainly the weakling states of the European Union haven’t the guts nor the military to force Russia to behave herself. Just as certain, the members of the EU have no will to stop Russian plans to control all energy in the region. Only the U.S.A. has displayed the will to oppose moves such as Russia’s in the world today and even that will is anemic.
George W.Bush certainly has butched up the feminine Clinton styled foreign policy that has infected America’s projection of power. But even Bush’s efforts have been only a little better than lipstick on a pig—though in this case maybe it could be thought of as putting a helmet on that pig. To review, Bush certainly came out of the gate strong with the war on terror and his commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan has been steady, if not proving a bumpy ride. But, Bush has shown no spine with the rest of his foreign policy (Condi Rice being a major disappointment here). He has done practically nothing to counter Iran and his feckless policy has allowed North Korea and Pakistan to become bigger threats to the world. And he has certainly made major mistakes in trusting Vladimir Putin, Russia’s newest Czar.
That is history up to the moment. Now for Obama blundering into the mix.
The former Soviet satellite state of Georgia is on Russia’s hit list. Georgia has many internal problems and certain territories that are in dispute. Georgia has separatists who wish to stay out of Georgian influence and Russia is quite interested in fostering more such strife. Certainly, the Russians have had attacks on Georgia planned for many, many months and its all because of energy that Russia wants to totally control. Russia has never stopped imagining that it should control all those border states around her.
But, here is the thing. Georgia’s president Mikheil Saakashvili has been watching the American elections closely. Like the rest of the world, what he sees is a man who presents and even weaker foreign policy stance than the feminized policies of Bill Clinton in the form of Barack Obama, the leading favorite to step into the White House in 2009. Saakashvili has observed the devotion to “talking” that Obama hails as some sort of panacea to world conflict and the Georgian president knows that this means that, regardless of past assurances, America cannot be trusted to help him protect his people should Obama become president. President Saakashvili understands that an Obama presidency will be a nod to the Russians that absolutely anything they do will be met with hot air and nothing else, effectively giving the expansionist Russians the green light to do what ever they want to do with no fear of reprisal.
Who can imagine that a president Obama would even have used American assets to help Georgian soldiers to get from the Middle East to their war zone at home as Bush did this week?
Plainly, it was president Saakshvili that precipitated this conflict by ramping up his own military presence in South Ossetia. But Russia used this small action as an excuse to crush the Georgians and by giving the go ahead to attack during the opening of the Olympics, Putin imagined that the world’s attention would be so taken by the games that his over-the-top actions would not be much noticed.
But, the question remains, why did Saakashvili decide to attempt to pacify the separatists in South Ossetia now? The only answer can be that he is trying to solve his problem now while Bush is still in office so that if things escalate too badly he can appeal to American intervention. Saakashvili understands well that if he makes this move after Obama takes the White House, the Georgians cannot expect any help from what will surely be a weak American foreign policy and a gutted American military.
The Georgian president is on a timer. It’s now or never. It’s now to pacify separatists and take firm control of his troublesome territory before Russia has the ability to act with utter abandon. It’s act now when he might have at least some hope that his American ally might to come to his aid. Now is probably his last chance to see America assist a struggling democracy against the grasping, anti-liberty Russian Bear. Once Obama gets in office, the world knows that the USA will likely not come to the assistance of any democratic nation striving to survive.
Once Obama gets into the White House bad actors the world over understand that they will be on the rise. And Mikheil Saakashvili understands this and made his move accordingly.
Obama’s weakness has been the catalyst for this conflict.

[MSU '73]

The typical Republican "blame it on someone else" strategy.

Gee, what a surprise.

Of course they can could on many Americans to be so ignorant and uninformed as to believe it, right feckweed?

[Feckweed]

Originally Posted by MSU '73

The typical Republican "blame it on someone else" strategy.

Gee, what a surprise.

Of course they can could on many Americans to be so ignorant and uninformed as to believe it, right feckweed?

I don't know, that was taken from a Canadian website

[SD Spartan]

Originally Posted by Vlad_the_Impaler

This Russia-Georgia conflict illustrates exactly where Dubya has left us...no where! We have no credibility and no standing with anyone, especially nations like Russia and China.

You can't ask another nation to not invade when you yourself have invaded. Dubya has no military options, and really no diplomatic options. What's Condi going to do over there, say "pretty please"???

right, because before Iraq, Russia and China did whatever we wanted.

[SpartanStu]

Originally Posted by SD Spartan

right, because before Iraq, Russia and China did whatever we wanted.

Its not about doing what we wanted...its about NOT doing what they wanted.

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by Feckweed

I don't know, that was taken from a Canadian website

Quotes from a REPUBLICAN.

Guess you didn't notice.

[Bullwrinkle]

I know we really taught those Russkies a lesson the last time when they invaded Afghanistan and Carter boycotted the olympics. Of course that was back when we had high moral standing in the world and everyone respected us and the Russians didn't do whatever they pleased.....and there really was an Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.