Klein: Neocons think 'it's raining Nazis' in Georgia

I find the attempted drawing of comparisons with 1938 quite intruiging. What do we need? 1) We need a lunatic bent on world domination.
2) We need an international body prepared to appease the lunatic.
3) We need a little country in the firing line and one protagoninst prepared to end that country and another prepared to defend it.

In 1938, we had Hitler out to dominate the world, the league of nations doing it's best to appease him and the little spark to kick things off, Poland.

2008, brings us some new characters, we do indeed seem to have a lunatic bent on world domination but i don't think his name is Putin, nor do i see the UN doing very much to appease him. Let's get out a map and search for a little country, easy, just look for a big fleet.

In 1939, Britain attempted to invade a nuetral country (Norway) so that it would be in a better position to assist the country it promised to defend, Poland. As i've pointed out on other threads Georgia is right on Russia's route to Iran (and Georgia wouldn't be a neutral as Norway was). What surprises me is that the Russians didn't have a much larger force on hand. 2,500 infantry and 150 vehicles is not large despite what a certain moderator may say. Possibly testing their mettle, wouldn't want another Finland now would we.

So, is Russia as determined to protect Iran as Britain was to protect Poland. But here the similarities end. I think Russia has organised her allies a bit better than Britain did. Indra and the Singapore coop spring to mind.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
What Russia is doing would be the same if the United States gave out citizenship to people in Baja California, funded and equiped a seperatist movement there, then declared war on Mexico for "attacking American citizens" when Mexico tried to hold on to a piece of their territory**.

Sure! But to make this picture complete, imagine this prequel: for some unimaginable reason, Mexico grew friendly with China and is about to create a formal military union with same. Airfields, bases, and maybe silos will be made available to the Chinese. Now let's move on to your paragraph... Makes more sense now?


[edit on 13-8-2008 by buddhasystem]

reply to post by Harlequin


Totally different.

Sadaam Hussain, broke countless treaties and at the very beginning invaded Kuwait, there is no resource grab... It's their country, Russia seems to be wanting to occupy Georgia, and decapitate the democratically elected government there, this can't be allowed to happen, because this goes against everything the rest of the world stands for, supposedly freedom, liberty, and the right to choose and elect who you want to run your country.

In reality though, there isn't much the U.S. could do to stop Russia short of engaging in warfare with them, but they are breaking international laws and are not recognising a legitimate countries borders and soverinety...

This is remicent of Hitler's actions during WWII...

Is the free world taking note?

It seems Russia has just awaken from a time capsule...

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Sure! But to make this picture complete, imagine this prequel: for some unimaginable reason, Mexico grew friendly with China and is about to create a formal military union with same. Airfields, bases, and maybe silos will be made available to the Chinese. Now let's move on to your paragraph... Makes more sense now?

No, because the above scenario, insofar as it applies to Georgia, ignores history once again. Of course, ignoring history and its context are on par for those siding with Russia. They need these events to happen in a vacuum.

What is transpiring in Georgia now was set into motion long before Georgia decided to cast its lot with the West, long before an alliance was event considered realistic. I would suggest a closer study of Russian-Georgian history, going back further than the past few weeks or years.












[edit on 14-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by neformore
I'm with Harlequin on this I'm afraid.

NATO got invoved in Kosovo, despite Russian protestations to the contrary, in order to prevent ethnic cleansing. Russia has been involved in South Ossetia ostensibly to prevent the same thing.

Thank you!

Russia was faced with a situation where they had to step in and protect the Ossetians. Then the Georgian President cries wolf and gets the sympathy of the world..."Big bad Russia is invading and attacking my country."

Cue the crying women, roll tape.

However, if Russia had done nothing to help the Ossetians then the world would be jumping on them as well. "Why doesn't Russia help those people?"

Cue the crying women, roll tape.

Either way Russia can be made to look like the bad guy and the Georgian President, with his charismatic approach to the camera and world media, looks like a saint.

Russia was put into an unenviable position and rather than abstaining, chose to do something about it.

Western protestations at Russias intervention here are a clear case of "do as I say, not do as I do"

Well said. And right on the money. The US doesn't want any other nation to be the worlds policeman. It reserves that right for itself.

Last thing the world needs is a military confrontation between the US and Russia, but for those of you talking of Bush's hypocrisy and Russias "moral" response, ask yourself, what did Russia do when it faced similar problems with Chechnya?

Originally posted by kelbtalfenek
Russia was faced with a situation where they had to step in and protect the Ossetians...

Protect them from what? Russia has been content, during the 16 years of it's occupation of South Ossetia, to allow the arming of paramilitary groups and attacks by those groups on Ossetians and Georgians alike. Russia has never been concerned with "protecting" anyone in the area.



[edit on 14-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Sure! But to make this picture complete, imagine this prequel: for some unimaginable reason, Mexico grew friendly with China and is about to create a formal military union with same. Airfields, bases, and maybe silos will be made available to the Chinese. Now let's move on to your paragraph... Makes more sense now?

No, because the above scenario, insofar as it applies to Georgia, ignores history once again.

How so?

Of course, ignoring history and its context are on par for those siding with Russia.

Sorry but I don't see merit in this statement. If anything, history is of much importance to Russians and likely to whoever is supporting them.

What is transpiring in Georgia now was set into motion long before Georgia decided to cast its lot with the West, long before an alliance was event considered realistic.

Well you are obviously ignoring the effects of NATOization of the region and how Russia is viewing that.

I would suggest a closer study of Russian-Georgian history, going back further than the past few weeks or years.

Being born and raised in Russia, having visited Georgia, Abkhazia and Ossetia on many occasions, and having had classes in history of the region, I hardly need such ditzy advice.


[edit on 14-8-2008 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by buddhasystem
How so?

Because these events started before Georgia (and other former Russian client states) began seeking closer ties to the West.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
If anything, history is of much importance to Russians and likely to whoever is supporting them.

Could have fooled me. History seems to have begun last week or just five years ago.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well you are obviously ignoring the effects of NATOization of the region and how Russia is viewing that.

Not in the least. I recognize how Russia views the NATOization of the region; it is like how the United States viewed Cuba in the 1960s, without the benefit of having 90 miles of ocean seperating them.

However, the increasing ties to the West are not happening in a vacuum, are they? What in history would propel Georgia or Ukraine or others to seek Western ties, as opposed to Russian?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I hardly need such ditzy advice.

You've not shown that to be the case.

Originally posted by Nerdling
It's bigger than the 'neocons' though. And I think the atmosphere is more along the lines of Europe in 1938.

The only problem being that the then league of nations could have easily kept Germany disarmed without risking a world war. The UN never had the capacity to disarm the US or Russia and they will be the main factions behind the next world war which i really hope doesn't happen any time soon.

There is a definite air of 1938 with the Munich Agreement allowing Hitler to annex a region of a free nation.

It started with the Sudetenland which was obviously a clear signal to Germany from both Britain and France that they wanted another world war. Germany troops were order to retreated in the face of any opposition but non happened. The same later happened in Austria at which point the Generals who were conspiring to overthrow Hitler ( people who knew war and what another one would do to Germany) basically got the message that they had NO support on the outside and that they were basically going to have to do this alone.

If Russia is allowed to invade and occupy without any challenge it sets a truly dangerous precedent.

No more so than the US and last time i checked very few if any Iraqi's or Afghan's had American citizenship. The message was always clear to Georgia that a intervention again SO would result in a Russian invasion but Saakashvili were duped ( just like SH) into invading a breakaway province, yes, that's what Kuwait was for Iraq, in the belief that he would enjoy protection against both the international outrage as well as any interventions. The fact that both were stupid enough to believe it may not say much for them but it hardly makes them arch tyrants bent on world domination.

Next on the list is the Ukraine, and then the Baltic States. Where do we draw the line? Poland?

Presuming that the Russian armed forces will obey orders to invade fellow Russians that did not take hostile steps towards them? Do you know what happened in the first Chechen war and just how many Russian formations refused to fight and senior military personal resigned in protest? In fact the leadership of the Russian armed forces seem a positively moral bunch as compared to the outrages US commanders partake in without much ado.

The whole notion that armies are composed of mind controlled morons who march to their doom is really getting old and if you are not aware of the role morale and perception of defensive action plays i suggest a few good books on how very large and well organized armies lost wars because they didn't believe in the cause.

I don't believe this cessation will last.

I am as of yet quite hopeful that things will be resolved with a Russian withdrawal to SO with peace keepers yet again being deployed to keep the peace. If the Georgian president can't accept the fact that the independence of Georgia rests solely on the fact that it's occupation would inconvenience Russia ( politically/economically) he is not fit to run that country and should rather keep his mouth shut when questioning the independence of others.

Furthermore i think it would be a great day if the US started issuing citizenship to the people's of the countries they will 'protect' by airial bombardment so that they can vote with their feet as to just how good things are going for them.

Originally posted by Nerdling
It wasn't the shelling that started it, fighting had been going on for a week before that in the form of skirmishes between paramilitary forces and Georgian security forces.

So? Does the various American states invade each other when criminal gangs from one state commits violent crimes in other? What is the sense of declaring war on yourself and how is that going to engendered feelings of belonging to a larger whole?

South Ossetia IS a part of Georgia regardless of the ethnic makeup, giving Georgia the legal authority to act and put down and seditionist activity.

South Ossetia is no more a part of Georgia than Georgia is of Russia; if independence is good for the goose?

Russia staged an incursion into Georgian territory after intermittent shelling, which ITAR-TASS reported as being in response to shelling.

A presumption that rests on the belief that SO not only belongs to Georgia ( which Russia seems to tacitly acknowledge by not recognizing their independence) but that the Russians have no right to defend their peace keepers in their UN capacity. I am not going to attempt a pretense that Russia must somehow be innocent in this or that they might not have allowed the South Ossentians to stage attacks on the Georgian military but for the Georgians to act as they did only allowed the Russians they pretext they might have wanted. The Georgians should have taken this to the UN and made their case there just as various South-Americans countries did when the US sponsored terror groups in their country.

As it is the US stands today as the only country convicted by the UN ICJ of state sponsored terrorism for the actions against the people of Nicaragua. Why couldn't the Georgians have followed that route to test the resolve of their supposed backers?

And Russia had battalions in place for days beforehand.

This was always going to escalate.

Sure because the Georgian president in my opinion mistakenly believed that he was going to receive active support or just expected the Russians to take more limited action.

Stellar

Originally posted by Brainiac
Totally different.

Sadaam Hussain, broke countless treaties and at the very beginning invaded Kuwait, there is no resource grab...

He may have broken more 'treaties' after the first gulf war but the crimes he committed he mostly did in the 80's and with American aid and support. For anyone to believe that the Iraq were invaded because SH broke treaties or killed people is just a acknowledgement that they don't know any more about history than about present events.

It's their country, Russia seems to be wanting to occupy Georgia,

SO is no more Georgian than Georgia is Russia and Russia most certainly have the greater capacity to do what they like. If the Georgian president still chooses not to respect the claims of independence of some ( while his own countries is not assured) he is a fool.

and decapitate the democratically elected government there,

Not attempted and not done. It does however look like the Georgians attempted something like it with their attack on the SO capitol.

this can't be allowed to happen, because this goes against everything the rest of the world stands for, supposedly freedom, liberty, and the right to choose and elect who you want to run your country.

It is surely against what the people of the world stand for but how many of our supposed leaders shares our ideals or acts to bring them about? Don't confuse what they claim to be doing with what they are doing because that happens to be what you expect them to do. If people got what they wanted we would all be drinking fresh water from taps, have decent housing, be well fed and have sufficient resources to ensure that our children will have a very good chance of achieving the same. Since this is not happening in many places in the world despite everyone wanting it , and it being possible, you have to work from the fact that we don't get what we want because the people we elect don't share our ideals or goals.

In reality though, there isn't much the U.S. could do to stop Russia short of engaging in warfare with them,

The US could take the case to the UN and see how much credibility they still have there. Since they know it's near zero and the means to bribe other countries is slowly evaporating the US will in the future continue to take more direct action for lack of more covert means to achieve their ends.

but they are breaking international laws and are not recognising a legitimate countries borders and soverinety...

Not exactly something unheard of on the international scene. Didn't you hear how Kofi Annan said that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was illegal? Whoops?

This is remicent of Hitler's actions during WWII...

To say nothing of the actions of the western nations that empowered him in the hopes that he would take action against the SU. Hitler for some reason believed that he could turn west first ( knowing that they would stab him in the back later on) and somehow managed a massive upset that no one predicted. Hitler was empowered and allowed to create a war machine not because he couldn't be stopped but because some nations and powers believed they could control him to serve their interest. When Hitler outsmarted them and turned on them first he basically started a world war that was not supposed to happen.

Is the free world taking note?

The people most assuredly are but then we don't run the show, with the vast majority not understanding anything but the major themes, so there is only so much we can do.

It seems Russia has just awaken from a time capsule...

Russia never left the world scene in the way western propaganda suggested and all the cold war leaders really did was get rid of excess baggage while instituting the reforms they could no longer put off for fear of a complete loss of control over Russians.

Stellar

Yep, the Russian lovers say that Russia has called an end to it. In the meantime, their tanks are occupying half of the country of Georgia.

It's back to the old days of the Soviets. They can only solve their problems by force. They are brutal, uncultured and barbaric people, that have no concept of civilization as it is known in the rest of the world.

They wonder why nobody likes of respects them, when they behave like this.

But then again, this characteristic goes back well before the era of the Soviets. It is just the Russian paranoia, but now they have nuclear weapons to back up their brutality.

Now they are threatening to "punish" Poland.

Yes indeed, a trylu barbaric people.

reply to post by OldMedic

Yep, the Russian lovers say that Russia has called an end to it. In the meantime, their tanks are occupying half of the country of Georgia.

Elsewhere in the Galaxy, 5 years after "Mission Accomplished" America is still occupying most of Iraq...

Where have you been hiding exactly?

They can only solve their problems by force.

Yeah as opposed to good ol' USA, who solves them with some patented "Shock & Awe"?

They wonder why nobody likes of respects them, when they behave like this.

You ever wondered why less than 1/4 of America still agrees with Bush?
I would prioritise your attention if I were you...

It is just the Russian paranoia, but now they have nuclear weapons to back up their brutality.

And America has daisies and tulips sitting in it's 6,000 or so IBCM's...

Now they are threatening to "punish" Poland.

Yes indeed, a trylu barbaric people.

I mean... when has Bush ever threatened somebody?

"Bush loses patience with Syria"

"All options are on the table" regarding Iran

"Bush warns Pakistan of 'serious action'"

[edit on 15/8/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]

reply to post by OldMedic


Before you proceed to call Russians barbaric, read this piece from good old Pat:

www.realclearpolitics.com...

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Wish I had seen this thread earlier....Yes this is the same situation as 1938 Germany annexing and recieving appeasements from Lord Chamberlin. South Ossetia is a provance of Georgia. It always has been since the break up of the Soviet Union and both North and South Ossetia may have been prior to the formation of the Soviet Union when Georgia was still an independent country.

And how is that Georgia deserves it's independence anymore than South Ossetia does? I mean if you are for independence by means of democratic standards why stop at Georgia when some of it's former citizens choose to declare independence? If the US government is for independence and freedom is it going to allow Texas to join Mexico again or will it bomb Mexico for giving Texans Mexican citizenship?

How this differs from Iraq (or the Second Gulf War as it was called early on). The US after seeing UN weapons inspectors given the Saddam Suffle of can't see this, have to lave the country had strong suspecion of terms of surrender not being followed.

The US national security people knew very well that the Inspectors were achieving their aims and thus had to order their withdrawal before any possibility of a pretext expired. As facts after the event has shown us Ritter and the rest were perfectly correct in claiming that Iraq were 95% disarmed with respect to WOMD and delivery systems with the other 5% being related to dismantled weapons and systems they had could never be sure existed in the first place or were sure were completely destroyed with Iraqi files and data being lost in known US air raids.

Being suspect is not enough so we have (less than glowingly accurate) intelligence reports. Bush sent world all over the world and gave months of warnings and deadline to comply. Saddam gave him the middle finger.

SH invited the inspectors back on numerous occasions and were cooperating as best any nation can in any real world situation. Saddam had to be destroyed because he was in fact disarming and were becoming less and less of a actual honest to god threat to anyone but dissenters and foreign agents in his Iraq.

The US din not act unilaterally as UK, Austrailian, Georgia, Canadian, Japanesse and few other countries sent troops and support to invaid Iraq.

So it's not a crimes are not crimes when you form gangs to commit them? Is that why criminals organize? Lol... As always criminals organize not because it makes they want to but because they are always desperately outnumbered by good upstanding citizens.

Every country except US, UK and Georgia had withdrawn their support over the course of the war and the rebuilding/maintaining (in)stability in the country so the newly (some claim puppet despite all those smiling faces and purple thumbs) elected government can focus on structure instead of civil war power struggles between factions.

I am not sure what you trying to say here but all the other nations withdrew their 'support' because their citizens never supported the illegal war in the first place and could not maintain their 'support' against the better wishes of informed active citizens.

Russia acted alone, without much warning and 10 to 1 numbers against a country dealing an internal matter (poorly, I might add). This video deals with some of the Russian actions that lead to this problem.

Russia protected Russian citizens and has every legal right to protect it's peace keepers. Either way the Georgians leadership were not smart in responding to the possible Russian provocations ( if they were providing protection for SO rebels attacks) by opening fire on a city and got themselves in a heap of trouble for it.

1) As for why a Western response needed, esspecially by the US:
Trickery and subterfuge can not be used to justify what is an aggressive unilateral land grab. This lead to WWII and with numbers that USSR lost on the steppes on the Eastern Front fighting Nazi forces they should know better than to do such a thing.

It will only be a land grab if the Russian forces stay there in the same way Americans forces stayed in Iraq. As for the 'unilateral' the Georgian leadership attacked Russia citizens last time i checked and where i come from that wouldn't be acceptable. As for world war three the Russian leadership believes that they can fight and win.

2)Georgia is an ally of the US. Their contuned support in Iraq has proven their right to respect and assistance as requested. It has been asked for and should be granted.

The Georgian leaderships choice to put 2000 Georgians in the line of fire ( well at least in theory; only a five deaths in the less than a year they were there) is a political move at best and obviously not something the Georgian people actually supported.

3) The rest of the world and especially China is indeed watching to see how the US responds.

They know very well how the US responds to nations who attempts to se their own course in world affairs and they did not need the recent example of invasions and destruction of nations.

To deny the plea of an ally sends a clear message that Taiwan is wide open for the taking as well as maybe Japan, South Korea who knows we might not even stick up for Canada for that matter if they needed it. You know, in case anyone wanted to corner the market on maple syrup, liter free streets, hockey players or something (like the number one exporter of oil to the US).

China is not interested in taking Taiwan by force and it has armed itself to prevent the US from using it as a impregnable fortress from which to launch a sustained attack on the Chinese mainland. China understands that Taiwan are well able to resist even without US assistance and they are not about to destroy what international recognition they have gained by launching a invasion that might very well fail in the short term. As for Japan that would be insane and the Chinese leadership knows it would be insane given just how fast the Japanese can weaponize and deploy their massive plutonium reserves in self defense. I could basically go on with the list but since few countries trust the US to act in anything but naked self interest few actually depend on it for their defense hence the national armies of Europe.

4) Russia is not following their own ceasefire. They have threaten the Baltics (along the lines of don't laugh you're next) and even Poland. They have also stated that US involvement means nukes.

Yup and if i were the leader of a Baltic state i would not act so recklessly presuming that NATO could or would defend me and instead do my best to keep close ties with the true power in Europe. There is such a thing as common sense but apparently the US national security still still have sufficient means to bribe itself some support in Eastern Europe.

It is my feeling that it is time to call them on it. The US response should be a mandate that Russia withdraw across their own border in 24 hours or US response will be Russian interier targets with conventional weapons.

While the neocons desperately want a war with the Russian federation they know they are still currently outmatched so they will not launch any overt attack on Russia.

That we will not escalate to nuclear unless in response or after 36 hours of non-withdrawal from the recognised Georgian borders. If Russia wants to call it a bluff, hit them and hit them hard.

In a nuclear war the odds seems to greatly favor the Russians so this is also not a course of action the neocons will currently take. They are trying prepare themselves by their invasion and occupations but the rearmament effort to fight Russian is still some years distant.

After WWII we said as world "Never again." Russia's actions are dangerously close and we need to let them know "Not now, not ever again will the world be torn apart such actions."

That's exactly what some in the world said ( well the citizens any ways) but too many leaders just wanted more of the same power even if it meant war. When the US has left Iraq and Afghanistan, put Serbia pack together again and dismantled all it's foreign bases it might once again gain the credibility it would need to make 'demands' of Russia.

Many people like to pretend that US involvement in Iraq is imperialistic expansion of an American Empire like the old European nations at the end of the Dark Ages. I can only guess that such beliefs help them make sense of why there is war.

Many people like to pretend that the US involvement in Iraq is not imperialistic expansion of the American empire like the old European nations at the end of the dark Ages. I can only guess that such beliefs help them to make sense of why there is war; i could in fact have said much more with far fewer words but it's hard to know where to start when those you are attempting to inform are so misinformed. I have sympathy with people who wish to believe that their country is doing the 'right thing' but i can't believe that such people are actually looking at all the information from a wide enough variety of sources.

Continued

But that is not the case. Regardless of the actual events that happened on 9/11 (whatever your stance may be) reasonable thought places futuristic holograms, partical beam weapons from space, CGI from the media and other nonsense in the realm of fantasy because the probability is way less than 1%.

Yeah yeah, no one can fool you! We are all proud that way but pride does come before the fall. Funnily those who know most about the world are normally those that have admitted to having been fooled most often....

Some will say no way it really happened like that, some will also say they can personally turn into a purple dragon with pink polka dots too if asked...can't help those people find a reasonable slice of reality either it seems (the dragon-types).

Hell, i doubt i can even convince you that the US isn't in fact invading countries, and killing millions, to 'liberate' them! Pray tell me how you the dead are liberated from anything but life? I will leave the purple dragon stuff to others as the basics might take all my time.

Stellar