US Cannot Sit Idly By

B

bossf51

10-Year Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
972
While Georgia is invaded by Russia. This is exactly how Hitler operated prior to World War II. He used the excuse that ethnic Germans were being "mistreated" in Czechoslovakia and Poland to invade these tiny countries.

I realize we are already fighting on two fronts. These kinds of situations are why we can't be bogged down in "wars of choice" such as Iraq.

What would happen now if North Korea invaded the South? Such a thing is not out of the realm of possibility.

Wake up Mr. Bush and come back from China now.:mad:
 
Please save your hate Bush bashing for the Huffington Post.

Congress with a 9 percent approval rating and the nation split down the middle on ideological differences, american civil war is not out of the realm of possibility.
 
Won't happen. First, you have an organization, one I respect far more than the UN, and that's NATO. What was part of the idea of NATO's creation? To check Russian (Soviet Bloc) aggression.

What were Russia's statements regarding the missile defense in Europe?

It's pretty clear what our relationship with Russia continues to be, just short of enemies.

The same people who complain about Iraq and Afghanistan want US involvement in Georgia? I'm personally pulling for Georgia here. Does President Bush need to be in the United States for every other conflict in the world? No.

Has the US media even followed this violence? No. Because the US media is too busy following around Obama, figuring out what is happening to missing little girls, and being concerned about our "stars."

Surely Nancy Pelosi saw this coming as she travelled the globe, saving humanity....surely in her infinite wisdom she could have avoided this with her powers of diplomacy...


No.
 
Also Boss, that sounds very similar to advocating for a "war of choice". Get out of Iraq because we have a choice of another war to fight...of course in this war, no American has been shot at yet, unlike Iraq, where US pilots were regularly shot at while patrolling No-Fly Zones.

It's very hard to make the argument that we're in "wars of choice" while in the next sentence charging the President of the United States to enter into another conflict. I wouldn't call that argument consistent.
 
Getting involved in Georgia would not be a war of choice. Also I did not criticize our presence in Afghanistan which is not a war of choice. As far as NATO is concerned, WE ARE NATO, basically.

BTKP ad hominem attacks don't become you. :mad:
 
The first question to ask WRT Georgia is...

If Georgia were to fall, what strategic impact would it have on the United States?

If the answer is "slim to none", then I suppose the Georgians should have thought of that before they got uppity.

If the answer is otherwise, of course, then the calculus begins getting more complicated.

The strategic impact of Iraq was and is obvious, so the "war of choice" label is a misnomer. On another forum I frequent the question was recently asked, "What would America look like today if we had never invaded Iraq?" The best answer was (I paraphrase), "I don't know, but instead of looking at an invasion of Iraq as a completed act that is beginning to generate real results, we'd all be sitting around wondering when we would finally begin the invasion, because it WOULD have to happen." I agree with that sentiment, and add further that the situation became this way back in 1990 when Hussein invaded Kuwait.

As for calls for intervention in Georgia, if they come from the same crowd that demands we abandon Iraq, declare defeat in Afghanistan, yet invade Pakistan and Darfur, then I will treat their advice with all the contempt it deserves which, believe me, is A LOT.

bossf51 said:
Wake up Mr. Bush and come back from China now.
Click to expand...

Which wouldn't solve a damned thing.

Carter allowed himself to become a prisoner in the White House during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Not only did it fail to resolve the issue, it gave the Ayatollah (may his soul rot in hell for all eternity) the comfort of knowing he had the leader of the free world by the short and curlies.
 
Last edited:
I believe, since Georgia has stood by us for Iraq, we need to do what they are asking from us right now...airlift their soldiers out of Iraq so they can defend their country.

Bullet and I were discussing this today. The reality is Russia will destroy their nation. Even if we assisted in getting their 2K service members home. As an ex-AD wife I am sure the soldiers in Iraq want to get home, but I am pretty positive that their spouses/parents/loved ones feel that they are now safer in Iraq.

Sorry, but I place this at the feet of Putin...he seems to be inching back to the Cold War Era. He wants Russia to be a super power again, and this is a way to do it.

Finally, let's be brutally honest, we have satellites, Georgia is a friend, I would bet my bottom $$$ that they knew what was coming and have been informed we can't help. I am also positive that our diplomats are speaking to Russia and getting nowhere! Let's remember what Russia has done:

1. Buying oil from Iraq using back door deals
2. Getting Cuba to allow them to drill off their coast, 50 miles from Florida
3. Putin creates a new position for him and handpicks his successor.

There is just no way we can get involved. I am with Zaphod. I am sorry for the people in Darfur, it is a horrible existence, but I am pretty sure the Kurds being gassed by Hussein wasn't pretty either. I still wonder why we got involved in Kosovo, this was was also known as the 1000 yr war, because that is how long they were fighting.

Finally the other reasons we won't get involved is b/c this is similiar to Afghanistan and Russia in the late 80s(?). We are not the world police. Georgia has not asked for our support.

What bothers me more is that if you watch the news, John Edwards and his affair is being given more airtime than this:eek:
 
Pima you had me at the beginning of your post. But then you lost me. This is all sounding very 1938 to me.
 
Pima said:
I am with Zaphod. I am sorry for the people in Darfur, it is a horrible existence, but I am pretty sure the Kurds being gassed by Hussein wasn't pretty either. I still wonder why we got involved in Kosovo, this was was also known as the 1000 yr war, because that is how long they were fighting.
Click to expand...

Oh, and BTW, have you noticed we're STILL there after, oh, almost 10 years? Where are the throngs of America-hating idiots demanding that we get an exit strategy for THAT little number? :rolleyes:

I also wonder if all the peaceniks will jump on planes and fly to Moscow to protest the "disproportional" response by the Russian military? :rolleyes:

All joking (not that I was, mind you...) aside, I don't know how we can get involved without it precipitating a war between the United Sates and Russia. If you think THAT will end well.... :eek:
 
I am seldom in agreement with William Kristol, but here goes:





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 11, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Will Russia Get Away With It?
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
In August 1924, the small nation of Georgia, occupied by Soviet Russia since 1921, rose up against Soviet rule. On Sept. 16, 1924, The Times of London reported on an appeal by the president of the Georgian Republic to the League of Nations. While “sympathetic reference to his country’s efforts was made” in the Assembly, the Times said, “it is realized that the League is incapable of rendering material aid, and that the moral influence which may be a powerful force with civilized countries is unlikely to make any impression upon Soviet Russia.”

“Unlikely” was an understatement. Georgians did not enjoy freedom again until 1991.

Today, the Vladimir Putins and Hu Jintaos and Mahmoud Ahmadinejads of the world — to say nothing of their junior counterparts in places like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma and North Korea — are no more likely than were Soviet leaders in 1924 to be swayed by “moral influence.” Dictators aren’t moved by the claims of justice unarmed; aggressors aren’t intimidated by diplomacy absent the credible threat of force; fanatics aren’t deterred by the disapproval of men of moderation or refinement.

The good news is that today we don’t face threats of the magnitude of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Each of those regimes combined ruthless internal control, a willingness to engage in external aggression, and fervent adherence to an extreme ideology. Today these elements don’t coexist in one place. Russia is aggressive, China despotic and Iran messianic — but none is as dangerous as the 20th-century totalitarian states.

The further good news is that 2008 has been, in one respect, an auspicious year for freedom and democracy. In Iraq, we and our Iraqi allies are on the verge of a strategic victory over the jihadists in what they have called the central front of their struggle. This joint victory has the potential to weaken the jihadist impulse throughout the Middle East.

On the other hand, the ability of Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas to get away with murder (literally), and above all the ability of Iran to pursue its nuclear ambitions effectively unchecked, are setbacks for hopes of peace and progress.

And there is no evidence that China’s hosting of the Olympics has led to moderation of its authoritarianism. Meanwhile, Russia has sent troops and tanks across an international border, and now seems to be widening its war against Georgia more than its original — and in any case illegitimate — casus belli would justify.

Will the United States put real pressure on Russia to stop? In a news analysis on Sunday, the New York Times reporter Helene Cooper accurately captured what I gather is the prevailing view in our State Department: “While America considers Georgia its strongest ally in the bloc of former Soviet countries, Washington needs Russia too much on big issues like Iran to risk it all to defend Georgia.”

But Georgia, a nation of about 4.6 million, has had the third-largest military presence — about 2,000 troops — fighting along with U.S. soldiers and marines in Iraq. For this reason alone, we owe Georgia a serious effort to defend its sovereignty. Surely we cannot simply stand by as an autocratic aggressor gobbles up part of — and perhaps destabilizes all of — a friendly democratic nation that we were sponsoring for NATO membership a few months ago.

For that matter, consider the implications of our turning away from Georgia for other aspiring pro-Western governments in the neighborhood, like Ukraine’s. Shouldn’t we therefore now insist that normal relations with Russia are impossible as long as the aggression continues, strongly reiterate our commitment to the territorial integrity of Georgia and Ukraine, and offer emergency military aid to Georgia?

Incidentally, has Russia really been helping much on Iran? It has gone along with — while delaying — three United Nations Security Council resolutions that have imposed mild sanctions on Iran. But it has also supplied material for Iran’s nuclear program, and is now selling Iran antiaircraft systems to protect military and nuclear installations.

It’s striking that dictatorial and aggressive and fanatical regimes — whatever their differences — seem happy to work together to weaken the influence of the United States and its democratic allies. So Russia helps Iran. Iran and North Korea help Syria. Russia and China block Security Council sanctions against Zimbabwe. China props up the regimes in Burma and North Korea.

The United States, of course, is not without resources and allies to deal with these problems and threats. But at times we seem oddly timid and uncertain.

When the “civilized world” expostulated with Russia about Georgia in 1924, the Soviet regime was still weak. In Germany, Hitler was in jail. Only 16 years later, Britain stood virtually alone against a Nazi-Soviet axis. Is it not true today, as it was in the 1920s and ’30s, that delay and irresolution on the part of the democracies simply invite future threats and graver dangers?
 
The invasion of a soveriegn nation is not something the US usually sits on the sidelines for...especially with one of our best supporters.

I know the US does not want to anger Russia, but they have gone WAY too far. I believe we risk compromising our ideals if we choose to sit this one out. It's a no win situation for the US.
 
Agreed, Raimius. It sucks all around. :thumbdown:

Sure, if diplomacy fails we can provide air support from bases in Turkey, but I would be VERY nervous indeed of sending a carrier battle group (or ANY significant Naval force for that matter) into the Black Sea. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel, and all the Soviets (may as well dust off that name again, seeing as they are behaving the same way) need to do is scuttle a few ships in the Bosphorus and whatever we send in STAYS there.

Granted, Turkey defines the southern end of that body of water, but they're not exactly Great Britain, you know what I mean? :frown:
 
Georgia deserves our support. It is too bad that we have neither the national will, or strategic strength to offer that unqualfied support. Any action we take militarily will provoke a russian response. You can be sure that response will be strong and military in nature.

By sitting on the sidelines we risk the three ugly players on the block exploiting the moment. China can grab for the pacific, Iran can push violently for the Islamic califate in the middle east, and Russia can attempt to recapture the former east bloc countries. These are the worst case, but if we fail you can be sure they will be the outcome.

Boss51 your hatred of all that is Bush is the catalsyt for our national impotence with regard to Georgia. We cannot and will not come together as a nation in this regard. There is no national will to stand up and say no more, and I do not trust you or your politics. We are at the brink or our own Civil Conflict.
 
DS you contradicted yourself from jump street.

We are weakened and don't have the strategic strength because we've squandered trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in a "war of choice" that has accomplished virtually nothing.

1. We are not safer

2. The Iraqi's are not paying for the war out of their oil money.

3. There were no WMD's.

4. We are propping up an essentially corrupt regime.

5. We were not considered liberators.

6. We have alienated the entire world including many of our best allies.

Because of this war, we are not prepared to fight the "small wars," the wars of necessity. As stated before, I shudder to think what would happen if North Korea invaded the South. 1,000,000 soliders vs. 50,000. What's to stop Russia from invading Lithuania? or Ukraine?

DS I don't hate Bush-I love my country(including its military).
 
You are missing the point. First the military size is the result of Barbie Boxer/Nancy Pelosi/ Bill Clinton's Peace dividend look up the drawdown and it's scope.

But more importantly

I do not trust you or your politics. We are at the brink or our own Civil Conflict.
 
What are you some kind of survivalist or neo-something or other. What do you mean on the brink of civil conflict? Inquiring minds want to know. TN alert.:thumbdown:
 
The deluded argument that the North Koreans may at any time roll over South Korea like a Nazi Blitz Krieg on steroids, is not practical let alone possible, unless again China enters the picture with its newly bought military… compliments of Wal-Mart shopper rollover bargains.
Then again if you suggest the US 7th Fleet should land in Georgia, creating a re-enactment of the British evasion of Gallipoli short of a nuclear exchange, this would defiantly cause most Americans to worry. If Georgia would have just waited a few years before playing games in the autonomous region of South Ossetia it probably would have been a full NATO partner and with the right leadership we would have a missile shield on the western borders of Russia. To think that the US administration was just sitting idly by doing nothing about improving Georgia’s military, there are about 150 Green Beret in country now and less than a month ago NATO performed landing exercises the Baltic region of Ukraine and Georgia.
Regarding Iraq, no matter what ones position is on this war, WE MUST WIN. The US Department of Defense worked endless hours building MRAPS, HMVEE Armor, Dragon, Rhino, and Buffalo’s to supply to troops so they could be shielded from road side bombs (Did you read in the newspaper US troops die daily resulting from IED’s lately?). Al-Qaeda has been beaten into submission into a few pockets of resistance above northern Mosel, The Surge worked. And foremost thanks to our troops ever devoted to their duty in SWA and elsewhere in the world, we have NEVER been attacked here in the States since 9-11.
Back to North Korea, if Kim Il-sung wants to come across the 36th parallel, then come on down to the unwelcome arms of 700,000 regular ROK’s, 4,500,000 ROK trained reserves, 26,000 ROK Marines, 36,000 8th US Army personal, 8th US Air force, two US Patriot battalions ready to shoot down any bottle rocket they fire up, two Divisions worth of highly maintained Heavy Mobile Equipment in storage just ready for bodies to drive them and a wide open ocean so the Pacific Fleet can maneuver in. Sort of beats the 40 tanks, 18 planes and a hand full of troops we held them up with the first time.


Realist Views since 1958
 
Last edited:
bossf51 said:
We are weakened and don't have the strategic strength because we've squandered trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in a "war of choice" that has accomplished virtually nothing.
Click to expand...

- Removal of a tyrant that had already invaded one ally.

- Removal of a regime that had made it clear it was seeking WMD and had even used the ones it had against its own people.

- Removal of a regime that had openly harbored terrorists, including Al Qaeda.

- Installation of a government that is at least somewhat on our side, right smack in the middle of the heartland of Islamic extremism.

As for pissing off the rest of the planet, they'll get over it. I don't currently see Putin wringing his hands over what the world thinks of his escapade in Georgia...

I don't consider this war to be anywhere near the failure you do. Neither does the enemy, considering the way he has been responding both publicly and not-so-publicly.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top