We need the next president to have some brains in addition to the guts. To have the US military get stuck in a country thousands of miles away from our shores without any good exit strategy is just criminal. Bush is stubborn, I’ll give him that. But guts? How much of that do you need to send soldjers to die while sitting in his Ranch in TX? Let him go there as a US ambassador or an adviser of some kind after his terms runs out. That would be gutsy.

“In my opinion the US needs to make sure that it really does occupy the moral high ground first – this will give our criticism of Russia and others more weight.”

I think the moral high ground is very nice to have with respect to all issues and at all times. However, as it stands right now, we just might have to do without it. Besides, the moral high ground is a fleeting thing. The US is a villain and a world policeman until a bigger villain enters the stage. The argument that the US is being hypocritical simply will not hold water when other countries experience Russia’s pushy ways of doing things.

One thing that gives me comfort is I read in the latest Economist that the US’s GDP is ten times that of Russia plus it spends seven times more than Russia on defense. Again, we have enough power, what we need is brains.

Thanks

Of course the UN would NOT endorse an invasion of Iraq by the US. The key members including France, Germany and Kofi Annan were too busy making money by UNSANCTIONED trades with Iraq, and exploiting the supposed “oil for food” provisions.

Could the actions of the United States be considered by some to be imperialistic — sure. There has not been a major governmental entity in the known history of our planet that has not been imperialistic. The Greeks, the Romans, the British, the Chinese, the Japanese, right on down the line, have all been imperialistic in nature at one point or another. Which of these would I most want to live under if I was in the country being annexed? Without a question, ours. Do I want to sit back and wait while Russia, China and the Iranians decide how they want to split up the world — I don’t think so.

Do I think that Iraq has a chance to become a democratic society — yes, I do. Maybe not like we would like, but there is a chance. With Saddam Hussein there was no chance. At the end of the day, it really is not that important. The blood of our soldiers is not being shed simply for the liberation of Iraq. Iraq is only a footprint in the sand of a very big desert. If you think that footprint is not important, you are short sighted and gravely uninformed.

This doesn’t make any sense, since the UN said it would NOT endorse an invasion of Iraq by the US. It doesn’t make any sense to say we were acting on behalf of the UN if the UN itself refused to endorse such action! There is nothing in the UN charter that obligates member states to use military force to enforce UN sanctions; they may volunteer to do so only if requested by the Security Council, which was not the cae here.

Neither the UN, nor anyone else, gave us a police badge and made us the world’s policeman. Iraq is an artificial “nation” resulting from British bureaurats drawing arbitrary lines on a map a century ago. The religious extremists, crooks, tribal-fighters, and others who populate that land will never form a functioning, stable democracy. 50 years from now they still won’t be as stable as even Labanon or Pakistan is today. When the US leaves they’ll either break up into separate tribal ministates, or be taken over by a dictator. Iraq isn’t worth one drop of US blood or one penny of our Treasury.

Regarding Georgia’s supposed unprovoked aggression into South Ossetia, it was not unprovoked. It has been documented that South Ossetian activists were using Russian supplied arms to fire rocket bombs at Georgian targets prior to Georgia moving troops into South Osetia. I think the Souuth Ossetians took lessons from the Iranians in Lebanon– or perhaps both have been well schooled by the Russians on how to provoke your enemy and make the resulting conflict look like it was their fault.

Regarding the United States supposed unprovoked aggression on Iraq — Although the media and others would like us to believe that the sole reason for “invading” Iraq was false reports of WMD, the real reason was that despite at least 10 requests, Sadam Hussein refused to comply the the UN resolutions he agreed to at the end of the 1991 Gulf War, which WAS the result of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Although we could have continued down the path of pleading with Hussein to comply, while Kofi Anan, the French and the Germans were secretly trading with Iraq behind our backs, Bush had the guts to actually do something about an area of the world that had the potential to lead to more serious attacks like 9/11.

Again, the Europeans are more than happy to hide behind the skirts of U.S. supplied arms and protection from threats on all fronts, meanwhile sniping at us behind our backs.

The sad fact is that most of the U.S. population is also more than content to simply gather their limited information for their uninformed views, from the mass media that pervades our market, and remain a very colloquial society with little understanding of what really is going on in the world around them.

1. NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization — and is made up primarily of countries in Europe. The purpose of NATO was to ensure the freedom of the western-minded, democratic societies belonging to the organization.

2. When it comes time to react to situations, such as this one with Russia and Georgia, the countries with the most at stake, and the most to lose, come to the table with the least committment, both fiscal and human.

The fact is that the Germans, the French, and eventually all Europeans face the greatest threat, should Russia decide to expand its force into Poland, Hungary, and what is next, perhaps Berlin???

It is high time that the United States demand that our supposed Allies step up to the plate.

Brillant show Tom-this was the most intelligent and fair presentation of the current situation. It gives the public a three dimensional view of both the Russian and Georgian sides as well as our historical role.

I greatly enjoyed listening to the pros and cons of each solution posed. The 3rd option of Georgia dealing directly with Russia without NATO intervention is an interesting idea. Mikheil Saakashvili’s recklessness and irrational behavior is concerning. He could lead us to WWIII

I agree that the U.S. and Russia should move towards self dependent economically.

The US is still by far the world’s largest arms exporter, so we’re really in no position to complain there. It’s sort of like Iraq, Grenada, Panama, etc – we are in no position to criticize Russia without looking like hypocrites. In my opinion the US needs to make sure that it really does occupy the moral high ground first – this will give our criticism of Russia and others more weight.

WRT oil – the US won the cold war on the basis of its economic strength. The USSR simply could not match our arms spending and still provide a decent standard of living at home – communism simply cannot compete with capitalism in generating prosperity. But now the shoe is on the other foot – the US economy is imploding and we’re up to our ears in debt; our jobs are fleeing, our workers are dumbing-down and meanwhile Russia is rolling in money thanks to ever-rising oil and natural gas prices. They’re looking for a rematch because they think they can win it this time.

If we want to defy that plan we need to fix our economic mess.

Precisely.

I don’t think anyone objects in principle to the need to develop better anti-missile systems. Whether we are talking about long-range ballistic missiles, sea-skimming antiship missiles, or short-and-medium range tactical missiles of the sort used against Israel from Lebanon a couple of years ago, anti-missile defense is one of the most challenging problems in military technology. Imagine how the situation around Israel would be altererd if they actually had a solid, reliable antimissile system. Unfortunately the technology is a long way from being up to the task.

But as the above poster says, there are many means and choices when it comes to deploying and presenting antimissile systems, and even the most naive and novice observer can clearly see that some choices will have the effect of raising the level of tension, and those seem to be the ones that Bush and Rice prefer.

Nations deserve the governments they get.

And can countries in the US sphere of influence (Caribbean or central America) negotiate on an equal footing with the US? Have you forgotten about Grenada, Panama or Nicaragua? How equally could Prussia’s neighbors negotiate with them in the 1870’s? You can go as far back in history as you want and you’ll see that it is in the nature of geopolitics that large, powerful countries carve out spheres of interest around them. The question is not whether this “should” be so; it is how skillfully it can be managed.

Recently when North Korea fired-off some missiles toward Japan and out-to-sea the first thing the chattering classes asked was “where are our missile defenses”. Can you imagine what the public would say and how at risk we would be if these regimes are able to get nuclear tipped missiles and we did not have an effective counter to them and hadn’t done the research or deployment. Then the chattering classes would be rightly asking for their heads and this silly stuff of blaming Bush for continuing with the development and depolyment would be forgotten.

“Liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism–ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.”

President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address of January 17, 1961:

“Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime,” he said, “or indeed by the fighting men of World War II and Korea… We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions… We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications… We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”