Forums | MacLife

Tallgeese wrote:

Makes you think about the other former Soviet/satellite nations that are joining NATO and how this will affect Russia's imperialism.

Back to NATO's original raison d'etre, eh?

I just love sitting back and enjoying my peace dividend.

In all seriousness, this is just another example of Dubya's failed foreign policy. At the beginning of his presidency, he should have known that the world equation was changing (remember all of that China stuff... Clinton bombing the embassy in Serbia, the US spy plane fiasco, etc.?).

If nothing else, 9/11 should have been a huge wake-up call to that effect. After 9/11 the ENTIRE world (barring a few perennial oddball states like N. Korea and Iran) were in line with US interests and ticked off at the agents of disorder. The iron had not been that hot for striking - in terms of worldwide motivation to change - in decades. THAT was the time to us diplomacy - soft and hard - for good. THAT was the time to get nations to the table to talk about stabalizing action.

Instead, Bush and his cronies, hungry for the illicit profit that could be made from furthe destabalization, elected to move unilaterally (yes, I do remember Poland, but they count for nothing other than delicious sausage and pickles) against an oblique target.

The result? Crap like this... Russia, instead of either becoming a force for good or being restrained by the rest of the world, now has an excuse to act just like the US acted. Who can argue with them that they can't? They have the power to do so, and the precident, thanks to Dubya.

Russia is Russia's fault, sure. But it is also Bush's fault. If he had set out on an appropriate diplimatic trajectory eight years ago, would Putin still be in power, and would Russia be trampling on its former Republics?

Or, instead, would the tenor of the world have changed so much that such behavior would make a nation a pariah? I like to think that the latter would have at least been possible, if not probable.

The world changed during the reign of George the First. Clinton sort of realized it, but mainly acted as if it hadn't. Bush could have improved upon that by confronting the world as it was. Instead he chose to be manipulated by puppetmasters and has, by his actions, given licence to any nation with power to do as it pleases to nations without.

Probably doesn't help to be pushing NATO into the Caucasus.  How far is that from the North Atlantic anyway?

Russia during the Clinton years was at least as rough as its present incarnation. Remember that horrendously dirty war in Chechnya? Using ballistic missiles against Grozny? Dear God, it was a frigging catastrophe. And it's still going on, too, if at a lower level. Not to mention the support of the Serbs in Bosnia.

Powerful countries are gonna do what they're gonna do, and the only way to restrain them is very strong (and very united) international pressure. But really, Russia is almost immune to that.

Last edited by ShnickyShnack (2008-08-09 8:01 pm)

Hey, the US has the Monroe Doctrine.  I guess this is the Putin Doctrine and we should all stfu.

ScifiterX wrote:

Speaking of tired memes Clinton is past old. We get it. You don't like them. You don't have to just don't torture the rest of us because of it. I dislike Bush & McCain but past a week or two, I stopped with the derogatory nicknames for them.

KKKlinton, then. I like the McFossil nickname too. He can board the USS Seaward.

matt wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

Speaking of tired memes Clinton is past old. We get it. You don't like them. You don't have to just don't torture the rest of us because of it. I dislike Bush & McCain but past a week or two, I stopped with the derogatory nicknames for them.

I think Shnicky uses "Clinton" out of mockery for others who use "Clinton" rather than out of anger toward Bill Clinton.

Aw, gee! Who told?!?!?!?!

No, I guess not.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080810/ap_ … SUzLxvaA8F

TBILISI, Georgia - Russia expanded its bombing blitz Sunday against neighboring U.S.-allied Georgia, targeting the country's capital for the first time while Georgian troops pulled out of the breakaway province of South Ossetia, as Russia has demanded.

Ribtorus wrote:

"U.S.-allied Georgia".

Interesting that the news agencies keep putting it that way, isn't it?  Seems to be almost needling the US.  "Allies?  Sure, when we want your 2000 troops in Iraq.  What?  Russia is invading you?  Sorry, you're on your own."

zeitgeist wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

"U.S.-allied Georgia".

Interesting that the news agencies keep putting it that way, isn't it?  Seems to be almost needling the US.  "Allies?  Sure, when we want your 2000 troops in Iraq.  What?  Russia is invading you?  Sorry, you're on your own."

Too early to say for sure that whatever alliance exists means America will actually back georgia in a fight with Russia.

Perhaps 2000 American troops directly relieving the Georgian troops in Iraq would count as fulfilling America's allied obligation to Georgia. That is, if a military obligation to help Georgia defend itself even exists. A defense agreement may not even exist in such terms.

There's no way in hell the US would get involved in this militarily.