Obama Vs Mcain and Russia

[Misha]

Nobody wants to join Russia.  Get that out of your head.  Not South Ossetia, not Abkhazia, not eastern Ukraine and not Crimea.

I agree with Ronnie. It is more profitable for the siloviki and their South Ossetian/Abkhazian pawns to not join the Russian Federation. Here is a case in point: Russian spent $500 million to bring natural gas to South Ossetia. Do you think Russian would spend $5 to bring natural gas to its villages? Of course not. Most of Rural Russia does not have access to natural gas, even when the pipelines run a few miles away shipping the natural gas for export. Yet, somehow, Russia found the money to bring natural gas to a territory where it was simply "peace keeping." If South Ossetia becomes a part of Russia, it will get the same amount of money as all distant and rural communities get in Russia: not much.

[kievstar]

Ronnie, when was the last time you were in Kiev and also in Crimea?

[Ronnie]

Ronnie, when was the last time you were in Kiev and also in Crimea?

What's the relevance of your question?  My wife is Ukrainian and is in daily touch with friends and family and follows the latest comments on blogs and news.  Again, what is your point?  Who, pray tell, wants to join the KGB kingdom?

[Ronnie]

Hillary Clinton said she landed in Bosnia under "sniper fire."   Hey, maybe she wasn't lying after all...

 

[Erwin]

"Putin said his defense officials had told him it was done to benefit a presidential candidate -- Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are competing to succeed George W. Bush -- although he presented no evidence to back it up."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/28/russia.georgia.cold.war/index.html

Eta Pravda??

[Erwin]

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/29/putin.transcript/

Putin diplomatically called it a hypothesis, at least for the moment.

Putin said his defense officials had told him it was done to benefit a presidential candidate -- Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are competing to succeed George W. Bush -- although he presented no evidence to back it up.

No longer hypotesis, according to this article:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/28/russia.georgia.cold.war/index.html

[ecr844]

Here's the Russian justification for their actions..

Here is one of Russia's official responses to the US and foreign powers condemning their actions.

http://natomission.ru/en/

The U.S. administration is trying to stick the label of "bad guy" on Russia for exceeding the peacekeeping mandate and using "disproportionate force" in the peace-enforcement operation in Georgia.
Maybe our American friends have gone blind and deaf at the same time. Mikheil Saakashvili, the president of Georgia, is known as a tough nationalist who didn't hide his intentions of forcing Ossetians and Abkhazians to live in his country.

We were hoping that the U.S. administration, which had displayed so much kindness and touching care for the Georgian leader, would be able to save him from the maniacal desire to deal with the small and disobedient peoples of the Caucasus.

But a terrible thing happened. The dog bit its master. Saakashvili gave an order to wipe Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, from the face of earth.

The Georgian air force and artillery struck the sleeping town at midnight. More than 1,500 civilians perished in the very first hours of the shelling. At the same time, Georgian special forces shot 10 Russian peacekeepers who didn't expect such a betrayal from their Georgian colleagues.

The Kremlin attempted to reach Saakashvili, who was hiding, by phone. All this time the Russian Joint Staff forbid the surviving peacekeepers to open return fire. Finally our patience was exhausted. The Russian forces came to help Tskhinvali and its civilian population.

In reply to the insulting criticism by President Bush that Russia used "disproportionate force," I'd like to cite some legal grounds for our response. Can shooting peacekeepers and the mass extermination of a civilian population - mainly Russian citizens - be regarded as hostile action against a state? Is it ground enough to use armed force in self-defense and to safeguard the security of these citizens?

Tbilisi concealed the scope of the humanitarian catastrophe in South Ossetia. Saakashvili's constant lies about the true state of affairs in Georgia were attempts to lay the fault at somebody else's door.

The Russian response is entirely justified and is consistent with both international law and the humanitarian goals of the peacekeeping operation conducted in South Ossetia. I will try to explain.

The Georgian aggression against South Ossetia, which came as a straightforward, wide-scale attack on the Russian peacekeeping contingent - Russian armed forces legally based on the territory of Georgia - should be classified as an armed attack on the Russian Federation, giving grounds to fulfill the right to self-defense - the right of every state according to Article 51 of the UN Charter.

As for the defense of our citizens outside the country, the use of force to defend one's compatriots is traditionally regarded as a form of self-defense. Countries such as the United States, Britain, France and Israel have at numerous times resorted to the use of armed force to defend their citizens outside national borders.

Such incidents include the armed operation of Belgian paratroopers in 1965 to defend 2,000 foreigners in Zaire; the U.S. military intervention in Grenada in 1983 under the pretext of protecting thousands of American nationals, who found themselves in danger due to a coup d'кtat in this island state; the sending of American troops to Panama in 1989 to defend, among others, American nationals.

We also have to keep in mind the present-day military interventions by the U.S. and its allies in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan. By the way, the last three cases are examples of tough American interventions when its own citizens did not need direct protection. But in spite of those countries' massive civilian losses at the hands of American soldiers, no one blamed Washington for a "disproportionate use of force."

Of course, the history of international relations is full of abuses committed under the pretext of defending citizens.

In order to draw a clear line between lawful and unlawful use of force, one can single out a number of objective criteria: first, the existence of a real threat to life or systematic and violations of human rights; second, the absence of other, peaceful means of resolving the conflict; third, a humanitarian aim for an armed operation; and four, proportionality - i.e., limitation on the time and means of rescue.

Russia's actions were in full compliance with these criteria. In conducting its military action, Russian troops also strictly observed the requirements of international humanitarian law. The Russian military did not subject civil objects and civilians on the territory of Georgia to deliberate attacks.

It is hard to believe that in such a situation any other country would have remained idle. Let me quote two statements:

One: "We are against cruelty. We are against ethnic cleansing. A right to come back home should be guaranteed to the refugees. We all agree that murders, property destruction, annihilation of culture and religion are not to be tolerated. That is what we are fighting against. Bombardments of the aggressor will be mercilessly intensified."

Two: "We appeal to all free countries to join us but our actions are not determined by others. I will defend the freedom and security of my citizens, whatever actions are needed for it. Our special forces have seized airports and bridges... air forces and missiles have struck essential targets."

Who do you think is the author of these words? Medvedev? Putin? No. The first quote belongs to Bill Clinton, talking about NATO operation against Yugoslavia. The author of the second quote is the current resident of the White House, talking about the U.S. intervention in Iraq.

Does that mean that the United States and NATO can use brute force where they want to, and Russia has to abstain from it even if it has to look at thousands of its own citizens being shot? If it's not hypocrisy, then what IS hypocrisy?

Of course this is from a guy who had a huge picture of Stalin on his wall, and known to be humorous and ultra-nationalistic..

A Russian soldier mans an anti-aircraft gun under a billboard which reads "Welcome" in South Ossetia, near the border with North Ossetia, August 30, 2008.

[Andrew James]

Whilst the Bush administration certainly seems to be making political hay out of this scenario - stirring up the possibility of a new cold war to increase the Republicans chances of re-election - the notion that they deliberately betrayed Saakashvili (giving him a false sense of security that the US would back his actions) is one I find hard to accept, especially when such theories are being expressed in such self-righteous terms by men who are appear anything but righteous. In this - as in many other things - Bush and Putin have a lot in common, and much to gain from each others' brinkmanship. As another poster suggested, theirs is a symbiotic relationship.

[Shadow]

Of course this is from a guy who had a huge picture of Stalin on his wall, and known to be humorous and ultra-nationalistic..

As Stalin is from Georgia, I doubt he would be in the picture. 

[Ronnie]

I watched an interview yesterday done by CNBC's Maria Bartiromo with Sarah Palin.  The interview was taped just a few days before she was selected as McCain's running mate.

All I can say is when the two VP candidates do their debate, Biden's going have his hands full.

I heard some folks say Sarah shouldn't expect to get Hillary voters just because she's female.  Maybe they're right. 
They may both be female but Sarah's no Hillary.

Sarah's no Hillary because unlike Hillary, the sports team she played on in High school wasn't imaginary;

Sarah's no Hillary because instead of claiming (falsely) to be ducking under sniper fire, she lays it down herself;

Sarah's no Hillary because she doesn't have to wear pants suits all the time to hide her legs;

Sarah's no Hillary because instead of claiming (falsely) to be named for a mountain climber, she is one herself;

Sarah's no Hillary because her husband never told one of his lovers that he had a vasectomy two years before her first child was born;

Sarah's no Hillary because she never claimed (falsely) that her daughter was jogging near the WTC on the morning of 9/11;

In summary, Sarah's no Hillary because Sarah has integrity and could it just be that's the reason she's on a major party ticket and Hillary's not? I wonder. 

[Turboguy]

In summary, Sarah's no Hillary because Sarah has integrity and could it just be that's the reason she's on a major party ticket and Hillary's not? I wonder. 

I never saw much of a correlation between being on a major party ticket and having integrity.   Actually if Sarah does have integrity, as it seems, she is one of the few in recent years to have it and be a candidate for a top position.

[BC]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-usrussia1-2008sep01,0,7129894.story

Might be a good place for a new radar and missile defense system..  Might be over the horizon, but those icbm's go up quite far..  are there any intercontinental cruise missiles?

Wonder how the candidates from either party will react.. lets see how fast we can make friends with Cuba again..  Didn't Obama want to go to Cuba also?

[kievstar]

Cuba lost all trust with Russia when Russia abandoned them after Soviet Union fall apart.  Cuba economy was impacted heavily by Soviet union collapse.

If Russia really wants to help Cuba, Russia can send a couple billion of aid for the hurricane that just hit there country. Would be a good move by Russia for the longterm but Russia tends to think shortterm.   

Venezuela would be a better partner for Russia.  Could easily sneak nuclear weapons into Venezuela without USA knowing.  This would not really accomplish anything for Russia so highly doubt they would ever do this.  But who knows. 

[BC]

kievstar,

There are of course many ways to skin a cat.. it is sad to see all this tit for tat that sucks up billions and more of resources that could otherwise be used to help humanity, or at least their own citizens.

[SANDRO43]

.  are there any intercontinental cruise missiles?

Apparently yes (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=8091.msg147624#msg147624), if the Trident's range of 9,000 miles qualifies it as such (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile).

[Ronnie]

Kievstar.. this one's for you.

http://www.kyivpost.com/nation/29538/

RE: Cuba.  Am I the only one who is baffled that the US has done virtually nothing to bring Cuba into the modern western world after the SU collapse?  Surely Cubans can see what their long alliance with Russia has got them.

Oh and for those who accuse the US of doing the same thing Russia does - how does Havana - which is closer to Key West Florida than Miami is - fit into that hypothesis?

[BC]

Kievstar.. this one's for you.

http://www.kyivpost.com/nation/29538/

RE: Cuba.  Am I the only one who is baffled that the US has done virtually nothing to bring Cuba into the modern western world after the SU collapse?  Surely Cubans can see what their long alliance with Russia has got them.

Got them a lot of tourists..  Some friends of ours have been there several times over the years and enjoy their stay.  Might head there ourselves one of these days.  Want to join us?

[Ronnie]

Got them a lot of tourists..  Some friends of ours have been there several times over the years and enjoy their stay.  Might head there ourselves one of these days.  Want to join us?

Brian, you have an interesting way of presenting things.  Before Castro and the subsequent alliance with Moscow, 8 out of 10 tourists were from the United States.  Now you say that tourism in Cuba benefited from the alliance.  Whatever the tourism figures are today, can we surmise they would be at least 3-4 times greater without the US
embargo?

Cuba was once the leading destination in the Caribbean for Americans.  Had it had remained such, one can only imagine the prosperity Cubans would be enjoying today. 

[BC]

Brian, you have an interesting way of presenting things.  Before Castro and the subsequent alliance with Moscow, 8 out of 10 tourists were from the United States.  Now you say that tourism in Cuba benefited from the alliance.  Whatever the tourism figures are today, can we surmise they would be at least 3-4 times greater without the US
embargo?

Cuba was once the leading destination in the Caribbean for Americans.  Had it had remained such, one can only imagine the prosperity Cubans would be enjoying today. 

Ronnie,

I was addressing the timeframe in your statement:

RE: Cuba.  Am I the only one who is baffled that the US has done virtually nothing to bring Cuba into the modern western world after the SU collapse?  Surely Cubans can see what their long alliance with Russia has got them.

I'm sure Cuba would do even better with more US tourism.. I don't think they deny entry..  What keeps US citizens from visiting Cuba?  Can't be that much of a *snip*hole with folks from every country except the US visiting..

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/urlaub-cubavaradero-2007/2779474501

[Gator]

Am I the only one who is baffled that the US has done virtually nothing to bring Cuba into the modern western world after the SU collapse?  Surely Cubans can see what their long alliance with Russia has got them.

The reason is Florida's electoral votes.  Any party who attempted to open up trade and tourism with Cuba while Castro is in power would lose the sizeable Cuban vote in Florida and most probably lose Florida.  Florida was the swing state in both of Bush's narrow victories as well as Clinton's first victory.

Yes, Cubans know.

In the past, American risk takers felt emboldened to travel to Cuba via Bahamas or Mexico.  Upon receiving a pre-penalty notice from OFAC, one only needed to request a hearing and the case disappeared.  Today, OFAC is more aggressive.

Living in Florida, I know many Cubans.  They have a plan. 

[Gator]

Can't be that much of a *snip*hole with folks from every country except the US visiting..

Exactly.  It is my wife's favorite vacation place in the world.

[Ronnie]

Ronnie,

I was addressing the timeframe in your statement:

I said,

Surely Cubans can see what their long alliance with Russia has got them

.

And you said,

Got them a lot of tourists..

The fact is they got far less tourists during that timeframe..that should have been obvious.

[Ronnie]

Gator, As you say, Cuban vote and lobby are a large factor.  What I can't understand is why there is not a bipartisan resolution.  Then the "blame" would be split.

I suspect there is some kind of understanding with Mexico.  Cancun currently rakes in billions of US tourist dollars as the number one destination.

[BC]

Exactly.  It is my wife's favorite vacation place in the world.

Maybe it is good the way things are..

I remember Mallorca with all the German 'ballerman' freaks invading the island.. was the first and last time I will ever go there.

[Ronnie]

Maybe it is good the way things are..

I remember Mallorca with all the German 'ballerman' freaks invading the island.. was the first and last time I will ever go there.

You'll find lots of Germans in Cuba too not to mention South Florida Cancun and DR.  They love the beaches!

Saturday at the beach here in SoCal, we had a large extended family of Germans on holiday next to us.  Great people..kids were super.  It's nice to see all those automobile dollars coming back to us!