The Future of FR-US Relations

[I/O]

Its not just Russia vs Georgia anymore.

IMO it never was. I think the mid east is still far and away the main game. Look carefully at a map, factor the Israel thing in, look at the names in the halls of US power. I think it is all much simpler than many are wanting to believe. :noidea:

I/O

[OlgaH]

Olga, I am curious, can you describe these double standards with the American community you are referring too?

Missile Defense and a US Nuclear First Strike

Oops…Better send that press release back to the Pentagon’s Office of Deception Propaganda for rewrite. The Iran missile threat to NATO installations in Poland somehow isn’t quite convincing. Why not ask long-time NATO member Turkey if the US can place its missile shield there, far closer to Iran? Or maybe Kuwait?
Or Israel?
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Putin/putin.html

The declaration of Kosovo independence has been rapidly greeted with official diplomatic recognition by Washington and select EU countries including Germany. That independence and its recognition, unfortunately, openly violate UN resolutions for Kosovo and make a farce of the entire UN rule of international law.

the US-led bombing of Serbian targets, one of the heaviest bombings since World War II, a senior US intelligence official in private conversation told Croatian officers in Zagreb about Washington’s strategy for former Yugoslavia. According to these reports, communicated privately to this author, the Pentagon goal was to take control of Kosovo in order to secure a military base to control the entire southeast European region down to the Middle East oil lands.

Recognizing a mafia state?

One of the notable features of the indecent rush by Washington and other states to immediately recognize the independence of Kosovo is the fact that they well know its present government and both major political parties are in fact run by Kosovo Albanian organized crime.

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Kosovo/kosovo.html

The dumbest part of this transaction is that we've let Georgia's hothead leader, Mikhail Saakashvili, unilaterally declare war between NATO and Russia. We don't let Taiwan do the same in our crucial relationship with China, so why have we let ourselves get played for such chumps here?

NATO, we tell ourselves, began as an anti-Russia military alliance and so it must stay. Instead of building something new that could include Russia, we've hung onto our Cold War safety blanket, inserting thumb in mouth.

http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/opinion/what_resurrecting_cold_war_with_russia_costs_us.html

Do we need to mention the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

(Quetta, Pakistan, October 26, 2001) -- At least twenty-three civilians, the majority of them young children, were killed when U.S. bombs hit a remote Afghan village located near a Taliban military base on the night of October 21, Human Rights Watch said
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/10/26/afghan3118.htm

(Washington, D.C., December 18, 2002) During its air war in Afghanistan, the United States dropped nearly a quarter-million cluster bomblets that killed or injured scores of civilians, especially children, both during and after strikes, Human Rights Watch said
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/12/arms1218.htm

DURHAM, NEW HAMPSHIRE - December 10 - More than 3,500 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan by U.S. bombs, according to a study to be released December 10 by Marc W. Herold, Professor of Economics, International Relations, and Women's Studies at the University of New Hampshire.
http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/1210-01.htm

(Washington, February 7, 2000)—About five hundred civilians died in ninety separate incidents as a result of NATO bombing in Yugoslavia last year, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today.

The investigation concluded that NATO committed violations of international humanitarian law
http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/02/nato207.htm

[wxman]

Missile Defense and a US Nuclear First Strike

Oops…Better send that press release back to the Pentagon’s Office of Deception Propaganda for rewrite. The Iran missile threat to NATO installations in Poland somehow isn’t quite convincing. Why not ask long-time NATO member Turkey if the US can place its missile shield there, far closer to Iran? Or maybe Kuwait?
Or Israel?
http://www.engdahl.oilgeo..._Eurasia/Putin/putin.html

One first has to understand the concept of missile trajectory, tracking, physics and radar to see why Israel, Turkey and Kuwait would not be a good choice for placing a missile shield in those countries.  Just because the fool wrote the article doens't mean he has a clue as to why those countries are not good choices. First when you fire a long range high altitude rocket, you don't fire it in a straight line. You actually use the great circle route theory as it is the shortest distance. So actually you arc it over eastern Europe if firing from Iran to hit western Europe. It's the same concept when flying from the US to Europe. One does not fly due east across the ocean. One actually travels further north in an arcing fashion as it is a shorter distance. Secondly, it takes several radars along with satellites to accurately track a high altitude missile. By the time it is tracked accurately, it is already out of anti missile range of Israel, Turkey and Kuwait. You never want to fire an anti missile in which it has to chase the missile, because the speed of both the missile and anti missile are travelling close to the same speed, which means you likely would not catch it. You actually want to fire it so it collides with the missile preferably from the opposite direction as you need less fuel for the rocket, which means a smaller rocket and smaller payload to do the job it would take trying to catch it from behind. Mr Engdahl is a fool, and too many other people believe the crap he wrote without even having the most simplest understanding of physics.

[steviej]

About 12% of the population live below poverty in the US
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j7nIuvwPoTTCKavkGk2OKKmUE-Fg

12% is too many, but does not equate to a "large percentage"

I don’t know if 12% is reliable or not, but I believe it could be some “official” number. But it doesn’t show two important things. First, the percentage living in poverty has doubled in the last 20 yrs. Second, families that are working 3 and more full time minimum wage jobs are not considered in poverty. But if a man and woman have to work in excess of 150 hrs per week to get by, I consider that a symptom of growing poverty as well. So what’s wrong in US is the direction we’re going.

I modified my post to get more current data. If you actually compare poverty in the US to Russia, I would easily say 70% of Russia lives in poverty. Russia's numbers are based on a very measly income. And Russia still is a 3rd world economy.

Many Russians are poorer in comparison to their counterparts in the West, but Russia is not a 3rd world country. They are a relatively poor 1st world country. There are many elements and dimensions that constitute what a 3rd world country is that have nothing to do with Russia. I would even say, in my opinion, they are culturally more advanced in some ways than US. The US is a cultural embarrassment in many ways, IMO. That is, being 3rd world is not just a question of dollars.

As far as NATO goes, I personally don't care to see an expansion of NATO. I would actually like to see the US completely pull out of NATO.

Agree completely. The Europeans are more than willing to let the American tax payers foot their defense bill as long as the neo-cons want to enjoy the feeling that they are really “swinging it around.”

With the population of Europe becoming stagnant, and the US population expected to hit 400 million by 2039, along with growing Mexican population, and growing economies and population in South America, the western hemisphere will become the largest trading partners with China and India. I would not be surprised that within 50 years a true western hemisphere economic alliance will develop vastly surpassing Europe. More than 50% of the world's population will be split between China, India and the western Hemisphere. I place my bets on the far west being a bigger player than Europe will be.  Of course this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.  

What I think is incorrect in this view is the rosie assumption that by having large numbers of South Americans, Mexicans, Asians, Middel Easterners, Africans, etc. etc, that is by filling up US, and by default the entire SA/NA hemisphere with 3rd world people, they will rise to be the kind of 1st world European-based civilization and society that we are used to, in hindsight. Personally, I think its going to go in the other direction. It’s already started. It will be more like a screaming Middle Eastern bizarre than anything like Paris, London (I mean as of, say, 40 years ago), Vienna, etc. The quality of life is not all about the numbers. A civilization is a house of cards, and can easily fall. Americans don’t seem to think that’s possible, but they have a rude awakening coming.

IMO it never was. I think the mid east is still far and away the main game. Look carefully at a map, factor the Israel thing in, look at the names in the halls of US power. I think it is all much simpler than many are wanting to believe. :noidea:

I/O

I think I agree, if I understand what you are implying. The intelligensia heart of the neo-con movement, which has intellectually dominated the Bush administration for 8 years, is Zionist at heart. Most of the intellectual leaders are Jews, and they have meticulously developed the case that the enemies of Israel are the enemies of US. That causes a chain reaction with Iraq, Iran, and now even Russia (which is not hostile to Iraq or Iran). It has almost a messianic element to it of what I call “democratic jihad.” Bush even says he believes in regime change to “spread democracy around the world.” Sounds like jihad to me.

IMO, we should be friendly with Russia. We should be neutral to her explorations toward re-incorporating possible ethnic Russian areas she lost during the demise of the Soviet Union. We should get out of NATO. We should take a position of neutrality w.r.t. Israel. We should normalize relations with Iran and Iraq based on the operating principal: you sell us oil and help secure the Persian Gulf, then we have no problems with you.”

You mentioned about an “alliance” with China. We don’t have an alliance with them, they have us by the balls financially, they just haven’t started squeezing them yet. I forsee problems with China in the future as they start to flex their muscle, and I want Russia as a close friend in that case. We are living in the past, and focusing on the wrong bear. But hey, China is not Israel’s enemy, are they?

[wxman]

What I think is incorrect in this view is the rosie assumption that by having large numbers of South Americans, Mexicans, Asians, Middel Easterners, Africans, etc. etc, that is by filling up US, and by default the entire SA/NA hemisphere with 3rd world people, they will rise to be the kind of 1st world European-based civilization and society that we are used to, in hindsight. Personally, I think its going to go in the other direction. It’s already started. It will be more like a screaming Middle Eastern bizarre than anything like Paris, London (I mean as of, say, 40 years ago), Vienna, etc. The quality of life is not all about the numbers. A civilization is a house of cards, and can easily fall. Americans don’t seem to think that’s possible, but they have a rude awakening coming.

People are understimating the tremendous growth of South America financially. This was the same attitude that the world had 30 years ago with China. No one ever imagined that in 30 years they would become the world's second largest economy. Brazil already has a rapidly developing economy and South America is rich in resources which is the foundation needed to continue to spur rapid growth. The US is also rich in resources. Push comes to shove, we have all the oil we need in our shale. We have all the natural gas we need to actually switch from oil to natural gas if needed. We can easily supply our electric needs if we continue to expand wind and solar power or expand nuclear power. What we really have is a commodity that much of the world needs, and that is grain. Oil is a short term commodity that in 50 years won't be worth much with the changing attitude towards alternate fuels. What won't change is the need for food. In fact, shortages will get even worse with the increasing world population. The US, Canada and a large part of South America, especially Brazil and Argetina will continue to be huge producers and exporters of grains. Grain will be the new gold of the future, not oil.  I don't see a gloomy future for the US. In fact, I see a very good future.   

[steviej]

People are understimating the tremendous growth of South America financially. This was the same attitude that the world had 30 years ago with China. No one ever imagined that in 30 years they would become the world's second largest economy. Brazil already has a rapidly developing economy and South America is rich in resources which is the foundation needed to continue to spur rapid growth. The US is also rich in resources. Push comes to shove, we have all the oil we need in our shale. We have all the natural gas we need to actually switch from oil to natural gas if needed. We can easily supply our electric needs if we continue to expand wind and solar power or expand nuclear power. What we really have is a commodity that much of the world needs, and that is grain. Oil is a short term commodity that in 50 years won't be worth much with the changing attitude towards alternate fuels. What won't change is the need for food. In fact, shortages will get even worse with the increasing world population. The US, Canada and a large part of South America, especially Brazil and Argetina will continue to be huge producers and exporters of grains. Grain will be the new gold of the future, not oil.  I don't see a gloomy future for the US. In fact, I see a very good future.   

I hope you're right. If you told me that South America was 85% Caucasians, people of European ancestry, I would agree completely. But they're not. Why haven't they developed like NA over the past 200 yrs already? Like you say, plenty of resources, acceptable climates, vast land areas, water resources ..etc. I think the legacy of Western Civilization, as discovered by the Greeks and evolved by the Europeans, is worth more than  we think. But we'll see. I do hope you're right. My son teaches "disadvantaged" kids in Los Angeles. This is the 3rd generation of such so-called "disadvantagd" kids, maybe more. Despite the huge efforts put into them (more than the popular press gives out), they are still way behind, not too bright, and certainly not people you can depend on to build andmaintian a decent advanced civil life. These are the ones breeding the most, both in NA and SA. Can we survive this demographic assault? These will be competing forces. The result remains to be seen. But your point is also valid, and could prove true. So let's hope it does !!

[wxman]

I hope you're right. If you told me that South America was 85% Caucasians, people of European ancestry, I would agree completely. But they're not. Why haven't they developed like NA over the past 200 yrs already? Like you say, plenty of resources, acceptable climates, vast land areas, water resources ..etc. I think the legacy of Western Civilization, as discovered by the Greeks and evolved by the Europeans, is worth more than  we think. But we'll see. I do hope you're right. My son teaches "disadvantaged" kids in Los Angeles. This is the 3rd generation of such so-called "disadvantagd" kids, maybe more. Despite the huge efforts put into them (more than the popular press gives out), they are still way behind, not too bright, and certainly not people you can depend on to build andmaintian a decent advanced civil life. These are the ones breeding the most, both in NA and SA. Can we survive this demographic assault? These will be competing forces. The result remains to be seen. But your point is also valid, and could prove true. So let's hope it does !!

Of course the US has to get over the current mindset that government has to do everything for us, no child left behind crap, socializing of everything because we don't want anyone get ahead of another, and the world according Dr Phil and Oprah. The foundation of what made this country great...one can get ahead and be successful with hard work needs to be embraced again. Instead we have created a society where we shouldn't give grades to school children because they might feel inferior, or where kids play sports where no one wins, or creating a work envirorment where we are all a team and we should all just get along,  is just breeding a society where just getting by is acceptable. That is our greatest threat. Not Russia, not China, not Europe. The greatest threat to any country is itself. Unfortuntely, it really seems the only country that understands that is China. Of course they understand it, but they don't know how to handle it.   

[OlgaH]

Just because the fool wrote the article doens't mean he has a clue as to why those countries are not good choices.

wxman, of course you are smarter than F William Engdahl and I hope one day I will see your published article 

[wxman]

wxman, of course you are smarter than F William Engdahl and I hope one day I will see your published article 

Just because he can write doesn't mean he has a concept of science. He's a journalist. I'll put up my advanced degree in physics against his juvenile knowledge of rocket science anyday.   

[OlgaH]

He's a journalist. I'll put up my advanced degree in physics against his juvenile knowledge of rocket science anyday.   

F. William Engdahl is a leading researcher, economist and analyst of the New World Order who's written on issues of energy, politics and economics for over 30 years.

wxman,  don't count your chicken before they are hatched    put up your advanced degree in physics and publish your article lambasting Engdahl's  knowledge of rocket  science  Can you? 

[Mishenka]

stevieJ wrote:

"Many Russians are poorer in comparison to their counterparts in the West, but Russia is not a 3rd world country. They are a relatively poor 1st world country. There are many elements and dimensions that constitute what a 3rd world country is that have nothing to do with Russia. I would even say, in my opinion, they are culturally more advanced in some ways than US. The US is a cultural embarrassment in many ways, IMO. That is, being 3rd world is not just a question of dollars."

Now the definition of a first world country:The term "first world" refers to countries that are capitalist, which are technologically advanced, and whose citizens have a high standard of living.

I'm sorry but Russia does not fit into this category of 1st world by this definition.  They have a very low per capita GNP, personal income and standard of living has in fact gone down in many areas since the collapse of the USSR for the largest populations outside Moscow.  Prices are so high in large cities that no one can afford to live in them. I have traveled Russia and the old USSR for 18 years and I can tell you, outside Moscow and Piter and a small handful of larger cities, it is very much 3rd world in the same way Mexico is 3rd world. Next time your there take a train and travel across Russia, its a real eye opener.  Oh here we have China with 25% of the GDP of USA but still 3rd world, so money isn't all it takes to be considered 1st world. in contrast, the USA has the highest GDP at nealry 14 trillion USD in 2007, and the governments annual budget is 4.5 trillion. Russia is a small fraction of this number, barely 10% yet has a population of nearly half the USA.

The terms First World, Second World, and Third World were used to divide the nations of Earth into three broad categories. The three terms did not arise simultaneously. After World War II, people began to speak of the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries as two major blocs, often using such terms as the "Western Bloc" and the "Eastern Bloc". The two "worlds" were not numbered. It was eventually pointed out that there were a great many countries that fit into neither category, and in 1952 French demographer Alfred Sauvy coined the term "Third World" to describe this latter group; retroactively, the first two groups came to be known as the "First World" and "Second World".

There were a number of countries that did not fit comfortably into this neat definition of partition, including Switzerland, Sweden, and the Republic of Ireland, who chose to be neutral. Finland was under the Soviet Union's sphere of influence but was not communist, nor was it a member of the Warsaw Pact. Yugoslavia adopted a policy of neutrality, and was a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement. Austria was under the United States' sphere of influence, but in 1955, when the country became a fully independent republic, it did so under the condition that it remain neutral. Turkey and Greece, both of which joined NATO in 1952, were not predominantly in Western Europe. Spain did not join NATO until 1982, towards the end of the Cold War and after the death of the authoritarian dictator Francisco Franco.

In recent years, as many "developing" countries have industrialized, the term Fourth World has been coined to refer to countries that remain predominantly agricultural or nomadic and lack industrial infrastructure. In contrast, countries that were previously considered developing countries and that now have a more developed economy, yet are not fully developed, are grouped under the term Newly-industrialized countries or NIC. Some nations have developed their own classification scheme consisting of the "Third World" and the "Two-Thirds World". This system is similar to the former in that it also reflects economic status or behaviour. In terms of material resources, the "Third World" consumes one third, while the "Two-Thirds World" consumes two-thirds of the resources.

[msmoby_ru]

F. William Engdahl is a leading researcher, economist and analyst of the New World Order who's written on issues of energy, politics and economics for over 30 years.

wxman,  don't count your chicken before they are hatched    put up your advanced degree in physics and publish your article lambasting Engdahl's  knowledge of rocket  science  Can you? 

Actually, Engdahl is a economist wxman, and Olga is simply cutting and pasting reviews of his books - which if you read them - are thought provoking, and the common thread is big companies are influencing our govts.  Luckily, we can get rid of govts that might have the ear of such companies..

His and Olga's opinions on Kosovo and the bombing of Serbia would have us believing that NATO is the toy of the US and that other nations have no say..which of course is nonsence.  How is it "double stds" to attempt to stop genocide - esp. when the regime had already been "allowed" to attempt this in three other cases BEFORE NATO intervened.

Olga seems to forget that the bombs were to stop the effectiveness of the "Yugoslav" ( Serb) army and that Serbia is now a TRUE democracy that will soon be an EU member. No-one took delight in the innocent Serb people who died to prevent a bigger death toll in Kosovo.

IF we have "allowed" the Georgian President to declare war between NATO and Russia - can someone please explain why NATO hasn't poured in troops and aircraft in the same way Russia did? !!

Russia is the one with "double stds" - How is Kosovo different from the Georgian breakaway states - other than the fact that Russia deliberately meddled when it had the role as "peace-keepers" .. both people's sought independence- but in the case of Kosovo there was a long consultative process before the "illegal" action took place of recognition

Time for all sides to stick to the mantras we preach... recognise the breakaway republics...

[BC]

IF we have "allowed" the Georgian President to declare war between NATO and Russia - can someone please explain why NATO hasn't poured in troops and aircraft in the same way Russia did? !!

'Allowed' is indeed a bit strong considering that Rice and other high level US officials, if not Bush himself told Saakashvilli point-blank not to try and provoke Russia on several occasions. Taking into account that Saakashvilli is now a proven 'loose cannon', and giving the US and others the benefit of doubt regarding knowledge of Saakashvilli's true intentions, the 'proof in the pudding' will be to what degree military assistance will be given to rearm Georgia.

Re-arming a 'loose cannon' is irresponsible and would be quite the same as giving consent.

The US has a long history of arming 'loose cannons' even covertly with many billions spent and direct repercussions thereof costing many trillions, not even mentioning the human toll- all at taxpayer expense of course.

Remember Bush with his 'fool me once' statement?  Well Putin didn't allow himself to get fooled in the first place.

[roykirk]

There was an interesting analogy in our newspaper recently to help boneheads like me understand this Georgia-Russia thing.  The analogy was this:  Suppose Blaine (a border city in Washington State) decided they wanted to break away from the state (and the country) and join Canada.  It's filled mostly with Canadian expats and has more influence from Canada than from the United States due to its location.  Of course, the United States says "no way."  In a skirmish with protesters in Blaine one day, several Canadian citizens get killed by U.S. police officers.  Canada then rolls the tanks down across the border and invades Blaine.  Yeah, the strength of the two nations is different in this scenario, but it helped me understand why there's so much tension.  (and in this scenario, I doubt many countries would support Canada's actions either)

I had an interesting debate about this whole issue with my fiance' today.  I've never known her to be interested in politics, but she was lamenting the fact that the world seemed to be against Russia, and the fact that our country was meddling in the situation to prop up our Presidential candidates.  I told her not to believe everything she reads in the Russian newspapers.  I then told her it was my belief Russia shouldn't be meddling with Georgia (or the U.S. in Iraq for that matter), and she said the only reason they did was because Georgia slaughtered their peacekeepers.  I said "occupying forces aren't peacekeepers."  It was a debate neither of us were going to win.     We left it at that and concentrated on other topics.   

[OlgaH]

There was an interesting analogy in our newspaper recently to help boneheads like me understand this Georgia-Russia thing.  The analogy was this:...

A good analogy is based on the knowledge of history.

If some people think that Abkhazia and Ossetia is like California or Minnesota these people just simply ignorant of the historical facts and know nothing about the culture and  languages of Abkhazians and Ossetians. 

[roykirk]

A good analogy is based on the knowledge of history.

If some people think that Abkhazia and Ossetia is like California or Minnesota these people just simply ignorant of the historical facts and know nothing about the culture and  languages of Abkhazians and Ossetians. 

Well, feel free to change my analogy to something I can similarly understand, because I can't pronounce Abkhazian or Ossetian, let alone understand the politics of it.  All I know is that I never support any country (including my own) interfering in the operation of another sovereign country unless they are attacked first or there is some terrible human rights violations being conducted.

[Ronnie]

I don't know Obama's plan for anything, if you want to know the truth.  I can only go by how they dealt with Iraq..Cut and Run vs. Get the Job Done.

As to Georgia, there really isn't much the US or the EU need to do.  Putin is doing it all for them, destroying his government's credibility and flushing down the toilet any basis respect that may have been afforded Moscow.  Dealing with Russia and Asian cultures always has to offer a way for them save face publicly..if they can save face, they will eventually correct their mistakes.  I think McCain has the experience to understand this but who knows?



 

[Ronnie]

Just a joke 

Why Bush wages wars?

He tries to gap in Americans' education of geography. Americans now know that there are such countries as Iraq and Iran in the World. Americans even have started to guess that it is two different countries and soon they will be able to find them on the World map.

Olga, My dear, before you were born, Americans knew very well where Iran was located and who was in charge when they invaded our embassy in Tehran and held our people hostage for more than a year.  Your silly criticisms of Americans is reflecting poorly on yourself, I hope you realize that.

[OlgaH]

Olga, My dear, before you were born, Americans knew very well where Iran was located and who was in charge when they invade our embassy in Tehran and held our people hostage for more than a year.  Your silly criticisms of Americans is reflecting poorly on yourself, I hope you realize that.

Ronnie, you are not the first person who writes direct insulting comments towards me and I'm not only one woman here who has received the such comments from the men here. You and others please feel free to add another comments about me in the similar way.

So, Ronnie, enjoy your Anti-Russia propaganda and criticism of Russians closing your eyes on the shortcomings and double-standards in your beloved politics.

___________________________________
concerning the old joke:
 
After three years of war in Iraq, only 37% of young Americans can find Iraq; 63% cannot.
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/2008/01/graph_americans_lost_on_map/

What Young Americans Know About the World
May 2006
Nine in ten (88%) cannot find Afghanistan on a map of Asia.

Two-thirds (67%) can find Louisiana on a U.S. map and half (52%) can find
Mississippi – leaving a third or more who cannot find these states

Moreover, half (50%) cannot find New York State, even though it is the third
most populous state in the union, after California and Texas.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/roper2006/pdf/FINALReport2006GeogLitsurvey.pdf

[Ronnie]

There was an interesting analogy in our newspaper recently to help boneheads like me understand this Georgia-Russia thing.  The analogy was this:  Suppose Blaine (a border city in Washington State) decided they wanted to break away from the state (and the country) and join Canada.  It's filled mostly with Canadian expats and has more influence from Canada than from the United States due to its location.  Of course, the United States says "no way."  In a skirmish with protesters in Blaine one day, several Canadian citizens get killed by U.S. police officers.  Canada then rolls the tanks down across the border and invades Blaine.  Yeah, the strength of the two nations is different in this scenario, but it helped me understand why there's so much tension.  (and in this scenario, I doubt many countries would support Canada's actions either)

I had an interesting debate about this whole issue with my fiance' today.  I've never known her to be interested in politics, but she was lamenting the fact that the world seemed to be against Russia, and the fact that our country was meddling in the situation to prop up our Presidential candidates.  I told her not to believe everything she reads in the Russian newspapers.  I then told her it was my belief Russia shouldn't be meddling with Georgia (or the U.S. in Iraq for that matter), and she said the only reason they did was because Georgia slaughtered their peacekeepers.  I said "occupying forces aren't peacekeepers."  It was a debate neither of us were going to win.     We left it at that and concentrated on other topics.   

Here's what's wrong with the analogy.  Contrary to propaganda emanating from various places, Abkhazia and SO are not wanting to join Russia.  The want independence!  Russia is pretending to help them and there have been assumptions that it means the want to join Russia. 

My wife just tells me she read on a Russian news site that Russian territority of Ingushetia has taken some kind of step towards declaring their independence from Russia.  Ingushetia has 5 times more population that SO and the people are largely Sunni Muslim.  I can't confirm a report on any English language site.

 I did find this story about the murder of Ingush critic of Moscow.  I noted that the president of Ingushetia is a former KGB general (surprise, surprise!).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7590719.stm

[Ronnie]

Ronnie, you are not the first person who writes direct insulting comments towards me and I'm not only one woman here who has received the such comments from the men here. You and others please feel free to add another comments about me in the similar way.

So, Ronnie, enjoy your Anti-Russia propaganda and criticism of Russians closing your eyes on the shortcomings and double-standards in your beloved politics.

It was you, Olga, who criticized Americans' knowledge of world geography and nothing at all was said about Russia...why so defensive when I point out your error?

[roykirk]

Here's what's wrong with the analogy.  Contrary to propaganda emanating from various places, Abkhazia and SO are not wanting to join Russia.  The want independence!  Russia is pretending to help them and there have been assumptions that it means the want to join Russia. 

My wife just tells me she read on a Russian news site that Russian territority of Ingushetia has taken some kind of step towards declaring their independence from Russia.  Ingushetia has 5 times more population that SO and the people are largely Sunni Muslim.  I can't confirm a report on any English language site.

 I did find this story about the murder of Ingush critic of Moscow.  I noted that the president of Ingushetia is a former KGB general (surprise, surprise!).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7590719.stm

I found another story that explained how my analogy is wrong too.  It explains that Georgia initiated the attack, but also explains a bit more about the regional politics in a way I was able to understand:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/29/zakaria.georgia/index.html#cnnSTCText?iref=werecommend

[ecr844]

I found another story that explained how my analogy is wrong too.  It explains that Georgia initiated the attack, but also explains a bit more about the regional politics in a way I was able to understand:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/29/zakaria.georgia/index.html#cnnSTCText?iref=werecommend

See this story here:
http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=8191.msg149937#msg149937

and

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/24steel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Op-Ed Contributor
A Superpower Is Reborn By RONALD STEEL Published: August 24, 2008

[Mishenka]

I found this article interesting from the Washington post, written 27 August,08

Russia's conflict with Georgia is the sign of a "weak" Russian nation, not a newly assertive one, and Moscow now has put its place in the world order at risk, the top U.S. diplomat for relations with the country said in an interview yesterday.

"There is a Russia narrative that 'we were weak in the '90s, but now we are back and we are not going to take it anymore.' Being angry and seeking revanchist victory is not the sign of a strong nation. It is the sign of a weak one," said Daniel Fried, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.


"Russia is going to have to come to terms with the reality it can either integrate with the world or it can be a self-isolated bully. But it can't be both. And that's a choice Russia has to make," Fried said.

After Georgian forces moved into the separatist enclave of South Ossetia early this month, Russian troops attacked Georgian military installations and moved close to Georgia's capital before partially pulling back. This week, Moscow recognized the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, a move the United States and European nations condemned as undermining Georgian sovereignty.

U.S. policymakers have debated whether and how Russia should be punished for its incursion into Georgia. Already, a civil nuclear deal between Russia and the United States appears dead in Congress, and Russia's 13-year effort to join the World Trade Organization is in trouble. Russian officials in recent weeks have disparaged such concerns -- Prime Minister Vladimir Putin this week said he sees "no advantages" to joining the WTO -- but U.S. officials predict Russia will suffer if it becomes isolated.

U.S. officials and their allies have begun to suggest that Russia cannot blame any fallout from the Georgia attack on U.S. actions.

"They are kind of giddy. They will need to sober up," said a senior U.S. official, insisting on anonymity because his remarks were diplomatically impolite. "When they sober up, they will see that it is not the U.S. that has done things to them; it's that they have done things to themselves."

Similarly, in a speech yesterday in Kiev, Ukraine, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said: "Today Russia is more isolated, less trusted and less respected than two weeks ago. It has made military gains in the short term. But over time, it will feel economic and political losses."

Miliband noted that Russia's foreign exchange reserves have fallen by $16 billion and risk premiums for investing in Russia have soared since the crisis began. By contrast, when the Soviet Union attacked Czechoslovakia in 1968, "no one asked what impact its actions had on the Russian stock market. There was no Russian stock market."

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has advocated removing Russia from the Group of Eight industrialized democracies. Miliband dismissed that yesterday as a "knee-jerk" call for action, though some Russian political figures have also begun to question whether Russia needs to stay in the G-8.

Yesterday, in a joint statement, the foreign ministers of the other seven members -- the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Japan and Italy -- said they "condemn the action of our fellow G8 member" to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia, adding that "Russia's decision has called into question its commitment to peace and security in the Caucasus."

Vice President Cheney, speaking to an American Legion convention in Phoenix yesterday, condemned Russia's "unjustifiable assault" on Georgia. "The Georgian people won their freedom after years of tyranny, and they can count on the friendship of the United States," he said.

"Three American presidents -- Bush, Clinton and Bush -- have all in their own way sought to encourage Russia's integration with the wider world. This is a good thing. It was the right set of policies," Fried said. "Russia has now put all of that at risk, because Russian cannot simultaneously behave like the Soviet Union toward its neighbors like this is 1968 and act as if it is 2008 when it comes to the WTO."

Fried said the administration is determined to prevent Russia from claiming a new sphere of influence in the Caucasus. He added: "There are areas where we have common interest with Russia and we want to work with them. The question is whether Russia has an ability to work with us."

In the interview, Fried did not excuse Georgia's initial actions, saying U.S. officials told Georgian officials they could not win a war with Russia. "Georgia is a flawed democracy, a democracy in construction. You don't help them by whitewashing their problems or defending a bad decision. But you don't want it crushed," he said.

[roykirk]

I see Britain is calling for Russia to be kicked out of the G-8.  I seriously hope that doesn't happen.  It will just make things even worse.