16
   

Bloodless Coup in Georgia? 11/22/03--Following Georgia.

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2008 12:49 pm
I'm sure you're all reading the basic news reports from Georgia now...

Meanwhile, in terms of backgrounder, TNR (of all places, not exactly on-the-ball with this kind of foreign affairs usually) flagged a piece at Foreign Policy -- and it quotes a bit from that article that neatly breaks things down in no more than three paras:

Quote:
Here's the basic logic:

  • Georgia can't join NATO until it is stable
  • Russia doesn't want Georgia to join NATO
  • Ergo, Russia will destabilize Georgia
The policy had the added bonus of revenge for the Western powers' recognition of Kosovo and it cast doubts on the wisdom of using Georgia as an energy corridor. Plus, it puts the United States in an awkward position and exposes American backing of Georgia as not worth a damned thing. For Putin, it's a quadruple play.

Did Saakashvili miscalculate? Absolutely. He foolishly thought that Georgia could take back South Ossetia before Russia could effectively counterattack, and then the international community would shut the conflict down. But given Putin's brutal logic, this war was probably going to happen one way or another--it was just a question of when.


Yep.

Makes me curious about the full article.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2008 01:05 pm
Saakashvili miscalculated when he thought that Georgia could escape becoming once again a satellite of Russia by playing the Energy card. Russia in intent upon rebuilding the empire, there will be no escape for Georgia. There is not a damn thing Europe or America can do to change this future event.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2008 01:14 pm
checking in.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2008 01:44 pm
Hi guys.

Hawkeye, yeah that would seem the obvious destiny... but it's one the Georgians have been fighting for two decades now (and before that, in the 1910s/20s). And I hope they will suceed against the odds, like the Balts before them.

They only stand a chance if the spotlight remains on them though, and if they keep getting robust outside support (which the Bush admin, to its credit has given). And of course, on the other hand, if they keep their own problems with corruption and authoritarianism in check. Which Saakashvili has not done a good job on, though a better one than his predecessors.

This is a provocative view.... and it's easy to argue that it's unrealistic. But it has my sympathy:

Quote:
Comment: Nato should press on and give Georgia membership

Times Online
August 10, 2008

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00312/nato3_385x185_312457a.jpg
(Rompress/EPA)

President Bush lost the argument at the Nato summit, which marked a victory for Vladimir Putin


Briefing from Bronwen Maddox

The clash between Georgia and Russia would have exploded anyway, in some form, if Nato decided to press ahead with offering Georgia a start on the road to membership, which could have come at its meeting at the end of the year.

The eruption on Friday - and the apparent miscalculations by Georgia and the US - should not deter Nato from taking that step soon.

But of course, it will put off many Nato members. They will consider how, if Georgia had already been a member, they would have been bound to defend it. Germany will now win more support for its argument, which dominated the Nato summit in the spring, that it would be wrong to offer membership for fear of provoking Russia and while its territory remains in dispute. Alarm at this near-war on Europe's borders will easily persuade more governments of the need for caution.

That would be wrong. It would tell Russia that it had an effective veto over who joined Nato. It would discourage the pro-American and pro-European spirit of Mikheil Saakashvili, elected overwhelmingly in 2004, partly for those sentiments. And it might even make it harder to agree the deployment of international peacemakers in South Ossetia - one of the better possible resolutions of this clash - by showing that the US and Europe were indifferent to Georgia's case.

Both sides now have incentives to step back. It appears as if there have been serious miscalculations, although more so on the Georgian side. Given the close contact with the Washington that might be extended to the US as well.

Mr Saakashvili may have deluded himself that four years of US help in equipping his armed forces really enabled them to make a quick dash for their prize. In taking advantage of the distraction of the Olympics, he looks sneaky, and so jeopardises his claim to the moral high ground, always his strongest point.

But Russia, in the drama of its move inside internationally-recognised Georgian sovereign borders, has escalated the dispute to a level that demands a formal response. At the very least, it has sacrificed prospects for the defence pact with Europe which it has mooted.


The Nato summit in Bucharest in April was an astonishing affair, by the dry standards of its predecessors. It was a blunt clash of philosophies about the future of Europe. On one side was President Bush, making one of the best speeches of his tenure, about the value of bringing Georgia and Ukraine into Nato, as an assertion of principles held in common. On the other was Angela Merkel, Germany's Chancellor, laying out all the reasons why this should be postponed, perhaps forever, even at the cost of undermining the pro-Western camp in Georgia. (It was a particularly bad performance by Gordon Brown, who was almost invisible).

Mr Bush didn't win; Merkel did. But one important concession was made - the promise of membership at some point, although without dates. Of course, the present clash with Russia makes it important that the question of South Ossetia begins to be resolved, by exploring in more detail the offers of autonomy which Mr Saakashvili has offered it, and whether a force with an international mandate might replace the Russian force which has now lost any claim to be neutral. But there are precedents (Turkey and Greece) for including members within the alliance who have failed to resolve territorial questions.

One of the uses of Nato is to draw a line between countries which share the same principles and those which do not. Georgia has indicated which side it is on. That is worth respecting, and rewarding. It would be giving in to Russian bullying to believe that the cost of membership is a war.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 07:22 am
We've reached full-scale alarm phase red...


Quote:
Russians Push Past Separatist Area to Assault Central Georgia

New York Times
August 11, 2008

Russia expanded its attacks on Georgia on Sunday, moving tanks and troops through the separatist enclave of South Ossetia and advancing toward the city of Gori in central Georgia, in its first direct assault on a Georgian city with ground forces during three days of heavy fighting, Georgian officials said.Two senior Western officials said that it was unclear whether Russia intended a full invasion of Georgia, but that its aims could go as far as destroying its armed forces or overthrowing Georgia's pro-Western president, Mikheil Saakashvili.

"They seem to have gone beyond the logical stopping point," one senior Western diplomat said, speaking anonymously under normal diplomatic protocol.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/11/world/20080811_subGEORGIAmap.jpg


The escalation of fighting raised tensions between Russia and its former cold war foes to their highest level in decades. President Bush has promoted Georgia as a bastion of democracy, helped strengthen its military and urged that NATO admit the country to membership. Georgia serves as a major conduit for oil flowing from Russia and Central Asia to the West.

But Russia, emboldened by windfall profits from oil exports, is showing a resolve to reassert its dominance in a region it has always considered its "near abroad."

The military action, which has involved air, naval and missile attacks, is the largest engagement by Russian forces outside its borders since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Russia escalated its assault on Sunday despite strong diplomatic warnings from Mr. Bush and European leaders, underscoring the limits of Western influence over Russia at a time when the rest of Europe depends heavily on Russia for natural gas and the United States needs Moscow's cooperation if it hopes to curtail what it believes is a nuclear weapons threat from Iran.

Mr. Bush, in Beijing for the Olympics, strongly criticized the Russian attacks, especially those outside South Ossetia, and urged an immediate cease-fire. In an interview on NBC on Monday morning, he said he had been "very firm" with both Russia's prime minister, Vladimir V. Putin, and its president, Dmitri Medvedev.

Earlier, Vice President Dick Cheney expressed a strong warning for Russia. In a telephone conversation with the Georgian president, he said "that Russian aggression must not go unanswered, and that its continuation would have serious consequences for its relations with the United States, as well as the broader international community," a spokeswoman, Lea Anne McBride, said in a statement released by the White House.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/photo/2008/08/11/20080810GEORGIA/24417444.JPG
Wounded South Ossetians were treated in a hospital shelter in the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali.


European officials said Monday that Mr. Saakashvili had signed a cease-fire agreement, but that the Russians had yet to endorse the measure. "It's good to have the Georgian signature, but I'd say we're not even halfway there yet," said Alexander Stubb, the Finnish foreign minister and chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, speaking from Georgia in a telephone interview with CNN.

France, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, also pushed Monday for an immediate cease-fire. The French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, was in Tbilisi before traveling to Moscow in hopes of mediating a cease-fire. In a radio interview from the Georgian capital, he said President Nicolas Sarkozy of France would also travel to Moscow, perhaps as early as Tuesday. "To try to finalize all the steps, we are taking around a document that has to be accepted by both sides," he said.

Russian officials say Georgia provoked the assault by attacking South Ossetia last week, causing heavy civilian casualties. But Western diplomats and military officials said they worried that Russia's decision to extend the fighting and open a second front in Abkhazia indicated that it had sought to use a relatively low-level conflict in a conflict-prone part of the Caucasus region to extend its influence over a much broader area.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/10/world/10cnd-georgia2.600.jpg
Russian ground forces on Sunday passed a car with a South Ossetian license plate near the town of Dzhava in South Ossetia.


On Sunday, Russian artillery shells slammed the city of Gori, a major military installation and transportation hub in Georgia. In the separatist region of Abkhazia, Russian paratroopers and their Abkhaz allies battled Georgian special forces and tried to cross the boundary into undisputed Georgian territory, Georgian officials said.

Russia dropped a bomb on Tbilisi's international airport shortly before Mr. Kouchner was due to land, Georgian officials said. It twice bombed an aviation factory on the outskirts of the capital. Russia's Black Sea Fleet patrolled the coast of Abkhazia, and its Defense Ministry said Russian warships had sunk a Georgian gunboat that fired on them.


The Kremlin declined to say whether its troops had entered Georgia proper but said all its actions were intended to strike at Georgian military forces that had fired on its peacekeeping troops in South Ossetia.

A senior Russian defense official, Anatoly Nogovitsyn, said early Sunday that Russia did not intend to "break into" Georgian territory.

The Bush administration said it would seek a resolution from the United Nations Security Council condemning Russian military actions in Georgia.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/photo/2008/08/11/20080810GEORGIA/24421092.JPG
A Georgian woman holding her baby cried at her damaged home in Gori. Georgians around Gori spoke of America plaintively and uncertainly.




The official was not authorized to brief the press and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The official added: "This is not about military objectives. This is about a political objective: removing a thorn in their side."

Tensions with Mr. Saakashvili escalated when he made a centerpiece of his presidency the reunification of Georgia with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, pro-Russian regions that won de facto autonomy in fighting in the early 1990s.

Russia has issued passports to many residents in the territories and has stationed peacekeeping troops in them. Heavy fighting broke out last week in South Ossetia when Georgian troops tried to take its capital in what seems to have been a major miscalculation.

Reports of the death toll varied widely, from the low hundreds to more than 2,000, but none could be independently verified.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/photo/2008/08/11/20080810GEORGIA/24412754.JPG
A steady stream of people were fleeing the conflict zone. Russian authorities estimated that 34,000 refugees had crossed the border and said 3,000 more evacuations were planned for Monday. Russia has granted passports to most South Ossetians.


Russian officials say more than 30,000 South Ossetians have fled into Russia.

Russia says it is acting to protect residents there and to punish Georgia for the assault, which Georgia says was to protect Georgian enclaves in the territory from attack and to push out illegally deployed Russian troops.

Russian officials told Russian news agencies late Sunday night that Georgian troops were attacking Tskhinvali.

There were no independent observers with either country's forces, and verifying claims about military activity was not immediately possible.

Georgian officials expressed alarm on Sunday that Russia might be aiming to take Gori, about a 45-minute drive south from Tskhinvali. Gori, a major staging area for the Georgian military, sits in a valley that is the main route connecting the east and west halves of Georgia.

Shota Utiashvili, an official in the Georgian Interior Ministry, said the Russians had moved tanks and troops to within a few kilometers of Gori and were "trying to cut the country in half."


Mr. Utiashvili said that if they tried to occupy Georgia, "there will probably be guerrilla warfare all over the country."

He said: "We need large supplies of humanitarian aid, because we have thousands of wounded. And weapons. We need weapons."

Sunday evening, artillery and tank fire could be heard from the outskirts of Gori. During a pause in the fighting, Georgian military personnel appeared to be flowing into the city. Georgian officials said they would defend it.

Ambulances with flashing red and blue lights roared back and forth on the highway between Gori and Tbilisi, along with troop transports. Families fled Gori in cars and donkey carts.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/photo/2008/08/11/20080810GEORGIA/24406224.JPG
A wounded Georgian woman in front of an apartment building damaged by a Russian airstrike in Gori, a major military installation and transportation hub in Georgia.


"The whole family is running away. There is nowhere for us to take shelter," said Ketevan Sunabali, 40, who had left home in a pair of red Winnie the Pooh slippers. She said she had heard the bombs exploding and seen the smoke and just jumped in the car with her husband, without stopping to take any of their belongings.

"I had a home. I had a father," said Gogita Kazahashvili, 29. "My father died today from the bombing. I've seen with my own eyes. My house was destroyed. I buried my father myself, by where the house was."

A man who said he was fleeing from Kakhvi, which he described as a Georgian-controlled enclave squeezed between parts of South Ossetia along the winding border, said Russian soldiers had come to his house, and he had run away. Along the road, others who were displaced carried their possessions in wheelbarrows and plastic bags.

A reporter for The New York Times saw artillery being fired from Russian-controlled areas into Georgian territory near the villages of Eredvy and Prisi, about two miles from Tskhinvali. Grassy fields were burning in the villages and clouds of dust rose with the impact of the shells.

Even one close Russian ally, Maksim K. Gvindzhiya, expressed alarm about the possibility of Russian troops moving on Gori and clashing with Georgians on unchallenged Georgian territory.

"If it happened, then it's a big mess, it's a big problem, because it is direct confrontation," said Mr. Gvindzhiya, deputy foreign affairs minister for the de facto government of Abkhazia. "It's going out of the conflict zone."

Fighting escalated in Abkhazia as well, Mr. Gvindzhiya and Georgian officials said.

Russia doubled the number of its troops in Abkhazia to about 6,000 early Sunday, landing paratroopers at an airport near the Black Sea. There was heavy fighting in the Kodori Gorge, the only area in Abkhazia that Georgia controls, with Russian paratroopers ferried in by helicopter.


In Washington, Secretary Rice worked through the night Saturday with other Bush administration officials on a Security Council resolution. American diplomats said that they did not want an actual Security Council vote on the resolution until Tuesday or so, the better to draw out the debate and publicly shame the Russian government. While the resolution will carry no punitive weight, and is almost sure to be vetoed by Russia, a permanent Council member, the hope is that it could create more pressure for a cease-fire, officials said.



It's like Bosnia in 1992 all over again.

You have a country fraught with ethnic/minority problems, in which part of the country has split away into a separate ethnic mini-state (Republika Srpska in Bosnia, South-Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia) -- thanks to the active military and political support from the far larger neighbouring country (Serbia, Russia). That mini-state is ethnically cleansed (of Muslims resp. Georgians).

The conflict is actively instigated and pushed on by the neighbouring power in order to establish its lordship over the country, and when the national army tried to reimpose its control, it floods in with arms and troops and launches an outright war. And the West stands by, wringing its hands and utterly powerless or unwilling to do anything about it.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 08:40 am
Nimh-- If the West barged in, you'd likely be saying we'd escalate it and it wasn't our fight....

Regardless, this is horrific.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 08:42 am
In that pic of the injured woman, look just to her left. They completely ignored that in the caption.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 08:46 am
OMG---I didn't notice that. So awful.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 09:04 am
nimh wrote:
It's like Bosnia in 1992 all over again.

You have a country fraught with ethnic/minority problems, in which part of the country has split away into a separate ethnic mini-state (Republika Srpska in Bosnia, South-Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia) -- thanks to the active military and political support from the far larger neighbouring country (Serbia, Russia). That mini-state is ethnically cleansed (of Muslims resp. Georgians).

The conflict is actively instigated and pushed on by the neighbouring power in order to establish its lordship over the country, and when the national army tried to reimpose its control, it floods in with arms and troops and launches an outright war. And the West stands by, wringing its hands and utterly powerless or unwilling to do anything about it.



It's a similar situation in many regards. However, I don't think the reluctance to enter into a military conflict with the Serbs can be equated with the reluctance to enter into a full fledged war with Russia.

What a fucked up situation.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 09:43 am
Dick Cheney Thinks He Has a Dog in the Russia-Georgia Fight
Sunday, August 10, 2008 -Pottersville
One Possible Reason Why Dick Cheney Thinks He Has a Dog in the Russia-Georgia Fight

"A proposed alternative pipeline would skirt Russia and run through Georgia, as an oil pipeline now does. 'If Georgia collapses in turmoil,' Mr. Goldman notes, 'investors will not put up the money for a bypass pipeline.' And so, he concludes, Mr. Putin has done his best to destabilize the Saakashvili regime." - James Traub, the The New York Times

Then there's this little-reported news item that no doubt got Dick Cheney's attention a lot more quickly than the news of 1500-2000 Georgian civilians getting killed:

Russian fighter jets targeted the major Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline which carries oil to the West from Asia but missed.

Finally, we're getting beyond the How Dare They Do This to a Sovereign Nation?! Bullshit that we've been hearing from Bush to McCain to Obama.

The BTC pipeline, for anyone who doesn't follow the news or hasn't at least read Jeremy Scahill's book about Blackwater, bypasses Russia entirely and runs straight through Georgia. A look at the map above reveals that the alternative pipeline, which has been a thorn in Putin's side from the beginning and a bone of contention between the US and Russia, runs straight through Georgia's capital of Tbilisi.

Of course, Iraq was all about liberating them from another brutal dictatorship that just happened, by sheer coincidence, to be sitting atop the second biggest oil reserves on the planet earth. So I certainly trust in Cheney's and McCain's pious bromides about standing up for a democratically-elected government that just happens to be one of three hosts to a US-backed oil pipeline under attack from a Russia that can only, by coincidence only, be hurt by it.

Yeah, it's all about democracy. That's it.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 09:45 am
Lash wrote:
Nimh-- If the West barged in, you'd likely be saying we'd escalate it and it wasn't our fight....

Bull. I supported the intervention in Kosovo didnt I? And in Bosnia, where it came much too late..

But I know, I know, anyone who opposed the Iraq disaster must be a feckless isolationist... or something.. Rolling Eyes

---

OK, I'll bite anyway... It's kind of hard to know what I'd be saying depending on what you mean by "barging in" exactly, isnt it?

If you mean, send in the US army with an invasion army to take over Georgian territory and fight off the Russian tanks itself, then yeah, that probably wouldnt be the smartest idea. Even though I'd still sympathise, since you'd probably be invited and welcomed by an allied government, after all. It still wouldnt be Iraq, if that's what you're getting at.

Meanwhile, shirking back from opening up full-fronted war with Russia like that, I know more realistically minded pundits would declare me crazy for suggesting it, but at least we could send them weapons, couldnt we? Or even a secret elite unit to help with the trickier stuff..

And again, more level-headed people will probably think it reckless, but couldnt NATO send ships onto the Black Sea for a demonstrative military exercise? Purely to intimidate Russia into checking itself and withdrawing, at least from Georgia proper, and stopping the bombing. I mean, Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey are all in NATO, they're on the Black Sea...

Something, in any case, to send the message that this is not just all beanbag to the West, some backyard problem of theirs that in the end, the West will shrug at and move on..

I mean, even short of that kind of military sabre-rattling, we should massively retaliate diplomatically. Kick Russia out of the WTO negotiation process, where they're close to membership -- the West should be able to block that shouldnt it? Nix the EU/Russia and US/Russia trade agreements that were made in the last four years. Withdraw all ambassadors. I dunno, I'm no expert on this.

What I do know is that Russia is doing this because they think they can get away with this without any long-term harm done to their international position. They're just counting on the West handwringing but ultimately looking away and proceeding with business as regular - again. After all, it's a tiny country, Saakashvili isnt blameless either, it's in Russia's backyard, there's presidential elections going on...

I dont know whether a massive show of diplomatic retaliation would make Russia think again and check themselves, but it might well. They're tired of this pesky Georgian thorn in its side, but it's still a tiny country -- if they have to choose between going back to just suffering it or facing a massive crisis with the West, they might well think again.

We should try, in any case. Use all means short of getting our own army in -- that would already be much, much more than the EU and US have done so far re Russia's meddling. And if it were up to me, stage a show of force in the Black Sea or even start sending in weapons, the way the West shamefully refused to do with Bosnia when it was being overpowered.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 09:48 am
Re: Dick Cheney Thinks He Has a Dog in the Russia-Georgia Fi
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Finally, we're getting beyond the How Dare They Do This to a Sovereign Nation?! Bullshit that we've been hearing from Bush to McCain to Obama.


Huh? Russia is, at this very moment, bombing, attacking and invading a sovereign nation.

I don't particularly like Dick Cheney, but I find it very difficult to blame him for what Russia is doing.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 09:56 am
Supplying arms, we've done many times to quite unsympathetic, vocal criticism---the Saddam experiment which eventually became the Persian Gulf/Iraq War... Advisors became troops in Vietnam... Peacekeepers become US service personnel, dragged through Mogadishu...

sounds of war barely heard above the anti-American criticism (Anti-American meaning what it says, not with all the attachments).

What about the UN?
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 09:58 am
Without our being involved in Iraq we would be in a much better position to threaten Russia. I haven't figured out if we really want Russia out of Georgia or not. Bush dosent seem to really be concerned. But it might be he is just oblivious to what is happening in europe. Not the brightest bulb in washington or anywhere for that matter.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 09:58 am
Shows of force in the water...reminds me of the Bay of Pigs...and the time we nearly all got nuked... Don't point it if you aren't planning to use it.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 09:59 am
Rabel-- How would you formulate the opinion that Bush doesn't seem to be concerned?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 10:02 am
Lash wrote:
Rabel-- How would you formulate the opinion that Bush doesn't seem to be concerned?


Maybe, it's the whole sitting on his ass at the olympics part.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 10:04 am
Lash wrote:
Supplying arms, we've done many times to quite unsympathetic, vocal criticism---the Saddam experiment which eventually became the Persian Gulf/Iraq War... Advisors became troops in Vietnam... Peacekeepers become US service personnel, dragged through Mogadishu...

sounds of war barely heard above the anti-American criticism (Anti-American meaning what it says, not with all the attachments).

What about the UN?


Russia has veto power in the Security Council. Like in Bosnia and the Kosovo, NATO would likely have a better shot at achieving something. In my opinion.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 10:04 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Lash wrote:
Rabel-- How would you formulate the opinion that Bush doesn't seem to be concerned?


Maybe, it's the whole sitting on his ass at the olympics part.

Cycloptichorn

You guys slay me. Many times, a president will actively put across a public perception of holiday or some such while working intensely on an urgent matter in private.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 10:05 am
old europe wrote:
Lash wrote:
Supplying arms, we've done many times to quite unsympathetic, vocal criticism---the Saddam experiment which eventually became the Persian Gulf/Iraq War... Advisors became troops in Vietnam... Peacekeepers become US service personnel, dragged through Mogadishu...

sounds of war barely heard above the anti-American criticism (Anti-American meaning what it says, not with all the attachments).

What about the UN?


Russia has veto power in the Security Council. Like in Bosnia and the Kosovo, NATO would likely have a better shot at achieving something. In my opinion.

They can at least be called on the carpet there, so to speak...and be forced into dialogue. But, yeah, OE, point taken. i think BOTH should take up the issue now.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.21 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 11:00:02