Why does Russia have the privilege to defend its interest while the west does not?

Shouldn't you treat the Russian invasion of Georgia like the coalition invasion of Iraq?

I think "in the interest of peace" Russia will have to stop treating former Soviet republics as if they were Russian vassals.

 

Yea, kinda interesting how once again another person makes those who do the same that the US do be right while we are always wrong. Of course, Bahu does not mention all the sense killing that Russia is currently doing as well. Why mention that Russia problem is the Georgian Gov't and their way of deal with problems is killing innocent civilians by bombing the hell out of them. But the US was evil when we went into Iraq doing everything we could to avoid civilian casualties.

Bahu, Interesting article although seems to be very sympathetic towards Russia's invasion.

Here is my contributions to this:
-Tensions between Russia and Georgia have been escalating since Mikheil Saakashvili was elected to office in 2004.
-the 2000 you mentioned being killed were also Russian citizens and also sympathetic towards Russian influence rejecting President Saakashvili's Western influence and all yet to be 'verified'.
-Georgia's flex of muscle towards the people in South Ossetia (North Georgia) and Abkhazia as they were trying to separate themselves from Georgia seeking out their own sovereignty. Georgia had every right to go in and regain 'control' of their region under their sovereignty (although the 'ethnic' cleansing was not). Russia's invasion is not fully justified.
-I agree the US cannot and should not help at this time in manpower but can and should help militarily with weapons to help Georgia to defend herself. As sad as this may be we need to clean up our current messes (Iraq and Afghanistan). Although Georgia is not a 'member' of NATO gained a status of "Intensified Dialogue" which allows them to have greater influence in political affairs. NATO needs to be heavily involved.

That's all for now.

BTW, I have a friend that was part of the 170 Americans that were convoyed out of Georgia to neighboring Armenia. Her dad is currently still in Tbilisi (the capital) for now.

Isn't that a backward question? it is amazing how good you are in spinning things. both actions are not justified. but since we did it first, how can we act as if we defend the integrity of other nations' borders?

we declared that pre-empyive actions is our policy to protect our interests ... can we then say others cant do the same.

Welcome to the new world-order ... the order of the Jungle.

God knows who else will follow the same policy ....  

The US justification for invading Iraq was the alledgged WMDs that were never there and regime change in Iraq was justified in the name of the war crime committed by Saddam in the Kurdish regions. It is beside the point that since the US invasion more people have been killed iN Iraq than in the 20 years of Saddam Husseions's regime.

 

There is one basic difference:Georgia started the killing of civillians in  The Republic of South Osettia and the 2,000 odd civillians who were butchered were all of Russian origin. On the eve of the US led invasion the justification was the WMDs that Hussein was accused of possessing. The two situations are not compararable.

The interests of peace will equally be served if the USA stops poaching on the territorial sphere of influence of Russia.

I differentiate between dictatorships that finance the people who try to kill me and democracies who do not.




Maybe you declared that pre-emptive action is your policy. I am neo-conservative. I believe in waiting ten years while the enemy breaks cease-fire after cease-fire. Then I warn them for a few months and THEN I support an invasion.

Pre-emptive attacks, in my book, are only justified if the enemy would otherwise destroy my country.

But I don't see Georgia being quite such a danger for Russia yet.

I am just amused how the doves are so hawkish as long as the US is not involved (and of course they think the US should be).

The way I understand it:

1. The UN cannot legally invade another country because Russia has a veto.

2. The UN cannot stop Russia from legally invading another country because Russia has a veto.

Maybe I just missed it but did Russia even ask the UN before deciding to react to whatever Georgia was doing and invade? I am asking because I remember MONTHS of discussion when the US and Britain wanted to invade Iraq.

And apart from a few pro-Georgian protesters, who is worried about Russia violating "international law" to save an oppressed minority?

Did not the NATO attack Serbia in the name of protecting Bosnian muslims and the very act of Serbia protecting iots territorial integrity led to their leaders being charged with war crimes and not a single Bosnia muslim war lord who too conmittwed atrocities on Serbs was so charged.

Did not the UN with the complitcity of NATO cospire to have Kossovo declare its independence though all UN resolutions speak of maintaining the territorial integrity of Serbia.

Did not USA invade Iraq and affect a regime change though there was no UN vote to sanction this invasiion.

Is not the Sudanese Governemnt effort to protect its territorial intewgrity being questioned by the Western nations in the name of Human Rights. The Chirtian militias in Darfur are just as brutal as the Arab Janjaweed malitias, and the Black christuian mercenaries are being projected as freedom fighters.

Against such precedents there is no use questioning Russia.

Human Rights has become a convinient alibii to cover all kinds of real and imagined sins. When USA talks of human rights it does not carry much conviction in view of what it has done to and in Iraq. After the Nazi invasion of Poland there has not been another brazen invasion of another country on totally trumped up justification. The quisling government of Maliki has even stopped counting the dead in Iraq as the world will start asking USA difficult questions. The crimes of the Black Christian militias in Darfur are being hushed up, while those of the Arabs projected. I may conced that in absolute numbers the Janjaweed has killed more, but the Christian separatists are not a bunch of angels.

No. NATO did not attack Serbia in the name of protecting Bosnian Muslims. NATO weren't involved in the Bosnia war. The UN was and _failed_ to protect Bosnian Muslims.

I think you are confusing Bosnia with Kosovo. But that attack was permitted by the UN. (Kosovo's independence, however, was not.)



Yes. And good thing too. I am with Kosovo.



Actually, there was discussion for half a year. And even though the UN cease-fire with Iraq from 1990 allowed an attack (since Iraq had broken the cease-fire several times), France threatened to veto anyway.

If the authorities refuse to act, a citizen may act himself. It's common law, isn't it?



No?

What western nations question is the need to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Darfurians. It was southern Sudan that sought independence, not Darfur.



Nobody thinks there is a use. We were just wondering why the US and Britain base their attacks on international law and have the UN discuss it for months while Russia moves alone whenever they want against whomever they like. That's all.

China invaded Tibet.

North Korea invaded South Korea.

North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam.

Jordan invaded the West Bank. Egypt invaded Gaza.

Most Arab countries invaded Israel. Three times.

The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. And Czechoslovakia. And Hungary.

Russia invaded Georgia.


Bahu, you are either an unskilled liar or totally ignorant of history.

Serbia did not have a veto.

But a question for Bahu, and the other internationals here.

Why "US Game Plan"? Where is "India Game Plan" or China, or Germany, or UK, or Canada, or ?

It was difficult but they found a way to make this about the US.

Expect the announcement, in a few days, on Daily Kos or some other left-wing blog site, how the entire thing is George Bush's fault anyway.

Prophetic and true.