Well, while it may not be on the daily Kos, I do believe Bush already has fingers pointed at him since many are questioning what are we gonna do as if somehow this was our war or something. Whether we get involved in some way or not, we will probably end up being responsible for it because if Russia wins here we will be seen as ignoring an ally but if Georgia comes out on top then people will say we risked screwing things up with Russia and Iran for little old Georgia.

Read the Cambridge Hiustory of China a=nd the Chapter on Tibet and you will know that from the Tang period onwarsds the Tibetans had acknowledged the suzerainity of China the Middle Kingdom. Please do not argue about History with me.

Vietnam was one unitwed country even in histiorical times i.e before the creatoin of Indo-Chine of the French and the invasion was only a move towarsd uniofication. and 1968 Chez is an instyasnce of invasion.

About Israel the less said the bettwr because most of the world see Israel as an occupier of land to which it has no title. therefore an invader of Palestine. Please understand that History is more serious than politcal [polemics.

Russian invasion of ASfghainstan did not happen. It was a soviet invasion

Russian invasion as you call it was a humanitariaN INTERVENTION.

I don't care how the world sees Israel. Anti-Semites will always have their own version of history.

Israel's title to "Palestine" is as good as anybody else's title to land they won in a war. How do you think the Arabs won "Palestine" before they lost it to the Turks?




I said "Soviet Union", didn't I?



Of course it was.

There is no place for abnti-semitism in a globalising world nor can Israel use anti-semitism charge to evade its responsibilities under International law.

AS FOR rUSSIA, YES i TOO AM A LITTLE SCEPTICAL ABOUT THAT hUMANITARIAN BIT, BUT iNTERNATIONAL lAW does give states the justification for intervention. Is this not what the West wants to do in Darfur.

Further, Russia cannot allow, given the access to the oil states of Central Asia through Georgia, to fall into the trap of the US. And the recent war games with the USA was predicated on just such a scenarion

That would be the day when Jews can use the anti-Semitism charge to escape discrimination!

Israel's "responsibilities under international law" are very different to other country's responsibilities under international law. International law knows several special exceptions when it comes to the Jewish state:

"Palestinian" "refugees" are, uniquely among refugees, counted as "refugees" even when they are merely descendants of actual "refugees". The same does not apply to Germans or Jews or other descendants of "refugees".

Jewish refugees from Arab countries have never been afforded the status of refugees and there was no UN aid for them and still isn't. Israel absorbed them alone and without UN help.

Security council resolutions call for a permission for refugees to return if they are willing to live in peace, which they have stated they are NOT, but "international law" only considers the first part of the resolution (right of return), not the proviso (if willing to live in peace).

Under international law gaining land through war is illegal, but that point was never accepted as an argument against Arab attempts to invade and annex Israel. But the argument was made against Israel despite the fact that Israel a) offered to give the land back in return for peace, only took land in defensive wars, i.e. when the Arab states had already broken the law, and c) in the case of East-Jerusalem only took land that wasn't legally part of any state or country anyway.

Under international law a country has a duty to stop attacks on other countries from its territory. But Arab countries have allowed and some still do allow such attacks on Israel without being reprimanded or punished by the UN.

Under international law the Suez canal is open for all trade yet Egypt wouldn't allow Israel to use it and the UN did not reprimand or punish Egypt for that breach of "international law".

The UN claim that Jewish "settlements" in occupied land are illegal but no international law actually prohibits such settlements. The prohibition was made up specifically for Israel and Jewish settlers and didn't, for some reason, apply to Jordanians moving to the West Bank when it was under Jordanian control.

Finally, the law about gaining land in a war being illegal has only been applied in Israel's case, not in the case of Russia annexing parts of Germany and Poland and not in the case of Poland annexing parts of Germany.

Ironically Israel is both blamed for treating non-Israeli citizens ("Palestinians") as unequal AND for annexing parts of the occupied territories and granting citizenship to the people living there. "International law" apparently doesn't allow Israel to treat "Palestinians" are non-citizens OR citizens. Whatever Israel does in this regard is "illegal" under "international law".

So if "international law" were equal and the same for Israel and other countries, you might have a point. But until then, I blame anti-Semitism for the unequal application and intent of the law.

If you are in favour of applying international law equally and fairly, I support your position. Let's start with removing the "refugee" status of descendants of Arab refugees and granting it to surviving Jewish refugees.

You may know history, but you do not understand it. One can have a treaty with a country, but that treaty does not span regime change. Ancient history is no excuse for current aggression. You seem to think it is ok for Mexico to invade the US, even though Mexico's claim to the southwest is artifical itself (it was occupied previously by Apache, Navaho, Comanche, etc.). So "historical claims" are the lame excuse used by Hitler to annex half of Europe before he actually started the war in Poland.

Very Lame. South Vietnam at one times was part of Siam. At one time Part of the Mongol Empire. Do we now return the jurisdiction to Mongolia? Yet that is your arguement here. By your logic, Germany should re-conquer Europe (they had it at one time), or perhaps the Vatican should (the Holy Roman Empire anyone?).

You may know history, but you surely do not understand it.

Sorry. I know it's pointless.

Just realise that I am not arguing _with_ you as much as I am correcting you so that others see where you are coming from.

It is difficult to ignore your ignorance of history when you say things like there have been no invasions before 2003 or make it clear that you simply disregard all facts that inconvenience Arab nationalism while demanding that all of Germany's WW2 allies should be treated as such.

I have been trying hard to understand it.

International Law is based on a realistic perception of the past and most would say History is a ggod enough metaphor. If history and historical claims are removed from the practice of statecraft then we have only the law of anarchy-- big fish eating small fish. USA invasdes Iraq and effects a regime change, Russia invades Georgia and annexes territorey(not yet formaslly). Unilateralism will only incraese if historical claims are ignored.

Ancient history is one of the claims on which Israel legitimises itself.

Most Zionists never use that claim. Most Zionists use the claim that Jews bought land, have a right to live on that land, and that Jews must live somewhere.

You might want to get your Funk and Wagnalls out and then read. Unless you truly believe that only history that is defined by you has a valid claim.

Historically, Jews lived in Israel before Palestinians (the illusory people that no one can fine in antiquity). How far back does your selective history go? Who decides the length of history before a claim is moot? Surely your trouble in understanding my post stems from some arbitrary delineation of when history is to be counted and when it is not. So the question remains for you. When does history become irrelevant? Apparently by your reckoning, it is somewhere between 50 and 1500 years ago. Since the claim you support cannot be supported back farther than that, nor sooner than 50 years ago (if even then).

Again, your selective use of history shows a great tendency towards using selective facts to back up an untenable position, but cannot be used in a logic and reasoned excuse for your statements.

That's simple.

When Arabs invade a land, the land is Arab.

When Arabs lose a land, the land remains Arab.

That apparently is the yard stick used in his arguement to validated his claim.

It's similar to the "refugees" game.

Although the Arabs own most of the land in northern Africa and the middle east, "Palestinian" refugees and their descendants are homeless if not allowed "back" into Israel.

But on the other hand the Jewish refugees that fled Arab countries and live in Israel now are not regarded as homeless.

If you take Iraq War as an example, USA created a non existent enemy in order tio justiofy regime change in Iraq. There was no need to make a huge noise about WMDs when the purpose was regime change. The "democracy" in Iraq has resulted in the killing and displacement of  nearly 2 million Iraqi citizens. Russia has not done anything remeotely comparable.. Georgia was becoming too close to the West and Russia begasn to feel uncomfortable in much the same way as USA would feel hostile should there be an anti US government in Mexico. Great Powers act in ther self interest and thy use contrived logic to justify their decisions.

Yeah, that's right. Saddam Hussein was a non-existent enemy.

Afterall, the only people he killed were Jews, Kurds, and Shiiites. How could that possible make him an enemy?