Former Carter National Security Adviser and longtime Russia expert Zbigniew Brzezinski has some interesting comments on Russia's war with Georgia in this interview. I'm not sure that the situation requires as forceful a Western response as Brzezinski argues for. However, he is right to suggest that Russia's offensive - which now apparently includes an effort to overthrow the democratically elected Georgian government - is an ominous sign of the Putin regime's imperialistic ambitions. I also agree with Brzezinski's comment that "This invasion of Georgia by Russia is a very sad commentary on eight years of self-delusion in the White House regarding Putin and his regime." Even George W. Bush probably has to admit that he was wrong to believe that there is any good in the former KGB colonel's "heart and soul," which Bush claimed to have looked into back in 2001.
Brzezinski has recently served as a foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama. It would be interesting to know if his views on Russia reflect those of the Democratic nominee.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- The Declaration of Independence and the Case for Non-Ethnic Secession:
- Was the Declaration of Independence an Example of Secession, Revolution, or Both?
- Tentative Thoughts on The Russia-Georgia Ceasefire Agreement:...
- South Ossetia and the Morality of Secession:
- Zbigniew Brzezinski on Russia and Georgia:
- CNN Website Gives Edwards Affair Higher Billing than the Russia-Georgia Fighting:
- Fighting Between Russia and Georgia:
- Secession, Ignorance, and Stupidity:
I’ll hazard a few guesses here:
1) Putin is clearly in charge and he is making it known that Russia is PISSED and will REMAIN PISSED until the Georgians do something about their incredibly politically-naive and militarily-stupid (40-year old American-trained lawyer from New York) prime minister – like a coup (something that happens a lot in the Caucasus);
2) Putin is locking in Russian territorial gains in South Ossetia before it retreats from the Georgian heartland, causing as much damage as possible to Georgian infrastructure for years to come (like Georgia’s primary airfield outside of Tblisi – virtually destroyed by Russian heavy bombers);
3) Meanwhile, Russia is provoking war in Abkhazia in a two-fer-one fire sale (perhaps they’d like to carve away Adjaria, in the southwest, as well?); and
4) Putin is showing the West how easy it would be for the Russians to disable or destroy the BTC pipeline (which could cause global oil to jump a good $30 per barrel).
Remember, the Georgians had a 2,000 man contingent in King George’s Coalition of the Shilling, in Iraq (who are now being air-lifted back home, thanks to Uncle Sam), making them the third largest coalition partner, after Britain.
The U.S. also trained the Georgian army at length and is their major arms supplier.
This is Russia’s – specifically Putin’s – way of saying to the U.S. – specifically Bush – “fuck YOU”.
So much for looking into their soul, eh?
Two possible flashpoints still remaining:
1) Russian use of ballistic missiles into Georgia; this has got to violate several treaties on its own; and
2) The possibility of U.S. involvement if a stray Russian missile takes out a U.S. plane ferrying Georgia military personnel home.
This is one of those situations where it is important to look not just to what is happening now, but to what will happen in the future. I can imagine a "realist" arguing that any strong confrontation with Russia over Georgia would not be worth it--the stakes are simply too small. But the problem is that failing to act now will basically just green light Russia to do similar things over and over again, one little move at a time, each seemingly too small to bother with, but the sum will be quite damaging. And Georgia is geopolitically a lot more important than its size would lead one to believe.
This is one of the more blatant acts of aggression by a major power in recent times. The US owes it to itself and to the world to really step up to the plate this time. Bush has mangled a lot of things during his presidency, it would be nice to finally see him to do something right.
Of course we do. We could get control of the air in a couple of days if we have the assets in place - A couple of Carrier Battle Groups and every F-22 we have flying out of Iraq or Israel.
I take it this is because the Georgian forces are quite competent so long as they aren't overwhelmed by sheer numbers, which in the short term is not an issue since it is difficult for Russia to move large numbers of troops rapidly through the mountains into South Ossetia. So a bit of air support is all the Georgians need to fend off the Russians?
It would certainly help and we could use our air against the Russian ground forces.
"...since it is difficult for Russia to move large numbers of troops rapidly through the mountains into South Ossetia." Note how fast the Russians have moved. They had to have been planning this for some time.
I am in complete agreement with Brzezinski on how critical the West's as well as the International Community at large's response is to the situation in Georgia. I have to wonder though what Georgia's VERY close ties to the U.S. (see earlier comments regarding training and equipment from the US), as well as their huge relative participation in Iraq (they were the 3rd largest contributor of troops - not bad for a country of 4.5 million) does to their standing and the relative volume of condemnation we will see from an international community where being close to America doesn't quite buy what it used to in terms of support.
Tomorrow - who knows? Certainly not the Democratic presumed nominee.
The territory itself is critical to this as is Russia maneuvers in Azerbaijan (also in progress), and their bombing of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline in the present campaign.
Its hard to see these three things happening together and miss the significance of the situation. Yet the media has been woeful in stitching the pieces together--at least in presenting this as a unified story. Ignorance it seems abounds.
I suspect that the West would take a harder line here, except Russia has carefully groomed the near East by spinning in the media for a few years now that the Georgian government is a Western puppet. Now any Western action risks poisoning the hearts and minds.
I'm sorry to have to be the one to make your prediction come true. (Being a Midwesterner-in-place and all.)
But I do take a realist approach to this issue. The "Near Abroad" matters tremendously more to the Russians than it does to us. We are not going to use force to compel the Russians to leave South Ossetia; nor does the political status of Ossetia or Abkhazia have much relevance for America's strategic interests.
Russia wants to be a Great Power, and exerting this sort of "influence" in the Caucusus is part of the way that Moscow lays claim to that status. Better Ossetia than Poland. In a perfect world, Russia would be content to hold on to Russia. For whatever reason, they have never been so. Is it worth the cost to us to contest their policy in Georgia? If so, why?
We are already fighting two wars that we can't afford (or rather are unwilling to pay for or supply manpower for), and now you want to get involved in a third?
Are you ready to sign up and actually fight this war, or have your taxes increased significantly to pay for it? How do you plan to supply natural gas to the Germans this winter when the Russians cut off their supply. Are you willing to spend the billions of dollars (and the commitant increase in taxes to immediate post-WWII levels)to keep the lights on in Europe and prevent the economy there from collapsing.
If not, then I suggest you STFU. The age of free wars is over.
I expect the US media and public opinion to come out heavily against Russia though, given that Georgia is a client state, and that the McCain camp is firmly in its pocket and has a huge incentive to reduce this to politics-friendly good guy vs. bad guy stuff
NATO just refused Georgia's application for membership, primarily because of fears about a future Russia-Georgia conflict. Now that the fighting is more than speculation, NATO is not about to get in the middle of this little war.
Putin and his ambitions are a huge problem. The U S should get tough via sanctions and trade restrictions, but they should be considered and thought through, maybe even left for the next President &Congress to decide.
I can't imagine we have any true strategic interest in Georgia. We do have a strategic interest in restraining future Russian aggressive behavior.
Georgia actually, you know, started the thing by sending its entire army into an unstable area which doesn't want to be Georgian sovereign territory in the first place and in which Russia had an internationally-recognised and CIS-mandated duty as a protector of the local's lives and liberty. Nobody mentioned that Georgia, a CIS member, violated its own obligations to the CIS brokered deal over South Ossetia.
No mentioning either that a senior State Dept. official was in Georgia just last week or that the US actually has a small permanent military base in Georgia - which guarantees that Russia doesn't try to annex Georgia proper, even if it really wanted to - and so the Bush administration must have known which way Saakashvili intended to jump and seems to have done diddly-squat to dissuade him.
Yet another disappointing move by triangulating Obama. "Change you can believe in" shouldn't include swapping the last set of hawks for the previous ones, but apparently it does - and it also includes playing to decades old American fear of the Soviet/Russian "menace". I can console myself with the thought that Clinton would have been even more hawkish and McCain is dreadfully warlike in comparison still, but it doesn't really give me a warm-fuzzy about the elections.
Lastly, how many of you supported the independence of Kosovo?
Ossetians do not want to live under georgians, you know.
Are they different kind of people?
The reason we're not going to intervene is neither money nor manpower, but the fact that Georgia is not worth WWIII. There's no possible face-saving way out if we actually attacked Russian forces. We could try sealing off the Roki tunnel and then see if Georgia could handle it on its own -- except that it can't. Russia already has too many forces on the ground, plus a naval force in the Black Sea, plus complete air superiority. So we would need to actually attack Russian forces. And once we do that, well, let's just say it wouldn't be good.
The reason we're not going to intervene is neither money nor manpower, but the fact that Georgia is not worth WWIII. There's no possible face-saving way out if we actually attacked Russian forces. We could try sealing off the Roki tunnel and then see if Georgia could handle it on its own -- except that it can't. Russia already has too many forces on the ground, plus a naval force in the Black Sea, plus complete air superiority. So we would need to actually attack Russian forces. And once we do that, well, let's just say it wouldn't be good."
And we have a winner.
The Kosovo analogy is not apt. It is not as if Nato was stirring up secessionist sentiment in the former Yugolavia to create a pretext for later military intervention. The question we face concerns Moscow's behavior, not the desires of the Ossetians. The Putin regime is not acting out of a desire to protect them.
Regarding the Roki Tunnel:
A) The Russians can't prevent this because we have stealth and standoff abilities they can't counter.
B) Plenty of plausible deniability, especially if the Georgians mount a doomed mission to take out the tunnel and we slip in and do it for them at the same time.
C) It's on Georgian territory anyway so we can blow it up with their permission
Without Roki, the Russians are limited to resupply via air which is not really their strong point.
Then it is just a matter of helping the Georgians to bleed out the forces already across the border... What do we have in the way of air-droppable anti-tank and anti-air that we could put together on short notice? I know we have lots of anti-tank options but the US isn't really noted for their strong anti-air as we tend to rely on air superiority to shoot down enemy fighters and bombers. Maybe borrow a huge pile of soviet era stuff from Iraq? The Georgians would be trained on it already.
Remember this gem from 1994 (sure to be on every Carter's Greatest Hits album)?:
"Mrs. Cedras was impressive, powerful and forceful. And attractive. She was slim and very attractive."
This stunned me. Bush's comment was no less dumb. To quote Bill the Cat: Gaaack!
The only real question is the practical one of how to sever a thousands of miles long pipeline.
It's very clever of them despite the obviousness.
Ossetians do not want to live under georgians, you know.
Are they different kind of people?"
Neither do the Ossetians living in Abkhazia want to live under the Abkhaz. I assume you support their right to secede? And the roughly 30% of South Ossetia that is Georgian may then secede from Ossetia?
Plus they wear boxy suits that have never seen a tailor. And monochromatic knit ties.
I think it is a good thing to have shills on these boards. It helps Russia squander resources that could otherwise be spent on something dangerous.
Like VCers have any influence on world affairs . . .
Actually, the Georgians are claiming that Ossetia separatists started this by shelling Georgia proper. Certainly, Russia has been massing troops along the border for weeks. The Georgians are trying to make the case that Russia's proxies created an incident to allow Russian intervention. There's at least room for more than Sputnik's single take on things, a view more sympathetic to Georgia.
Which does not make this conflict something we need to get into. But we should not foolishly ignore what this may bode for future Russian expansion.
First Mikhael Gorbachev and then Vladmir Putin have shown that not every Soviet or Russian leader wears boxy suits--and that being a thug doesn't necessarily mean you can't recognize the value of a good tailor.
But let's keep history in mind. Stalin was from Georgia. So it probably IS their fault.
But apparently Stalin's family were ethnic Ossetians. Does that make it the Ossetians' fault?
Pick one.
The US should have moved to secure Georgian Airspace, and Bush should have left China.
Instead we get a public relations disaster. Bush enjoying the games while Georgia burns. Its Nero all over again.
There's lots of talk comparing Russia to Germany, and by implication a cycle of Appeasement by the West. A panic is building Ukraine that they're next...
This is really bad news.
As for Hoosier's raising of the realist argument, I, as I noted earlier, have to disagree with it. Now, if we are talking ships and planes and bombs, then I might have to side with him. I am not sure this is really worth a genuine military confrontation with Russia. But this particular crisis, with this particular antagonist, is, I believe, a situation where political and economic sanctions can have an impact (if nothing else I expect this pretty much keeps Russia out of the WTO for a long time, unless that is one of the concessions they extract in return for withdrawal--which is certainly a possibility). And such sanctions are a much lower cost to us to implement. As for the gain, it can be substantial. An unchecked Russia can wreak all sorts of havoc on various interests overseas, with detrimental consequences here. The already mentioned BTC pipeline is of course the most prominent. There are also intangibles like our reputation and presence, which have already taken a bad enough beating.
Whatever happens, I wonder if this will help accelerate closer US-China relations. China and Russia are going to end up at each other's throats eventually and the US and China will need to resolve what exactly our relationship will be. The more annoying Russia gets, the more likely it is we will get friendlier with China (although, in the grand scheme of things, Russia is probably not a big enough issue to sway US-China relations if things like trade, etc. are pushing the other way).
What we are witnessing, then, is a deliberate, premeditated assault on Georgia by Russia, a flagrant act of aggression, deliberately timed for when heads of state would be at the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympics (and thus distant from the advice of their national security apparatuses).
Unfortunately, as a practical matter, there doesn't seem to be much anybody can do about it. Make plans for setting up a Georgian government-in-exile, I guess. Various sanctions can be added on, but will be of minimal effect; Europe won't agree to anything that limits its supplies of Russian natural gas.
Although Russia obviously considers the pro-Western Georgian government an irritation, acting to destroy it as a sovereign nation or subordinate its government to the Russian state would shift us from the current paradigm, in which there is no one clear aggressor or violator of international law norms, to one in which Russia is unmistakably revealed as aggressive and expansionist. That, in turn, might very well provoke a military response by the West. I doubt Putin would overplay his hand so seriously right now.
Let's say we did attack the Russians, intervening as you'd have hoped on behalf of a country we have no defense pact with. And since we're daydreaming, let's say everything went perfectly, and we totally kicked their ass. What do you suppose would happen next? Would Putin apologize for the misunderstanding and ask if he could make it up to us by slashing natural gas prices? Seriously, how do you see it playing out?
Then again, aggression must be checked somewhere. If we don't stop the Russians here, we won't have a plausible means of preventing them from taking the rest of the Caspian-Black Sea corridor, or Ukraine (there's already a pro-Russian government in Belarus). We could expand NATO, but I don't see us doing that.
Madeline Albright would have been dancing with Putin.
Also, when Bush peered into Putins sould, was that not for public consumption. A way of putting a friendly touch on a summit of leaders? Should he have said, "I don't trust this slimy GB operative"?
How about a straight answer to an interviewers question without the partian snark? Too hard?
I'm wondering if this comment is based anywhere in an understanding of the policies Brzezinski supported or if it's just a knee-jerk anti-Carter comment? Wait, I know. It's the latter. Brzezinski is a hawk. Brzezinski fully supported the Shah, but lost the fight with Carter's State Department to make that support militarily backed in the Iranian revolution. Brzezinski also initiated the strategy to back the mujaheddin in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. He also wanted to try to draw China into Afghanistan so China would have its own Vietnam. Brzezinski is 100% realpolitik that would make Kissinger proud.
Seriously, this is like some latent Carter Derangement Syndrome.
2. Georgia was part of Greater Russia for 200 years - the Baku fields and pipelines were traditionally controlled by Greater Russia. Why Greater Russia should allow the US and its Israeli adventurers to divert expected tax revenue is not apparent. Greater Russia is in the midst of a hostile takeover - with Georgia/Israel green-lighting the use of force. I suspect Israel sold Georgia on the idea of pre-emptive war (like the 1967 war)- cut off the Roki tunnel and hang tough - but then Georgia and its advisers failed in step 1. A stable solution would be a tax treaty that shares revenue in Ossetia, Georgia and Russia, supporting free trade.
3. The idea of cutting off the Roki tunnel and having a sort of turkey shoot against the armor from Russia in Ossetia and Georgia would not work, since Georgia and Ossetia are in it for the money (oil taxes) and have none of the religious fortitude of the mujihadeen that wiped out the Russians (over 15 years) in Afghanistan. Again, this "turkey shoot" idea is playing into EM's hands - making gas and oil vastly pricier than it needs to be.
I, for one, am not so sure about that. It is far easier to escalate situations than to de-escalate them.
Plus, the Russian people from what I can gather anecdotally are fully behind Putin on this. Russian TV News (almost all government controlled) is reporting in Russia that Georgia is committing mass atrocities, have killed Russian "peacekeepers" who tried to stop the war, etc. They've cast the President of Georgia as a Saddam Hussein type mass murderer. Point is, push this by sending in U.S. warplanes to engage Russian air and ground targets and the Russian populace will be more likely to demand an all out war than to think about peace.
Never! They were bitter rivals in 1960s academia. You don't give in to people like that!
On a more substantive note, you are right about Brzezinski's role in Carter's foreign policy. He played hawk to Vance's dove. The Soviets handed him the victory in the "War of Carter's Ear" when they invaded Afghanistan.
He was also stunned by the Carter Administration's response to the hostage-taking in Iran. He said something along the lines that it was tragic that only the naturalized American on the team saw how important it was to stand up for the nation's honor.
Having said that, I can't see Henry Kissinger calling for a confrontation with Russia over Ossetia.
("A dagger pointed at the heart of Stavropol"?) He is a Big Powers kind of thinker.
What we need to remember about Zbig: He was the first Pole in two centuries who had a chance to stick it to the Russians. He's still living the dream.
But you did so politely. Because, at heart, you're still a Midwesterner.
I know some Poles that would patriotically argue otherwise circa 1920. That doesn't mean Brzezinski still doesn't want to stick it to the bear.
YES!
I wasn't sure if anyone would get it. But since this is VC, I thought Why not?" . . .
You da MAN!
Georgia has been under Russian hegemony for approximately 200 years or so. I am guessing that S. Ossetia has historically been part of Georgia but that N. Ossetia has not been. Shortly after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the S. Ossetians set up a semi-autonomous region that later provided the pretext for the Russian invasion.
The question is this: Why did the Soviets leave S. Ossetia as part of Georgia in the first place? Why not merge the two parts of Ossetia into their own autonomous region? I really do not know and really am curious as to the answer.
No, he wouldn't apologize, but he might be dissauded from using military force in the future: not just against Georgia but against the Ukraine as well. Further in an immediate sense we'd secure the pipelines running through Georgia--which as I mentioned before are arguably the strategic objective here for Russia (along with cooling pro-NATO aspirations).
The British FT hits again with spot-on journalism.
The reason to think at the ExxonMobil level is it is much harder to buy the cooperation of an EM than it is to buy the ear and support of a McCain foreign policy advisor. EM might cost a billion. Someone like a Gerald Parsky (Republican big-wig financed by the Saudis, at least originally) might go for $100 million over 7-8 years.
This is about palaces for the aristocrats in Georgia, who are willing to finance palaces for lobbyists in the US (and help finance the Republican response to Obama).
McCain is perhaps best considered a neo-mercantilist; we need to have Baku oil resources in our US orbit and not in the Russian orbit because we will then be richer and we cannot rely on free trade. Nonsense, as was old mercantilism in the 1700's.
We are not going to get cheaper gas or oil if Georgia pulls this one out. At most, we will get Georgian rulers' contributions to the Republicans and their lobbyists, which is meaningful to the US aristocrats in line to benefit, but should not be a motivator for the US.
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1358 (accessed 8/11/08):
"Jerusalem owns a strong interest in Caspian oil and gas pipelines reach the Turkish terminal port of Ceyhan, rather than the Russian network. Intense negotiations are afoot between Israel Turkey, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Azarbaijan for pipelines to reach Turkey and thence to Israel’s oil terminal at Ashkelon and on to its Red Sea port of Eilat. From there, supertankers can carry the gas and oil to the Far East through the Indian Ocean.
Aware of Moscow’s sensitivity on the oil question, Israel offered Russia a stake in the project but was rejected.
Last year, the Georgian president commissioned from private Israeli security firms several hundred military advisers, estimated at up to 1,000, to train the Georgian armed forces in commando, air, sea, armored and artillery combat tactics. They also offer instruction on military intelligence and security for the central regime. Tbilisi also purchased weapons, intelligence and electronic warfare systems from Israel.
These advisers were undoubtedly deeply involved in the Georgian army’s preparations to conquer the South Ossetian capital Friday.
In recent weeks, Moscow has repeatedly demanded that Jerusalem halt its military assistance to Georgia, finally threatening a crisis in bilateral relations. Israel responded by saying that the only assistance rendered Tbilisi was “defensive.”"
I wonder if George Bush realizes that NATO is a military alliance and not a trading pact? If Ukraine should become a NATO member, the US had better be prepared to fight a real war. I also wonder if BHO has thought through his position on curtailing military spending in order to free up funds for social spending?
The history and background of Ossetia and Russian-Georgian relations are complicated and messy and I do not think either side can be characterized as pure victim or pure aggressor. That being said, one must recognize that many (most?) Ossetians do not want to be part of Georgia. Is Russia using the conflict to cement its gains and advantages vis-a-vis Georgia and its allies in the West. OF COURSE. Not doing so would be negligent.
What is all this hand wringing about. Georgia's president gambled. He lost. Big time. Now he has to suffer the consequences.
Sorry, you're not anti-semitic, but you are everything that's wrong with public choice theory. Don't you think that Israel has a hell of an interest in staying on decent tems with Russia (think Iran), or does that just take a back seat to her imperialist tendencies?
Not that we have any Marines to spare.
And notice he picked such a clever name to post under. No one would ever figure him out!
I am quite sure it would have went over well if Bush said "I looked into Putin's soul and saw an old KGB die-hard who wants to bring back the Soviet Union and get back to the good ol' days of the cold war, communist expansion, and war-mongering. He is a Commie bastard at hear and will always be."
How about if he had just kept his mouth shut?
Sorry, you're not anti-semitic, but you are everything that's wrong with public choice theory. Don't you think that Israel has a hell of an interest in staying on decent tems with Russia (think Iran), or does that just take a back seat to her imperialist tendencies?"
I am not saying Israel is right (from a public choice perspective) in backing Georgia, Israel is simply going that way, perhaps to curry favor with its most significant benefactor, namely the US (esp. Bush and his crowd).
Like ExxonMobil, Israel probably could not be bought for less than a billion or so (which might have been implicitly promised to Israel by the US).
Some Israeli defense contractors (comparable to Blackwater) could probably be brought in by Georgia (with US and Israeli ok) to train and advise (and lead) for $100 million or so (for 3-6 months).
I am not sure the Georgians and Israeli contractors were that far from success in blocking the Roki tunnel.
I suspect the key to victory for Russia was that Russia beat Georgia and its bunch in the intelligence-gathering business (knowing when to mass armor), and the Russians were successful in lulling Georgia and their ilk into ignoring the Russian armor buildup.
Exactly why we (the US) would want to back a "cannot shoot straight" group of Georgians and contractors, for no money for the US, in the short or medium term, is not obvious. McCain seems to think the hundred billion or so needed to back down the Russians would just magically appear, without taxes on this generation (or the next, which cannot yet vote against the latest pissing contest, but will need to pay down the Republican debts).
Don't be so cynical. Georgia will be just fine. The Russians will ask Eduard Schevardnadze to lead his people again on a temporary basis; Saakashvili will be forced into exile. The world will shrug. Russian hegemony will be complete without having to actually occupy very much for very long.
It is a great, great name for a war, though.
And hey, folks, how about the wonderful United Nations, set up by that old Russian double agent, Alger Hiss? Supposed to prevent wars and all.
A bully invades a tiny country that's part of the UN, and all you hear from the UN is...
...*crickets*...
In fact, I would. I can't speak for others though. I also think Steve Sailer's suggestion is pretty good. His suggestion for Kosovo back in the day is here.
Well, I can't resist this. The British government under Walpole adopted a peace policy which pretty much ignored all provocations. This made good sense. When Walpole took over around 1721, England had been fighting major wars for the better part of 30 years and had a (relatively bloodless) revolution thrown in to boot. Walpole wanted to develop trade and restore the economy, which also badly need restoration after the South Sea Bubble and all the military spending.
By the late 1730s, Walpole's enemies were increasingly frustrated at the way he managed to hang on to power. They maneuvered constantly for a way to get him out of office. They latched on to the story of Jenkins' ear -- which actually happened a year or two before the war broke out in 1739 -- and used it to stoke the anger of the public towards Spain. They were able to force a confrontation which led to some desultory fighting. As luck would have it, in 1740 the War of the Austrian Succession broke out. Jenkins' Ear got merged into that and Walpole, by this time old and tired, and never much of a warrior, resigned.
That the best you got?
Give a little thought to your HE-RO, BHO -- Ahmadinnerjacket's bud. Quit trying to compare a patriot who served to an America-hater. It's embarassing.
And MarkField, that was a fascinating bit of history. Thanks.
Aside from your usual bluster, how you assume you know anything about the prior poster? You don't of course, and mask your ignorance with diversion. Can't you answer a simple direct question? The question is which country Sen. McCain is serving and you are unable to answer it.
What interests me about the European wars of this period is that they were invariably exported to North America. Thus the War of the Austrian Succession becomes King George's War. This continues through the Great War for Empire (French and Indian War). After indepenence, the US fought Britain in the War of 1812, which one traces back to the Napoleonic Wars.
Then, for 100 years, we took a break. Until World War Uno finally re-established the pattern. Now we have Russia and Georgia at war. I say that we can consider both of these to be Asian nations, and thus stay out of it.
Remember "The Princess Bride"?
Israel, DUH!
Next question.
Hey, if the shoe fits.
McCain is worth say 100 million plus, and is the child of a top Admiral. Served say 26 years on the public payroll. He looks pretty aristocratic to me. See Chesterton's Short History of England about aristocrats (or listen to the free MP3 from Audiovox.com) - Chesterton put together an excellent work, conservative, but not afraid to dump on the Brits as unduly deferential to the aristocrats.
McCain as of 2008 is not McCain as of 67-75. He is now all for whatever helps the ruling elite in the US (such as Georgia's lobbyist), even if it means pushing the US into expenses and risks the US can and should avoid. Even ExxonMobil would look at McCain about Georgia like he has three heads.
McCain discusses the Georgia situation, and that makes him "serving" another country?
O-o-o-o-o... K.
How 'bout when BHO says he's gonna play kissy-face with Iran? Or does that get a pass?
Yeah, the US really was the tail on the British dog.
Well, the Austrians used to say that Asia began 3 miles east of Vienna.
I appreciate the thanks. Every so often these random things I know are actually useful.
Well there are parallels. For example the same US ambassador, Miles, was in Yugoslavia when it fell apart as in Georgia during the "Rose Revolution" that
put our Georgetown grad in charge of Georgia.
There is no doubt the Georgians moved first: They put out Mission Accomplished press releases. We trained them well.
As for the speed with which the Russians reacted, think about it: Russia must have hundreds of sleeper agents in Georgia. We would be fools to let them in NATO.
Well there are parallels. For example the same US ambassador, Miles, was in Yugoslavia when it fell apart as in Georgia during the "Rose Revolution" that
put our Georgetown grad in charge of Georgia.
There is no doubt the Georgians moved first: They put out Mission Accomplished press releases. We trained them well.
As for the speed with which the Russians reacted, think about it: Russia must have hundreds of sleeper agents in Georgia. We would be fools to let them in NATO.
Well there are parallels. For example the same US ambassador, Miles, was in Yugoslavia when it fell apart as in Georgia during the "Rose Revolution" that
put our Georgetown grad in charge of Georgia.
There is no doubt the Georgians moved first: They put out Mission Accomplished press releases. We trained them well.
As for the speed with which the Russians reacted, think about it: Russia must have hundreds of sleeper agents in Georgia. We would be fools to let them in NATO.