Georgia 'overrun' by Russian troops - Ground invasion begins

[M21]

They saw what we were doing in 2001 and 2002 when we were getting ready to go into Iraq and Afghanistan and they saw that it's not about the U.N. it's about hegemony. They've been wanting to go into Georgia for a long time. It's looking more and more like all they needed was a reason. What a mess.

What do Liberals and Russians have in common? The both want to recreate 1968.

They should take note of the statement made yesterday by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She said, in part, “This is not 1968.”

[biccat]

All the more reason not to appreciate the concept of superpowers. :( People think we have to have one, but I hope the day comes when we don't.

So why don't liberals work to lift up other countries, rather than tear down this one?

[Molon Labe]

. If those separationists are the majority, then Georgia really should cut them loose and not kill people for land.

But that's entirely the point of interstate war. It's about resources. It always has been. Whenever someone tells you war is for this or that reason (slavery, security, WMD's) Most often that's the surface and a child's view of war.

[Molon Labe]

More B.S. from the statist bastards at AEI. And notice the little sniveling Fred Kagan was leading the panel. Whenever I hear him talk, it's always clear he wishes for wider war in the region.


http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1769/event_detail.asp

On Friday, August 8, the longstanding tensions between Georgia and Russia over the separatist region of South Ossetia escalated dramatically. Reports indicate that late last week, Georgia’s staunchly pro-Western government launched an offensive to reclaim the territory, shelling secessionist militias and sending forces into the city of Tskhinvali. Russia, which maintains a peacekeeping detachment in South Ossetia, responded in short order with what President Bush has called “disproportionate” force, striking civilian and military targets deep within Georgia and deploying a naval flotilla off the country’s Black Sea coast. Following three days of intense hostilities and repeated appeals for Western intervention, Georgia took steps to deescalate the conflict, calling for a cease-fire and withdrawing its troops from South Ossetia. Although Russia declared an end to its military operations on August 12, Russian troops remain deployed on Georgia territory and a resolution has yet to be achieved.

Praised by American policymakers as a bastion of democracy, Georgia has proven to be an enthusiastic ally of the United States in recent years, deploying a brigade to Diyala province in Iraq, lobbying for NATO membership, and seeking increased European integration. How, then, will the United States and its European allies respond to the current conflict? What are the implications of the war for other aspiring pro-Western governments? What does Russia’s conduct in the conflict tell us about Moscow’s longer-term domestic and foreign policy objectives? At an AEI event on Wednesday, August 13, AEI resident scholars Leon Aron and Frederick W. Kagan will provide an initial analysis of the conflict, with commentary from retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and from Lt. Col. Bob Hamilton, an Army foreign area officer and fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who recently returned from a two-year tour as chief of the Office of Defense Cooperation in Tbilisi, Georgia. AEI’s Thomas Donnelly will moderate the discussion.

[Lager]

Victor Davis Hanson had a great point in one of his essays. He said,

"The Russians have sized up the moral bankruptcy of the Western Left. They know that half-a-million Europeans would turn out to damn their patron the United States for removing a dictator and fostering democracy, but not more than a half-dozen would do the same to criticize their long-time enemy from bombing a constitutional state."

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson081208.html

Europe's credibility and power are on the wane and the Russians know it.

[Molon Labe]

Victor Davis Hanson had a great point in one of his essays. He said,

"The Russians have sized up the moral bankruptcy of the Western Left. They know that half-a-million Europeans would turn out to damn their patron the United States for removing a dictator and fostering democracy, but not more than a half-dozen would do the same to criticize their long-time enemy from bombing a constitutional state."

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson081208.html

Europe's credibility and power are on the wane and the Russians know it.

I have read Hanson for years. He is a great historian, but he has become a Neo-con stooge who pushes their agenda with clever platitudes like "democracy" and uses his study of history to justify the precedent of preemptive war. "Democracy" is now the flavor of the month phrase for the justification for just about all interventionism. It's a relatively new concept to institute democracy by arms and not by example.

It's also simplistic and a quaint talking point to view Georgia as a Russian response to western "liberals". As if every response rational state actors make is against left wing politics only.
The Russian response in Georgia is more likely that the game is worth the candle. The world community is impotent and it's realism. It's not a left wing bullshit to know that Russia views their predicament as a zero sum game.
And Georgia is a liberal democracy my arse.

[Lager]

I must not have read the same article as you. I saw no part where Hanson was advocating any intervention on our behalf, neoCon or not --which seems to be a term being thrown about to cover just about any thing that those who lean left of center disagree with.

Of course Russia's actions are not a response to Western liberalism, although their boldness might in some way be related.

[Molon Labe]

I must not have read the same article as you. I saw no part where Hanson was advocating any intervention on our behalf, neoCon or not --which seems to be a term being thrown about to cover just about any thing that those who lean left of center disagree with.

Of course Russia's actions are not a response to Western liberalism, although their boldness might in some way be related.

In all fairness...I've avoided his writings of late and I did not read further than your quote. Kind of a involontary gag reflex when reading Neo con bunk. I am a recovering one....so I know the drill.
Being that neoconservatism is a left wing ideology ...I doubt that above.


To be fair to you I'll read it in it's entirety. This is probably my penintence for sending his articles to all my liberal friends over the years. ;)