The US provoked the Russia-Georgian skirmish - Tilted Forum Project - TFP - Sexuality, Philosophy and Political Discussion

ASU2003 · 08-28-2008, 11:32 PM

(There was supposed to be a ? in the title)

Putin Accuses U.S. Pushing Georgia Conflict to Influence Elections Back Home
August 28, 2008

FOXNews.com - Putin Accuses U.S. Pushing Georgia Conflict to Influence Elections Back Home - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

Growing evidence of CIA involvement in Georgia coup?
May 12, 2003 (5 years ago)

Indymedia UK - Growing evidence of CIA involvement in Georgia coup?

So, do you think a certain administration would be able to start something or change the course of events to make one candidate look better? If the American people fear another cold war, which candidate do you think will win? If the media actually investigates this like the Whitewater event or Clinton's fun time, is even doing something like provoking the Russian military illegal? It definitely isn't smart.

Putin may not be the most reliable source, but I think the media should investigate these claims. Actually Congress and an independent investigator should also look into this as well. You know they would if a politician got a bj form a Georgian (country, not state)...

Willravel · 08-28-2008, 11:33 PM

Yea, the US kinda did. I don't really see this as paranoia, just an objective interpretation based on a good grasp of geopolitics.

ottopilot · 08-29-2008, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Yea, the US kinda did. I don't really see this as paranoia, just an objective interpretation based on a good grasp of geopolitics.

Ridiculous... like a kid always blaming someone else for something he did. Putin is a calculating opportunist and he's just getting started.

roachboy · 08-29-2008, 06:38 AM

i moved this thread to politics.

in principle, that the accusation would surface is not surprising...whether it corresponds to anything in empirical reality is another matter. fact is that given the controlled press that we operate with, it is also not terribly surprising that there'd be little information at this end about such actions as there may or may not have been in and around georgia.

the reasons why it's plausible are obvious: the neo-cons are motivated by a nostalgia for a cold war-style arrangement because it served to stabilize nation-states and reactionary political lines within nation-states first, and second because it enabled the diversion of massive resources into military expenditures, which (third) is of a piece with the neo-con understanding of power, of "political realism" as based in military capabilities. in neo-con land, the state is primarily an expression of military power.

the problem with the "war on terror" as a surrogate cold war is simple: it confronts nation-state oriented militaries with horizontally organized "opponents"--which the history of conflict since world war 2 has shown are problematic for vertically organized militaries (algeria, vietnam, etc)--and by extension the "war on terror" creates a host of legal and legitimacy problems around the use of military force because the "adversary" is not localized within another nation-state--which complicates the entire idea of war---which is the ultimate expression of neo-con conceptions of power. within this, other problems have obviously surfaced: manufacturing consent for this type of power is difficult if you cannot locate the Enemy somewhere, and the slippage between the notion of "terrorist" and the idiocy of the huntington thesis has caused more trouble than it's worth.

as a backward oriented bunch, the neocons seem to pine for a regular enemy organized in a regular way, preferably one with hardware adequate to justify cranking huge amounts of money into the patronage network around the military. for example, it's obviously hard to justify spending vast sums on new nuclear weapons if there's no way to assume symmetry at the level of hardware. without that, continuing the develop weapon systems slips into a first-strike doctrine, and that is politically problematic (even if you exclude the systematic incompetence of the bush administration itself, selling first-strike is a problem)....

so in principle, you can see an argument for why the administration would seek a way back into the good old days when nation-state level conflict spilled into symbiotic "standoffs" between blocs---good for reactionary politics and the network of corporate interests for which it stands.

but that doesn't necessarily translate into any particular actions--it just outlines why the accusation is plausible relative to the united states---and putin himself is in a position where this same type of scenario would be good for him--it's already functioning to build consent for his particular mode of authoritarian rule that he has not up to now been able to actually muster--so he has (and there are) internal political interests in the same scenario (same as it ever was, seemingly)

so whether this is just a useful fiction being floated in the context of weak reactionary administrations in the context of fading imperial powers or an actual description of what has happened on the ground is hard to say. it'd be interesting to research this, and to see what can be found--my suspicion is that you'd find this same basic story of stories duplicating at scale after scale...a hall of mirrors.

but that doesn't make it paranoia. it's just politics in the simulacrum. there's often no particular difference.

Baraka_Guru · 08-29-2008, 07:54 AM

Interesting comments.

The U.S. and Russia are fueled by nationalist militarism of a scale beyond just about anyone else I can think of. Well, besides China. It will be interesting to see how this plays out now that China has their own interests and influence.

ottopilot · 09-02-2008, 01:00 PM

World opinion may be turning against Russia and their invasion/occupation of Georgia. The EU is considering sanctions against Russia while US warships are delivering aid to the Black Sea port of Batumi.

NPR: Russia Under Pressure, Has Little World Support

Quote:

Russia Under Pressure, Has Little World Support

by Gregory Feifer
National Public Radio
All Things Considered, August 28, 2008 · Russia is facing international isolation over this month's attacks in Georgia.

The EU is considering possible sanctions against Moscow, and today Russia failed to enlist the support it wanted from China and a group of former Soviet republics in Central Asia.

The summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization took place in Tajikistan, where Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said Georgian aggression was unacceptable and had to be stopped.

"Under these extreme conditions," Medvedev said, "we will continue our predictable and responsible policy in the region."

Russia's international television channel Russia Today reported that Moscow got what it was seeking from fellow summit members, which also include China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

In fact, Russia's sometime-allies failed to back the Kremlin. No other country has recognized the independent Georgian breakaway regions Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which Moscow recognized on Monday. Today's final statement from the Shanghai group expressed grave concern over the conflict and urged all sides to solve the standoff through dialogue.

In Paris on Thursday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that EU leaders preparing for an emergency summit on Monday are considering sanctions and "other measures" to put pressure on Moscow to honor its cease-fire agreement with Tbilisi.

There was a sharp response from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who said talk of sanctions was the product of a "sick" and "confused" imagination.

In Georgia, tensions are mounting over the presence of American warships delivering aid to the Black Sea port of Batumi. Moscow has accused NATO of "battleship diplomacy" and sent its own warships to the area.

highthief · 09-02-2008, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

World opinion may be turning against Russia and their invasion/occupation of Georgia. The EU is considering sanctions against Russia while US warships are delivering aid to the Black Sea port of Batumi.

NPR: Russia Under Pressure, Has Little World Support

You need to keep up - that article was from 5 days ago! The EU has decided not to impose sanctions, or do anything else for that matter, and correctly so.

ottopilot · 09-02-2008, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

You need to keep up - that article was from 5 days ago! The EU has decided not to impose sanctions, or do anything else for that matter, and correctly so.

I'll check in to it... thanks!

UKking · 09-03-2008, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

World opinion may be turning against Russia and their invasion/occupation of Georgia.

Even worse for Russia, they're feeling the economic impact of foreign companies backing off. Getting an economy hit like that is like getting kicked in the nuts.

Iliftrocks · 09-04-2008, 05:57 AM

This reminds me. I need to see if there are some Get Your War On comics that I haven't read yet....

AmericanVirus · 09-04-2008, 02:55 PM

He's starting to sound like Chavez, who keeps saying the US is planning a coup to oust him. Putin figures the "Blame the US" game always works, so he might give it a whirl. However, it only goes so far before it get's old.

roachboy · 09-04-2008, 03:04 PM

meanwhile, back in the world in which, despite its self-serving side, what putin is saying about the americans might be true:

Quote:

September 5, 2008
Cheney Backs NATO Membership for Georgia
By STEVEN LEE MYERS and ALAN COWELL

TBILISI, Georgia — One day after the United States proposed $1 billion in humanitarian and economic assistance to help rebuild Georgia after its war with Russia, Vice President Dick Cheney flew here to reaffirm Washington’s support for this country’s eventual NATO membership and to issue a powerful condemnation of Moscow.

Standing alongside President Mikheil Saakashvili at a joint news conference, Mr. Cheney declared: “After your nation won its freedom in the Rose Revolution, America came to the aid of this courageous young democracy. We are doing so again, as you work to overcome an invasion of your sovereign territory, and an illegitimate, unilateral attempt to change your country’s borders by force that has been universally condemned by the free world.”

He said he had assured the Georgian leader that he “can count on continued support and assistance from the United States.”

“I assured the president as well of my country’s strong commitment to Georgia’s territorial integrity. Georgia has that right, just as it has the right to build stronger ties to friends in Europe and across the Atlantic.”

“Russia’s actions have cast grave doubts on Russia’s intentions and on its reliability as an international partner, not just in Georgia, but across this region and indeed throughout the international system,” Mr. Cheney said.

“Georgia will be in our alliance. NATO is a defensive alliance. It is a threat to no one.”

His words of support for Mr. Saakashvili placed him on a direct collision course with Russia’s leaders who have labeled the Georgian president a “political corpse” and who have made clear that they see Georgia’s membership of NATO as intolerable.

Mr. Cheney’s remarks about Georgia’s territorial integrity also contradicted Russia’s recognition of the independence of two areas of the country -_ South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The vice president was speaking on the second leg of a tour of the region which he began in Azerbaijan Wednesday. He planned to fly later Thursday to Ukraine.

After a one-hour meeting — 30 minutes longer than planned — Mr. Cheney and Mr. Saakashvili visited the military section of Tbilisi’s international airport where they met with American airmen unloading a shipment of blankets that arrived earlier in the day from Italy on an American C-130 military transport plane. “Appreciate everything you’re doing for us,” Mr. Cheney said in sight of an aircraft construction factory bombed by the Russians in the first days of the war last month. Earlier, Mr. Cheney described his visit to the region as a demonstration that the United States had “a deep and abiding interest” in keeping Georgia and other neighboring states free from a new era of Russian domination.

The combination of new American aid and Mr. Cheney’s high-profile visit to a region the Russians call “the near abroad” is sure to inflame tensions further. Russia’s leaders have openly accused the United States of having provoked last month’s conflict by providing Georgia with weapons and training for its armed forces, while encouraging its aspirations to join NATO.

The aid package proposed Wednesday in Washington, which requires approval from Congress, significantly expands assistance to a country that has become ardently pro-American in recent years, though at the cost of the worst relations between the United States and Russia since the collapse of communism.

The aid would dwarf the $63 million the United States provided to Georgia last year, roughly a third of it for training its soldiers, police officers and border guards. Excluding Iraq, the infusion would make Georgia one of the largest recipients of American foreign aid after Israel and Egypt. The United States has provided about $1.8 billion over all in the 17 years since Georgia gained independence from the collapsing Soviet Union.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, appearing in Washington, said that $570 million of the aid would be made available this year, while the rest would depend on approval by a new administration and a new Congress. It does not include any military aid, she and other administration officials said.

The initial money, President Bush said in a statement, would be used to feed and shelter tens of thousands of Georgians displaced during the fighting that began on the night of Aug. 7 when Georgia tried to establish control over a breakaway region, South Ossetia, only to be driven back by Russian forces. Mr. Bush also pledged to support its transition to a democratic market economy.

“Georgia has a strong economic foundation and leaders with an impressive record of reform,” Mr. Bush said in his statement. “Our additional economic assistance will help the people of Georgia recover from the assault on their country and continue to build a prosperous and competitive economy.”

President Dmitri A. Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin have already complained that humanitarian supplies delivered by the American Navy and Air Force were a disguise for delivering new weapons, accusations that administration officials have dismissed as baseless.

The American military has so far delivered $30 million in emergency aid, including 1,200 tons of food and relief supplies like tents, delivered by 61 Air Force jets and two Navy ships plying the Black Sea. Mr. Bush also ordered federal agencies to expand trading opportunities between the United States and Georgia and to provide maritime insurance for ships docking in Georgia.

“The free world cannot allow the destiny of a small independent country to be determined by the aggression of a larger neighbor,” Ms. Rice said in Washington.

Still, there seemed to be little pressure the United States and European countries could exert to persuade Russia to back down in its confrontation with Mr. Saakashvili’s government. Many administration officials worry that overthrowing Mr. Saakashvili’s government is Russia’s unwavering intention.

While the administration has made its political, diplomatic and economic support for Georgia abundantly clear, however, it has yet to settle on what steps, if any, it will take to punish Russia. It has failed to do so even as American and European officials vehemently protest that Russia continues to violate a French-brokered agreement to end the fighting and withdraw Russian troops from Georgian territory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/wo...hp&oref=slogin

so there's a contingent of nato ships floating around the black sea, a bunch of materials arriving from the us and then the administration sends everyone's favorite guy to tell not only georgia but everyone else that georgia should, so far as the administration is concerned, be part of nato.

tell me this is not about the oil.
Georgia's oil pipeline is key to U.S. support

jorgelito · 09-04-2008, 04:16 PM

I don't see it. I still don't buy that we intentionally provoked the war between Russia-Georgia.

roachboy · 09-05-2008, 06:38 AM

i don't think it was Intentional, in the sense of "ooo, that'd be fun. let's do that."
rather in the context of a multiplicity of levels of jockeying for influence--with the goal being geopolitical advantage shaped by oil on the one hand and the inability of the neocons to think beyond a coldwar worldview on the other---a situation was generated. that situation acquired its own momentum. the conflict in georgia/south ossetia is an unintended consequence of it.

it's hard to imagine georgia acting as if the americans were really going to help them. the timing of their move was about as bad as it could be for the bush people (think poland)...but at the same time, i expect that the therapeutic narrative offered by cheney goes something like: if you hadn't been turned down for nato memberhsip by the evil france and germany, this would have played out differently.

and to say the obvious, nothing in the above should lead you to think that therefore putin is pure as the driven snow---quite the contrary, he has his own political issues and his own motivations for playing into this scenario---the conflict in georgia has stregthened his political position in russia significantly, at least in the short run---and the narrative about georgia and the us is serve=serving.

but that doesn't mean that therefore it is false. not entirely.

stop trying to put things into simplistic terms--the question is not whether you or i "like" russia or "like" the bush people--its more what the hell is going on here, trying to work it out. if you make your consumer preferences a priority, all you'll find is your consumer preferences mirrored back to you. and you'll do it to yourself. thinking is better than consuming, a different type of consumption maybe, less locked into the a priori maybe.

jorgelito · 09-05-2008, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i don't think it was Intentional, in the sense of "ooo, that'd be fun. let's do that."
rather in the context of a multiplicity of levels of jockeying for influence--with the goal being geopolitical advantage shaped by oil on the one hand and the inability of the neocons to think beyond a coldwar worldview on the other---a situation was generated. that situation acquired its own momentum. the conflict in georgia/south ossetia is an unintended consequence of it.

it's hard to imagine georgia acting as if the americans were really going to help them. the timing of their move was about as bad as it could be for the bush people (think poland)...but at the same time, i expect that the therapeutic narrative offered by cheney goes something like: if you hadn't been turned down for nato memberhsip by the evil france and germany, this would have played out differently.

and to say the obvious, nothing in the above should lead you to think that therefore putin is pure as the driven snow---quite the contrary, he has his own political issues and his own motivations for playing into this scenario---the conflict in georgia has stregthened his political position in russia significantly, at least in the short run---and the narrative about georgia and the us is serve=serving.

but that doesn't mean that therefore it is false. not entirely.

stop trying to put things into simplistic terms--the question is not whether you or i "like" russia or "like" the bush people--its more what the hell is going on here, trying to work it out. if you make your consumer preferences a priority, all you'll find is your consumer preferences mirrored back to you. and you'll do it to yourself. thinking is better than consuming, a different type of consumption maybe, less locked into the a priori maybe.

Ah ok, that's a much better explanation. I actually believe the Georgian president truly believed the US would help him. He made some bad moves and miscalculations in my opinion. He made a gamble and got beat.

roachboy · 09-05-2008, 07:19 AM

there is no doubt that he threw the dice and lost.
but like i said, he did so in the context of a game that he did not and does not control, which is played according to rules that i'm not sure anyone told him about.

everyone involved comes out looking like an asshole, really, and the result is, as is all too often the case, that alot of civilians--people like you and me---end up dead.

ASU2003 · 09-05-2008, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

I don't see it. I still don't buy that we intentionally provoked the war between Russia-Georgia.

You don't think this will get at least 20% of the voters to think, you know McCain would be able to handle this situation much better than Obama?

tisonlyi · 09-05-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

You don't think this will get at least 20% of the voters to think, you know McCain would be able to handle this situation much better than Obama?

There's such a pattern of war/conflict and proection of a 'threat' in good neocon/straussian terms to aid one particular side in the run-up to elections - especially during times of economic turbulence - that these kind of conspiratorial thoughts just have to make themselves heard, at least to stop the voices in my head.

For example:

The Falklands:

Britain is aware that the military junta in Argentina are chomping at the bit to take The Falklands/Malvinas, yet mysteriously, in the midst of economic turmoil and record low popularity, Thatcher decides to pull pretty much all of Britain's token force out of the Falklands ('cost savings' - she was warned about what could happen). Signal received by the Junta, invasion, war, victory at high price in lives for Britain, sudden wave of popularity for Thatcher, victory in subsequent elections.

Gulf War I:

Economic problems in the US and the UK, Saddam's men given a nod/wink green light to invade Kuwait over a border dispute that goes back to the ludicrous creation of the Kuwaiti state back in the mists of British Imperial times.

Saddam invades, CRISIS!, war in the run up towards election season, but the rouse doesn't work even though it certainly appeared that Bush I's post-war popularity might carry him through but alas... not this time.

Russia's Chechen 'Terrorism'

Putin looks anything but likely to be elected in the wake of Yeltsin's demise and the chaos of the Russian economy in the late 90's.

Run up to election, bombs go off in Moscow, Chechens blamed, war declared, national security emergency, Putin wins handsomely - with a free hand to start his campaign of media castration.

Iraq 2004

Economic turbulence, leadership in need of anything to distract from their own incompetence, phoney war vs incredibly weak opponents, 'poor' decisions lengthen the crisis, national security/militarism craze/paranoia, slim victory for the forces of war.

Georgia/Russia

US proxy launches an attack versus the old enemy, sparking memories and fears of a return to something like the cold war, just as the incumbent war party is struggling somewhat.

I wonder how this one plays out in the end, I'm pretty sure there are a few more acts to come in this spectacular play.

Oh, and if anyone is wondering about the Strauss reference:

Leo Strauss (he's heavily referenced in The Power Of Nightmares:

The Power Of Nightmares

)

ottopilot · 09-05-2008, 05:36 PM

Eureka! You nailed it... torches and pitchforks to the White House!

tisonlyi · 09-05-2008, 06:06 PM

Torches and pitchforks, now there's Conservatism in action!

(big C!)

jorgelito · 09-06-2008, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

You don't think this will get at least 20% of the voters to think, you know McCain would be able to handle this situation much better than Obama?

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow. What does this have to do with McCain or Obama?

08-28-2008, 11:32 PM	#1 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: possibly ohio	The US provoked the Russia-Georgian skirmish (There was supposed to be a ? in the title) Putin Accuses U.S. Pushing Georgia Conflict to Influence Elections Back Home August 28, 2008 FOXNews.com - Putin Accuses U.S. Pushing Georgia Conflict to Influence Elections Back Home - International News \| News of the World \| Middle East News \| Europe News Growing evidence of CIA involvement in Georgia coup? May 12, 2003 (5 years ago) Indymedia UK - Growing evidence of CIA involvement in Georgia coup? So, do you think a certain administration would be able to start something or change the course of events to make one candidate look better? If the American people fear another cold war, which candidate do you think will win? If the media actually investigates this like the Whitewater event or Clinton's fun time, is even doing something like provoking the Russian military illegal? It definitely isn't smart. Putin may not be the most reliable source, but I think the media should investigate these claims. Actually Congress and an independent investigator should also look into this as well. You know they would if a politician got a bj form a Georgian (country, not state)...

08-29-2008, 06:38 AM	#4 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: chicago	i moved this thread to politics. in principle, that the accusation would surface is not surprising...whether it corresponds to anything in empirical reality is another matter. fact is that given the controlled press that we operate with, it is also not terribly surprising that there'd be little information at this end about such actions as there may or may not have been in and around georgia. the reasons why it's plausible are obvious: the neo-cons are motivated by a nostalgia for a cold war-style arrangement because it served to stabilize nation-states and reactionary political lines within nation-states first, and second because it enabled the diversion of massive resources into military expenditures, which (third) is of a piece with the neo-con understanding of power, of "political realism" as based in military capabilities. in neo-con land, the state is primarily an expression of military power. the problem with the "war on terror" as a surrogate cold war is simple: it confronts nation-state oriented militaries with horizontally organized "opponents"--which the history of conflict since world war 2 has shown are problematic for vertically organized militaries (algeria, vietnam, etc)--and by extension the "war on terror" creates a host of legal and legitimacy problems around the use of military force because the "adversary" is not localized within another nation-state--which complicates the entire idea of war---which is the ultimate expression of neo-con conceptions of power. within this, other problems have obviously surfaced: manufacturing consent for this type of power is difficult if you cannot locate the Enemy somewhere, and the slippage between the notion of "terrorist" and the idiocy of the huntington thesis has caused more trouble than it's worth. as a backward oriented bunch, the neocons seem to pine for a regular enemy organized in a regular way, preferably one with hardware adequate to justify cranking huge amounts of money into the patronage network around the military. for example, it's obviously hard to justify spending vast sums on new nuclear weapons if there's no way to assume symmetry at the level of hardware. without that, continuing the develop weapon systems slips into a first-strike doctrine, and that is politically problematic (even if you exclude the systematic incompetence of the bush administration itself, selling first-strike is a problem).... so in principle, you can see an argument for why the administration would seek a way back into the good old days when nation-state level conflict spilled into symbiotic "standoffs" between blocs---good for reactionary politics and the network of corporate interests for which it stands. but that doesn't necessarily translate into any particular actions--it just outlines why the accusation is plausible relative to the united states---and putin himself is in a position where this same type of scenario would be good for him--it's already functioning to build consent for his particular mode of authoritarian rule that he has not up to now been able to actually muster--so he has (and there are) internal political interests in the same scenario (same as it ever was, seemingly) so whether this is just a useful fiction being floated in the context of weak reactionary administrations in the context of fading imperial powers or an actual description of what has happened on the ground is hard to say. it'd be interesting to research this, and to see what can be found--my suspicion is that you'd find this same basic story of stories duplicating at scale after scale...a hall of mirrors. but that doesn't make it paranoia. it's just politics in the simulacrum. there's often no particular difference. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-29-2008, 07:54 AM	#5 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru In the 6th percentile Moderator Join Date: May 2006 Location: Toronto	Interesting comments. The U.S. and Russia are fueled by nationalist militarism of a scale beyond just about anyone else I can think of. Well, besides China. It will be interesting to see how this plays out now that China has their own interests and influence. __________________ "The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. [...] In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer." —"Politics and the English Language," George Orwell "Humankind cannot bear very much reality." —"Burnt Norton," Four Quartets, T. S. Eliot

09-04-2008, 05:57 AM	#10 (permalink)
Iliftrocks Junkie Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Near Raleigh, NC	This reminds me. I need to see if there are some Get Your War On comics that I haven't read yet.... __________________ huh

09-04-2008, 04:16 PM	#13 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	I don't see it. I still don't buy that we intentionally provoked the war between Russia-Georgia. __________________ "The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter

08-28-2008, 11:33 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel [wil-ruh-VEL] Join Date: Aug 2004	Yea, the US kinda did. I don't really see this as paranoia, just an objective interpretation based on a good grasp of geopolitics.

09-04-2008, 02:55 PM	#11 (permalink)
AmericanVirus Upright Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Illinois	He's starting to sound like Chavez, who keeps saying the US is planning a coup to oust him. Putin figures the "Blame the US" game always works, so he might give it a whirl. However, it only goes so far before it get's old.

09-05-2008, 06:38 AM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: chicago	i don't think it was Intentional, in the sense of "ooo, that'd be fun. let's do that." rather in the context of a multiplicity of levels of jockeying for influence--with the goal being geopolitical advantage shaped by oil on the one hand and the inability of the neocons to think beyond a coldwar worldview on the other---a situation was generated. that situation acquired its own momentum. the conflict in georgia/south ossetia is an unintended consequence of it. it's hard to imagine georgia acting as if the americans were really going to help them. the timing of their move was about as bad as it could be for the bush people (think poland)...but at the same time, i expect that the therapeutic narrative offered by cheney goes something like: if you hadn't been turned down for nato memberhsip by the evil france and germany, this would have played out differently. and to say the obvious, nothing in the above should lead you to think that therefore putin is pure as the driven snow---quite the contrary, he has his own political issues and his own motivations for playing into this scenario---the conflict in georgia has stregthened his political position in russia significantly, at least in the short run---and the narrative about georgia and the us is serve=serving. but that doesn't mean that therefore it is false. not entirely. stop trying to put things into simplistic terms--the question is not whether you or i "like" russia or "like" the bush people--its more what the hell is going on here, trying to work it out. if you make your consumer preferences a priority, all you'll find is your consumer preferences mirrored back to you. and you'll do it to yourself. thinking is better than consuming, a different type of consumption maybe, less locked into the a priori maybe. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-05-2008, 07:19 AM	#16 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: chicago	there is no doubt that he threw the dice and lost. but like i said, he did so in the context of a game that he did not and does not control, which is played according to rules that i'm not sure anyone told him about. everyone involved comes out looking like an asshole, really, and the result is, as is all too often the case, that alot of civilians--people like you and me---end up dead. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-05-2008, 05:36 PM	#19 (permalink)
ottopilot capstan flanging Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Waddy Peytona	Eureka! You nailed it... torches and pitchforks to the White House! __________________ "All the leaders of groups tend to be frauds. If they were not, it would be impossible for them to retain the allegiance of their dupes" - H.L. Mencken "continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it." - George Washington on political parties

09-05-2008, 06:06 PM	#20 (permalink)
tisonlyi I've got my eye on you. Yes You. Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Sunning myself in Sevilla, Espana. Yeah. Wihtout the tilda. and?	Torches and pitchforks, now there's Conservatism in action! (big C!) __________________ In the valley of the blind, the one-eyed man is King.

09-06-2008, 06:08 AM	#22 (permalink)
ottopilot capstan flanging Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Waddy Peytona