George Bush on respecting other countries

[myron myron]

It now appears that Russia launched a full-scale military invasion of Georgia that necessarily entailed advance planning.

As I stated in the thread about Georgia (albeit in different words), I believe this is only the first step, a dress rehearsal if you will, in an orchestrated Russian revanchism by military aggression that Putin and his former KGB cabal have been planning for years.

[ILWL]

It now appears that Russia launched a full-scale military invasion of Georgia that necessarily entailed advance planning.

As I stated in the thread about Georgia (albeit in different words), I believe this is only the first step, a dress rehearsal if you will, in an orchestrated Russian revanchism by military aggression that Putin and his former KGB cabal have been planning for years.

Interesting use of 'Full Scale' - what does that actually mean?

[myron myron]

It now appears that Russia launched a full-scale military invasion of Georgia that necessarily entailed advance planning.

As I stated in the thread about Georgia (albeit in different words), I believe this is only the first step, a dress rehearsal if you will, in an orchestrated Russian revanchism by military aggression that Putin and his former KGB cabal have been planning for years.

Interesting use of 'Full Scale' - what does that actually mean?

In this context, it means invading beyond the territory at issue with troops and weaponry in numbers obviously intended to achieve a broader objective that what has been represented.

[ILWL]

It now appears that Russia launched a full-scale military invasion of Georgia that necessarily entailed advance planning.

As I stated in the thread about Georgia (albeit in different words), I believe this is only the first step, a dress rehearsal if you will, in an orchestrated Russian revanchism by military aggression that Putin and his former KGB cabal have been planning for years.

Interesting use of 'Full Scale' - what does that actually mean?

In this context, it means invading beyond the territory at issue with troops and weaponry in numbers obviously intended to achieve a broader objective that what has been represented.

So Troop numbers can be set in exact proportion to the (Stated) goal?

[myron myron]

It now appears that Russia launched a full-scale military invasion of Georgia that necessarily entailed advance planning.

As I stated in the thread about Georgia (albeit in different words), I believe this is only the first step, a dress rehearsal if you will, in an orchestrated Russian revanchism by military aggression that Putin and his former KGB cabal have been planning for years.

Interesting use of 'Full Scale' - what does that actually mean?

In this context, it means invading beyond the territory at issue with troops and weaponry in numbers obviously intended to achieve a broader objective that what has been represented.

So Troop numbers can be set in exact proportion to the (Stated) goal?

Where did I state or suggest that?

I should add that the United States and NATO fully deserve this for their illegal aggression against Serbia and forcible secession of Kosovo.

[The Colonel]

It now appears that Russia launched a full-scale military invasion of Georgia that necessarily entailed advance planning.

As I stated in the thread about Georgia (albeit in different words), I believe this is only the first step, a dress rehearsal if you will, in an orchestrated Russian revanchism by military aggression that Putin and his former KGB cabal have been planning for years.

Interesting use of 'Full Scale' - what does that actually mean?

In this context, it means invading beyond the territory at issue with troops and weaponry in numbers obviously intended to achieve a broader objective that what has been represented.

So Troop numbers can be set in exact proportion to the (Stated) goal?

Where did I state or suggest that?

I should add that the United States and NATO fully deserve this for their illegal aggression against Serbia and forcible secession of Kosovo.

What tosh.

[myron myron]

Precedent applies in international law.

[ILWL]

It now appears that Russia launched a full-scale military invasion of Georgia that necessarily entailed advance planning.

As I stated in the thread about Georgia (albeit in different words), I believe this is only the first step, a dress rehearsal if you will, in an orchestrated Russian revanchism by military aggression that Putin and his former KGB cabal have been planning for years.

Interesting use of 'Full Scale' - what does that actually mean?

In this context, it means invading beyond the territory at issue with troops and weaponry in numbers obviously intended to achieve a broader objective that what has been represented.

So Troop numbers can be set in exact proportion to the (Stated) goal?

Where did I state or suggest that?

Am tempted to think that you are being a tad defensive there - so just to be clear I am not seeking to keep score or get one over on you. I am aware that though you communicated the Orthodox definition it does not neccesarily follow that you would fully accept the designation.

[ILWL]

It now appears that Russia launched a full-scale military invasion of Georgia that necessarily entailed advance planning.

As I stated in the thread about Georgia (albeit in different words), I believe this is only the first step, a dress rehearsal if you will, in an orchestrated Russian revanchism by military aggression that Putin and his former KGB cabal have been planning for years.

Interesting use of 'Full Scale' - what does that actually mean?

In this context, it means invading beyond the territory at issue with troops and weaponry in numbers obviously intended to achieve a broader objective that what has been represented.

So Troop numbers can be set in exact proportion to the (Stated) goal?

Where did I state or suggest that?

I should add that the United States and NATO fully deserve this for their illegal aggression against Serbia and forcible secession of Kosovo.

What tosh.

Why?

[myron myron]

It now appears that Russia launched a full-scale military invasion of Georgia that necessarily entailed advance planning.

As I stated in the thread about Georgia (albeit in different words), I believe this is only the first step, a dress rehearsal if you will, in an orchestrated Russian revanchism by military aggression that Putin and his former KGB cabal have been planning for years.

Interesting use of 'Full Scale' - what does that actually mean?

In this context, it means invading beyond the territory at issue with troops and weaponry in numbers obviously intended to achieve a broader objective that what has been represented.

So Troop numbers can be set in exact proportion to the (Stated) goal?

Where did I state or suggest that?

Am tempted to think that you are being a tad defensive there - so just to be clear I am not seeking to keep score or get one over on you. I am aware that though you communicated the Orthodox definition it does not neccesarily follow that you would fully accept the designation.

In any event, what Russia is doing is fair game vis-a-vis the U.S. and NATO (though perhaps not fair game vis-a-vis Georgia) after the illegal, unjust invasion of Serbia and forcible secession of internationally recognized Serbian territory in Kosovo. The U.S. and NATO set the precedent. Russia can now stick it in their faces. I can’t blame the Russians.

[The Colonel]

It now appears that Russia launched a full-scale military invasion of Georgia that necessarily entailed advance planning.

As I stated in the thread about Georgia (albeit in different words), I believe this is only the first step, a dress rehearsal if you will, in an orchestrated Russian revanchism by military aggression that Putin and his former KGB cabal have been planning for years.

Interesting use of 'Full Scale' - what does that actually mean?

In this context, it means invading beyond the territory at issue with troops and weaponry in numbers obviously intended to achieve a broader objective that what has been represented.

So Troop numbers can be set in exact proportion to the (Stated) goal?

Where did I state or suggest that?

I should add that the United States and NATO fully deserve this for their illegal aggression against Serbia and forcible secession of Kosovo.

What tosh.

Why?

NATO acted as a body. Russia acts alone.

NATO stands for peace and just results. Russia is only self-interested.

[ILWL]

NATO acted as a body. Russia acts alone.

NATO stands for peace and just results. Russia is only self-interested.

Russia can either say they are defending their own citizens or intervening for Humantarian reasons. I think they have said that actually but then again they would! Eh Colonel?

Georgia is in all senses a victim but then again why seek to control a territory which seeks a seperate destiny?

[franfran]

Oh dear. I seem to have touched a raw nerve here.

I was merely trying to record my reaction to a statement made by George Bush about the current conflict in Georgia. It's not that I disagree with what he said, in fact I find that, for once, I agree with him. It's just that I think that, in view of his past actions, he has lost whatever credibility he may have had in regard to such situations.

And Myron Myron and ZiaAries were pretty quick to jump and accuse me of attacking the American way of life. Quite to the contrary, I would have said the same thing if Tony Blair or John Howard had said what Bush said. It seems to be Bush saying "do as I say, not as I do".

It's very much a case of "the pot calling the kettle black", as evidenced by the following exchange: Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to the UN, accused Moscow of slaughtering civilians in an attempt to change the regime in Georgia. The Russian Ambassador to the UN (Vitaly Churkin) responded by saying, "Now, let me say about Mr. Khalilzad's statement regarding terror against the civil population. Such a statement... is absolutely unacceptable. Moreover, when it comes from a representative of a country [whose] actions with regard to the civil population are known in Iraq, in Afghanistan, even in Serbia," Churkin added.

The Bush administration has been supporting the pro-Western Georgian President, Mikhail Saakashvili, who sent troops to Iraq. Saakashvili wants to get Georgia admitted to NATO, but so far most of America's NATO allies in Europe refused to let Georgia in. Could the new oil pipeline through Georgia (built with US backing) that breaks Russian monopoly of export routes for Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan's oil (and Western Europe's dependency on Russian gas supplies) have anything to do with all this scenario, or am I being too cynical?

It would seem that this thread has changed from what I meant it to be and become one on the subject of "How Dare you Attack American imperialism".

Can you kindly point out exactly when, where and how I was "pretty quick to jump and accuse [you] of attacking the American way of life"?

I ask for your kind assistance because I do not recall doing what you describe.

Or is your accusation merely owing to the fact that I am American and disagreed with your opening post?

Maybe "accuse" was too strong a word, but the tone of the posts I referred to and the comments subsequently posted leave me certain that this was what you were thinking. I don't object to people disagreeing with me, but I expect them to do it nicely (I'll make an exception for Fred).

[franfran]

We don't hide in the closet and wait for someone else to do something for us.

With the exception of both World Wars I suppose...

[franfran]

You may recall that Iraq formally forfeited its sovereignty to the United Nations and the coalition led by the United States as a condition of cessation of the Persian Gulf War of 1991, which you may recall was started by Iraq invading Kuwait. Among other things, Iraq formally agreed that American and coalition armed jet fighters would control Iraqi air space and fly therein at will and that UN arms inspectors would have free and unimpaired access anywhere within Iraq in order to ensure Iraq's compliance with numerous UN Security Council Resolutions Iraq had admittedly violated. Nonetheless, Iraq then expelled the UN weapons inspectors and continued to violate numerous UN Security Council Resolutions. This is why Iraq’s sovereignty was non-existent when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.

Now tell us how Georgia forfeited its sovereignty.

Lost authority, yes, but sovereignty? Iraq's sovereignty may have been restricted in the past what with no-fly zones, weapon inspection programs and so on, but I didn't think that it was taken away completely. Can you explain to me where in international law it says sovereignty can be extinguished and under what circumstances that can happen?

Surely the Iraqis themselves remained sovereign even after the collapse of their government, because Iraq still existed. In the time that followed, the US and its allies would have been responsible for maintaining sovereignty, but it still would have belonged to the people. UN resolution 1546 was about transfer of authority and not return of sovereignty.

I would have thought that an invading force (whether it be the US or Russia is beside the point) would not have the right to determine sovereignty of a nation but instead would be required to run the country for the benefit of the people whose territory is being occupied, and to prepare a path for them to govern themselves.

I do not recall using the word "extinguished."

Sovereignty may be relinquished when a state agrees that it will no longer exercise exclusive control over its land, sea and air.

UN Charter Article 2, ¶ 7, provides as follows:

"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll."

This provision means that neither the UN nor any member state may interfere with what a sovereign does in its own territory, with the exception of enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions (i.e., the reference to Chapter VII of the UN Charter).

And the part of your post I marked in red describes what the United States is doing in Iraq.

No, and I didn't say that you said that - I said it. But you did say

Iraq’s sovereignty was non-existent when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.

Now there may be a slight difference when looking at legal definitions of the words used, but in a layperson's terms there wouldn't be much of a difference, if any.