George Bush on respecting other countries

[franfran]

How's this for sheer hypocrisy:

President George W. Bush told tens of thousands of cheering Georgians packed into the city's Freedom Square on Tuesday that the United States would stand with the former Soviet republic as it built its young democracy, and then pointedly warned President Vladimir Putin of Russia that the sovereignty of Georgia "must be respected by all nations."

This is, of course, the same George Bush who launched a war against Iraq, another sovereign state, and justified his actions by using baseless trumped up charges.

[myron myron]

Tell that to the families of the thousands of Kurds massacred by Saddam's chemical weapons and to the families of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis murdered and tortured under Saddam's regime and to the families of the Kuwaitis massacred and tortured during Iraq's violation of Kuwait's sovereignty by military invasion and to the families of the hundreds of Israeli civilians murdered by Arab suicide terrorists, whose families Saddam rewarded with checks for thousands of dollars.

Then come back and share with us their reactions.

[franfran]

Tell that to the families of the thousands of Kurds massacred by Saddam's chemical weapons and to the families of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis murdered and tortured under Saddam's regime and to the families of the Kuwaitis massacred and tortured during Iraq's violation of Kuwait's sovereignty by military invasion and to the families of the hundreds of Israeli civilians murdered by Arab suicide terrorists, whose families Saddam rewarded with checks for thousands of dollars.

Then come back and share with us their reactions.

I was not trying to deny that there were human rights abuses in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, nor was I denying that there were innocent people killed on his instructions. I was rather commenting on the situation we have where Bush is demanding that Putin respect Georgia's sovereignty when Bush did the exact opposite with Iraq.

And if America feels that it wants to right human rights abuses by force, why hasn't it invaded Zimbabwe? Or is it because they don't they have any oil reserves?

[myron myron]

Tell that to the families of the thousands of Kurds massacred by Saddam's chemical weapons and to the families of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis murdered and tortured under Saddam's regime and to the families of the Kuwaitis massacred and tortured during Iraq's violation of Kuwait's sovereignty by military invasion and to the families of the hundreds of Israeli civilians murdered by Arab suicide terrorists, whose families Saddam rewarded with checks for thousands of dollars.

Then come back and share with us their reactions.

I was not trying to deny that there were human rights abuses in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, nor was I denying that there were innocent people killed on his instructions. I was rather commenting on the situation we have where Bush is demanding that Putin respect Georgia's sovereignty when Bush did the exact opposite with Iraq.

And if America feels that it wants to right human rights abuses by force, why hasn't it invaded Zimbabwe? Or is it because they don't they have any oil reserves?

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.

[ZiaAries]

Fran Fran,

If wouldn't hurt if other countries such as your own, would step in without having America to be the leader of the pack internationally. Your own PM had to require men to enlist in order to have the troops needed for your military. Your countryman has a low moral on the military or have the military pride.

American aren't wimps and they are ready to serve with pride.

How come the Americans (with exception of Fred) don't start topics dogging other western countries?

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

[Cambridge]

Tell that to the families of the thousands of Kurds massacred by Saddam's chemical weapons and to the families of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis murdered and tortured under Saddam's regime and to the families of the Kuwaitis massacred and tortured during Iraq's violation of Kuwait's sovereignty by military invasion and to the families of the hundreds of Israeli civilians murdered by Arab suicide terrorists, whose families Saddam rewarded with checks for thousands of dollars.

Then come back and share with us their reactions.

Revenge is a double-edged sword, as we are currently finding out.

[Cambridge]

Now tell us how Georgia forfeited its sovereignty.

True, it didn’t. The US did…by not having the military strength to oppose Russia, what with the purposeless Iraq war and all.

[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".

[Cambridge]

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".

Well, if it has, you seem to be holding your ground excellently. Why apologize? Why stop now? If you find yourself in a position, and that position is the logical result of your words, stand up and be counted. And, no, subtle doesn't count with Americans.

[ZiaAries]

You started the topic Fran. You made a statement, you didn't ask a question. Read what you have written. You haven't touched a "raw nerve" with me, however, when you post calling attention to another country, using a preformed biased opinion, at least get your facts straight and have a general knowledge of what you are wanting to discuss before putting your personal judgments in.

Lots of these topics are started without stating what it is the poster is trying to accomplish, or to debate. I suggest you better communicate what it is you want to discuss.... IF you are genuine and want to be fair as the OP.

I didn't jump you or accuse you. Nothing was personal, so don't over dramatize it and make it so. Please make it clear to the reader what exactly you are wanting to debate. If you start your topic off unbalance and with criticism, expect to receive same in objective replies. If you are looking for comments from people that will only agree with you, please state that so we, that do not see as you do, will stay away from your topic.

Well, if it has, you seem to be holding your ground excellently. Why apologize? Why stop now? If you find yourself in a position, and that position is the logical result of your words, stand up and be counted. And, no, subtle doesn't count with Americans.

I agree that there is no need for an apology. Cambridge why do you state that? She did not make an apology.

As for holding her ground, I suggest she not make it personal. Neither myron nor I did that. State what you've got to say and be prepared for rebuttal. The intent is made clear by how the OP presents the topic.

Last, what is so "subtle" about the "Imperialism" comment? Would that be another example and proof of the original intention of the thread.

[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.

[myron myron]

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.

[myron myron]

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?

[Fred75]

Now tell us how Georgia forfeited its sovereignty.

True, it didn’t. The US did…by not having the military strength to oppose Russia, what with the purposeless Iraq war and all.

LIBERALS!!!
Cant make up your minds as to whether or not to have us fight or not!

[ILWL]

The expansion of Western influence into areas which have long been within a Russian sphere of control or influence was largely opportunistic. In hindsight it was god damned reckless. Liberals and Conservatives alike ought to consider the mess that has been made - I would hope that they are working together to fix this immensely dangerous conundrum.

The worm in the East has turned and unfortunately we need to respect that - otherwise we could have a potential flashpoint similar to Krushchev and Kennedy - this time I am not convinced the Russians will back down. I only hope that the West in general is aware that we have put ourselves in this corner - where it may come down to a choice between war or a loss of face; which will undermine our standing with the rest of the World. Notable business interests will suffer - as we will be seen as betraying the trust of nations that we will have to abandon.

I only hope that the Russians realise that any criticism coming from the West is merely postural rhetoric and our respective diplomats will work out a situation whereby damage to our interests are minimised.

I would hope that somehow Russia is cornered into a scenerio which allows for the creation of an 'Independent' Ossetian state (Incorporating North Ossetia under Russian control).