Of invasions and sovereign states
August 16, 2008 6:11am CST
Today, Mr GW Bush thinks it is uncivilised to invade a sovereign state. Now look who's talking?! I thought Bush would be the last person to condemn the invasion of Georgia with that argument and in that perspective. Granted, it is bad that Russia has "walked" Georgia so callously but, hey, Russia has its reasons as much as the US had its reasons for invading the sovereign state of Iraq, and toppling its leader. For the Russians, i think it is a different ballgame. Saakashvili is not the target! So the hypocrites better sing a different song, and simply just shut up!
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
16 Aug 08
there is a VAST difference between invading a sovereign state and taking it for your own and invading one and handing it over to the people it belongs to. I seriously wish people would stop with the same tired old cliche's. There is absolutely no comparing the scenarios you have given. The ignorance in this world astounds me. Does no one take the time to get themselves informed? Seriously folks, if you don't live in this country, stop professing and expounding on things about it or policies, You honestly don't know what your talking about. All you are doing is regurgitating completely misleading media cliche's and tired irrelevant arguments.
16 Aug 08
Well it of course depends what Russia's intentions exactly are. They have certainly gone well into Georgia at present as a punishing raid to weaken the Georgian military as much as possible. The key is whether they intend to stay in Georgia or, more likely, eventually withdraw to Abkazia and South Ossetia. I suspect the Russian's agenda is to get these two breakaway provinces to join Russia. If so, then there must be referenda held in both breakaway provinces and such referenda must be supervised by international monitors. Yes I agree that George Bush's aim was not to take over and hold Iraq. But to then say that the invasion was plotted for simply benign purposes quite frankly doesn't wash. No doubt there was some benign intention amongst the war's supporers to get rid of Saddam and bring in democracy, but we also know that the neo-con agenda was to project American power in the middle east and to replace unfriendly regimes with those that would be more pliant to US interests. So yes, the neo-cons who were close to Bush didn't believe in old-style colonialism in the sense of holding on to countries, but they do believe in reordering parts of the world with more friendly governments to suit US interests.
16 Aug 08
Yes, there is a vast difference, Russia invaded to stop Georgian atrocities and protect the de-facto independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, US invaded because Iraq had non-existent WMD or was that oil. You have clearly been duped by Bush's rhetoric all the best urban