Too bad he sounds as convingcing as a wet towel.

The fucking nerve!

Because Bush has the right to judge someone for invading a sovereign nation and threatening stability in the region?!

THE FUCKING NERVE!

>> ^thinker247:
The fucking nerve!
Because Bush has the right to judge someone for invading a sovereign nation and threatening stability in the region?!
THE FUCKING NERVE!


How many UN violations was Georgia in direct violation of vs iraq? How many 100's of thousands died under the Georgian curtain? Nations invade nations all the time, it's about the motivation, not about the act of doing it IMO. Bush is on shaky ground only for enforcing UN legislation that he didn't have the athority to do (USA isn't the enforcer of UN laws). However, that doesn't excuse Russia from an even more unilateral action; and to my knowledge, doesn't have any mass murdering dictoator at its helm. Im no bush fan, but your objections have to be reasonable. Georgia was applying to nato, if anyone has anything to say about what happens in Georgia, it's a main member of NATO.

This is the exact thing the UN was made for, lets hope they do something this time...my bet is they don't.

oops double post

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Im no bush fan, but your objections have to be reasonable.

He's objecting to the huge amount of hypocrisy. I'd say that's reasonable.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Im no bush fan, but your objections have to be reasonable.
He's objecting to the huge amount of hypocrisy. I'd say that's reasonable.



He is still the president, he still has a job to do. If Russia invaded 3 more of our allied countries would Bush be alowed to say something then? He is the spokes person of the US, like it or not. His position isn't like yourse or mine where we can choose to not speak up because of something that wasn't crystal in our past life expenices. He is the freaking president of the united state who is addressing a NATO hopeful's invation from our former cold war advicary. I can understand not liking bush like I didn't like Clinton, but he didn't stop being president with a job to do just being he nocked up some lady.

It is his job to say something, he must. You can't judge him by the same set of rules you would yourself, he is an elected official, he is still in office. It would be his job to say something even if Iraq never happend. Iraq was a bad call, not calling Russia out on their bad call isn't a good call either. Should he just sit back and sip a lemonade while things spin out of control with our friends around the world, cause that would make things worse not better.

I'm not sure if I should downvote because it's all lies, or upvote so people can see the dirty liar.

@GeeSussFreeK, you sure sound like a Bush fan.

I think that he probably should've come home from China sooner.

I think that he probably shouldn't have made assurances to Georgia that we would protect them from Russia before fighting broke out.

I think he should at least mention that Georgia started the fight.

I think he shouldn't start off with accusations of a potential escalation that didn't happen, and then instead of using the usual "The United States condemns the actions of Russia", says "Invading a sovreign country is unacceptable in the 21st Century".

I think rather than letting Condi finish out her vacation, he should tell her that her country needs her to be in Moscow, ASAP.

He doesn't mention it in this video, but I think we should stop pushing the idea of Georgia joining NATO for the moment (something Bush/McCain express a need for in other statements).

Toothless outrage followed by a mumbling of diplomacy is exactly the wrong message to be sending. It should be diplomacy first, with a mumbling about standing for our allies if necessary.

Bush isn't Clinton. Setting my bar as low as it will go, I will say at least Clinton avoided committing human rights violations during his 8 years, while Bush seems to have gotten rolling with them in 2002, and hasn't looked back since.

If you meant to compare George H.W. Bush with Clinton, I think that's pretty fair, since they were both pretty moderate and capable (while still managing to piss off people from the other political party).

>> ^NetRunner:
@GeeSussFreeK, you sure sound like a Bush fan.
I think that he probably should've come home from China sooner.
I think that he probably shouldn't have made assurances to Georgia that we would protect them from Russia before fighting broke out.
I think he should at least mention that Georgia started the fight.
I think he shouldn't start off with accusations of a potential escalation that didn't happen, and then instead of using the usual "The United States condemns the actions of Russia", says "Invading a sovreign country is unacceptable in the 21st Century".
I think rather than letting Condi finish out her vacation, he should tell her that her country needs her to be in Moscow, ASAP.
He doesn't mention it in this video, but I think we should stop pushing the idea of Georgia joining NATO for the moment (something Bush/McCain express a need for in other statements).
Toothless outrage followed by a mumbling of diplomacy is exactly the wrong message to be sending. It should be diplomacy first, with a mumbling about standing for our allies if necessary.
Bush isn't Clinton. Setting my bar as low as it will go, I will say at least Clinton avoided committing human rights violations during his 8 years, while Bush seems to have gotten rolling with them in 2002, and hasn't looked back since.
If you meant to compare George H.W. Bush with Clinton, I think that's pretty fair, since they were both pretty moderate and capable (while still managing to piss off people from the other political party).


Let me more precise then. I dislike bush and his bending of the constitution to the highest degree. Of all the presedents of my life time, no one has expanded the policing powers of the government more than he. With that bias in the clear, let me retort some of these things, and agree with you on others.

I also think he should of come home from China sooner. Even more so since he pleagded support. However, in that, NATO does not accept members with territorial disputes, and as long as this still has the PR of a territorial despute, his hands are tied.

The jury is still out on who fired first, and you will never really know who it was. Why are Russia claims more valid than Georgian ones?

Invading a sov sovreign country was the grounds of the first gulf war with had support from the UN and a large portions of the nations of the world united and fought against, this being the same kind of situation would tend to suggest the same kind of action could be warrented.

Yes, I also agree that condi should be in moscow ASAP. It is his call, he knows more about the details then we do, so I can't be to desisive on my own opinion.

I don't see why he should stop talking about them joining NATO. It would seem they need protection from large powers more than ever? Why do you think they should take this off the table, and don't you think that would undermine our position of loyalty to the Georgians in their minds of us?

I think the leasons from the cold war need to be explained again. Always come out bold, then digress later. Even Kenedy knew the most ancient rule of nation states, never apear weak or your enimies will take advantage. Taking a strong stand by your allies IS a diplomatic method of resolution that workd for 50 years in the cold war till Russia evaporated.

Your right, bush isn't Clinton, that was a poor analagy as to the president can't stop doing his job because of something. And I would say I hate bush's evaporation of the rights of america far more than lusting after the ladies.

However, I don't see this as a mistake or any kind for the prez to react in this way. In fact, I was hoping it would happen sooner than it did.


edit: BTW. I hope none of this comes off as condicending, I always appriticate anothers point of view.

>> ^thinker247:
The fucking nerve!
Because Bush has the right to judge someone for invading a sovereign nation and threatening stability in the region?!
THE FUCKING NERVE!


The pot can always call the kettle black.

Upvote for the hypocrisy. Thanks, W, for removing any remaining shreds of enlightened morality our country once had.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

It sounds like we agree more than we disagree.

From what I've read it's been pretty consistent that Georgia fired first. Where it gets muddy is that they fired on South Ossetia, which is a separatist region within their own border that's strongly in favor of reuniting with North Ossetia...in Russia. Russia then "invaded" by moving into South Ossetia to "defend" it against the Georgian troops. However, they used a wildly disproportionate force that routed the Georgians, and there was an iffy period there where people weren't sure if the Russians were going to charge to the Georgian capital or not (and they didn't).

Not too many accounts include all those pieces of information, but that's the picture I've gotten from what I read.

This certainly isn't Russia randomly attacking a small neighbor for no reason, with Georgia being an innocent victim -- they just made a bad gamble counting on US/NATO support to stay Russia's hand, and Russia called that bluff.

We're already appearing weak, because we fluffed up Georgia into thinking we'd come riding to their rescue if Russia responded militarily. Instead, Bush stayed in China for the weekend, sent a low-level emissary to Georgia only, and let French President Sarkozy do all the real diplomatic work.

As for military help? They got our permission to bring home their troop contingent from Iraq. Russia knew that we couldn't respond in any meaningful way when they went in. Georgia, on the other hand, expected more.

Sounding blustery and bellicose just adds to the "all bark and no bite" image we just earned, at least in my opinion. Obama's comments by contrast get the same message across without making it sound like an ultimatum and certainly seem more likely to entice diplomatic engagement, which should be our goal here.

As for the bit about NATO, I'm ambivalent about whether we should be pushing that in the first place. All I'm saying is that for right now it's probably best not to make too much noise about that, since we want to cool things down, not stir them up. The article I linked above was mostly saying "see, Obama's mentioning NATO too" though it has a different connotation than McCain's comments (note the title of the release).

My ultra-cynical side sees a motive for Bush/McCain to stir it up (at least in public), because they think it might help McCain in the election.

This also reminds me that McCain has been recommending a long line of belligerent policies with regard to Russia (like "kicking them out" of the G8). Now he's very gung-ho about Georgia being admitted into NATO now so we can get on with a war with Russia over Georgia. It's like he misses the Cold War, and wants it back.

Of course they miss the Cold War, fighting a visible and tangible enemy you can easily call names by invoking over 50 years of anti-communist propaganda!

It is my view that Georgia had total right to try and subvert a splintering of it's nation by moving into South Ossestia. This all has to do with how Stalin mapped the nations below Russia, making sure to include various nationalities in each nation to avert breeding nationalistic sentiment. In Uzbekistan for example there is a huge section of Tajiks in Samarkand, tomorrow it could decide to splinter to join Tajikistan.

Russia isn't there to assure anyone of anything but projecting power and influence on the Georgian government and all other satellite states (Ukraine and Poland specifically) that their cooperation with the West is nothing more then piss in the wind, and when push comes to shove no one will come to their aid.

Welcome to the New Soviet Union.

The back and forth between you and Netrunner was fun to read, but he's right in stating that I wasn't judging the actions of either Russia or Georgia. I'm simply amazed that a man who invaded a nation on false assumptions, then consistently changed his reasoning for invasion and occupation, would have the gall to call out another nation for doing exactly what he did. After all, what would he say if Russia stated their motivation for entering Georgia was the intelligence reports that suggested Georgia had WMD? Or if Russia said that the leader of Georgia was a terrorist-sponsor? We'd have Georgia in our new Axis of Evil within a day, and Russia would be on our speed-dial.

How many 100's of thousands died under the Georgian curtain?

Saddam killed 100,000 Kurds, who are only loosely called Iraqis. Even so, have we bombed any of the dozen or so African countries that have starved millions of their citizens to death? Have we bombed North Korea, who has citizens eating bark off trees to survive? The nations we invade and bomb are chosen based on nothing but our wish for political hegemony, which is EXACTLY what Russia is doing. This is where my retort to Bush's hypocrisy lies.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>>^thinker247:
The fucking nerve!
Because Bush has the right to judge someone for invading a sovereign nation and threatening stability in the region?!
THE FUCKING NERVE!

How many UN violations was Georgia in direct violation of vs iraq? How many 100's of thousands died under the Georgian curtain? Nations invade nations all the time, it's about the motivation, not about the act of doing it IMO. Bush is on shaky ground only for enforcing UN legislation that he didn't have the athority to do (USA isn't the enforcer of UN laws). However, that doesn't excuse Russia from an even more unilateral action; and to my knowledge, doesn't have any mass murdering dictoator at its helm. Im no bush fan, but your objections have to be reasonable. Georgia was applying to nato, if anyone has anything to say about what happens in Georgia, it's a main member of NATO.
This is the exact thing the UN was made for, lets hope they do something this time...my bet is they don't.

Farhad, I agree that Russia's not the good guy here, and did this to increase their own influence, not to help Ossetia. But I'm a little softer in my support of what Georgia was doing. One article I read said Ossetia had a referendum on independence, and >90% voted for independence.

I don't see any good guys involved in this, though it appears France gets bonus points for doing the diplomacy the U.S. was unable or unwilling to do.

It's all smoke and mirrors, Russia will have Georgia and America will be building bases in Iran by the end of the year. We'll still all be arguing over who started it and who was right and wrong.

I was so busy being mad about this that I forgot to vote for it.

Why shouldn't they enter a war with whomever they wish, including us? They're just following the same money-making tactics the U.S. has employed since Eisenhower stepped down.

Oh yeah, that's right. Because it's wrong. There are other ways to increase your sovereignty and make worship to the true god of this world, if that's your true goal.

161 more days. Let's just hope he doesn't do something incredibly stupid in that time. Given his track record, I'm not holding my breath.

The back and forth between you and Netrunner was fun to read, but he's right in stating that I wasn't judging the actions of either Russia or Georgia. I'm simply amazed that a man who invaded a nation on false assumptions, then consistently changed his reasoning for invasion and occupation, would have the gall to call out another nation for doing exactly what he did.


First off, I think Bush and Cheney should both be impeached and thrown in jail for allowing torture and the idea of Geneva-less non-combatants.

That said, comparing an invasion of Georgia to an invasion of Saddam's regime in Iraq is ludicrous. Georgia never gave government offices to wanted terrorists. Georgia never annexed a soverign nation. Georgia never used chemical weapons against it's neighbors and own people. Georgia never committed genocide. Saddam did all of these and a great deal more.


How many 100's of thousands died under the Georgian curtain?

Saddam killed 100,000 Kurds, who are only loosely called Iraqis. Even so, have we bombed any of the dozen or so African countries that have starved millions of their citizens to death? Have we bombed North Korea, who has citizens eating bark off trees to survive? The nations we invade and bomb are chosen based on nothing but our wish for political hegemony, which is EXACTLY what Russia is doing. This is where my retort to Bush's hypocrisy lies.


First off, Bush Jr. wasn't in power when 100's of thousands of lives were at stake in Rwanda and Sudan. I think it's unfair to blame prior presidential inaction on the current president(even one that aught be impeached). More importantly, the left wing argument about non-intervention in Sudan or Rwanda is insane. The question is SHOULD the world have intervened in Sudan and Rwanda, and the answer is a deafening YES!

If non-intervention in Iraq would have led to a coup and a civil war that in any way resembled Sudan or Rwanda then inspite of Bush and Cheney's actions that appall me, the act of preventing that would redeem them. That said, I don't think anyone can really see what an internal Iraqi civil war would've looked like. Though, it would be fair to say it would have been ugly, at least as ugly as the current situation in Iraq.

>> ^bcglorf:

First off, I think Bush and Cheney should both be impeached and thrown in jail for allowing torture and the idea of Geneva-less non-combatants.

I'm with you there.

That said, comparing an invasion of Georgia to an invasion of Saddam's regime in Iraq is ludicrous. Georgia never gave government offices to wanted terrorists. Georgia never annexed a soverign nation. Georgia never used chemical weapons against it's neighbors and own people. Georgia never committed genocide. Saddam did all of these and a great deal more.

And this is where you lost me. I am comparing the motivation of the political leaders who invaded these nations, and I see a similarity between political agendas being served. First of all, the annexing you speak of was in 1990, and H.W. Bush answered that one. Dubya's invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with genocide or chemical weapons or annexing nations; it had everything to do with American hegemony and protecting the dollar when Saddam decided to switch from the petrodollar to the petroeuro. Any other reason given for the invasion and occupation was bullshit propaganda.

First off, Bush Jr. wasn't in power when 100's of thousands of lives were at stake in Rwanda and Sudan. I think it's unfair to blame prior presidential inaction on the current president(even one that aught be impeached). More importantly, the left wing argument about non-intervention in Sudan or Rwanda is insane. The question is SHOULD the world have intervened in Sudan and Rwanda, and the answer is a deafening YES!

I'm not just talking about the crises in Sudan and Rwanda. Africa is marred by violence and famine, and dictators run most of it with an iron fist, thus causing millions of deaths across the continent. If we are so gung-ho about stopping genocide, why not start there instead of in the Middle East? We chose the Middle East, and it's because we're afraid OPEC will switch to the petroeuro and destroy the dollar. And we cover this in the guise of stopping terrorists. Meanwhile, bin Laden is still missing, and the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan. PROPAGANDA takes the place of information, yet again.

If non-intervention in Iraq would have led to a coup and a civil war that in any way resembled Sudan or Rwanda then inspite of Bush and Cheney's actions that appall me, the act of preventing that would redeem them. That said, I don't think anyone can really see what an internal Iraqi civil war would've looked like. Though, it would be fair to say it would have been ugly, at least as ugly as the current situation in Iraq.

You don't know what a civil war in Iraq looks like? Have you not heard the body count of civilians caught in the crossfire of the Sunni-Shi'ite battles?

I am comparing the motivation of the political leaders who invaded these nations, and I see a similarity between political agendas being served.


That is fair enough, but even if we assume that both leaders motivations are equally self serving, the nature of the countries being invaded is still important. I'll even offer that given America's VP is Haliburton's former CEO it seems pretty likely that oil was the dominant factor in the administration's decision. That still means we have a selfish America invading a genocidal dictator that used chemical weapons and annexed his neighbors every chance he got. On the other side we have a selfish Russia invading Goergia, which had done none of these. There is a distinction there still, and to say it is a fine line ignores just how horrific Saddam's acts were.


I'm not just talking about the crises in Sudan and Rwanda. Africa is marred by violence and famine, and dictators run most of it with an iron fist, thus causing millions of deaths across the continent. If we are so gung-ho about stopping genocide, why not start there instead of in the Middle East?

I whole heartedly agree that removing genocidal dictators in Africa first would have been better. But at the end of the day, I say stopping them in the middle-east is better than not stopping them anywhere. And that even means if the only motivation of the nation chasing them out is a self serving one. Fortunately for Iraqi civilians selfish American interests include an independent, stable and secure Iraq.


You don't know what a civil war in Iraq looks like? Have you not heard the body count of civilians caught in the crossfire of the Sunni-Shi'ite battles?


I was clearly saying no-one knows what a civil war against Saddam's army would have looked like. We already know for a fact he was an absolutely brutal dictator willing to use any and all weapons and targets available to him. If an Iraqi civil war began and Saddam prevailed, it's a safe bet that the genocides in Sudan and Rwanda, or at the least like that of the Kurds, would have been repeated yet again. Would you care to compare those body counts to present day Iraq?

EDIT:grammar

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by dystopianfuturetoday.

rasch187 has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because rasch187's points are already fully charged.