The security and safety of civilians don`t matter, when US foreign policy objectives need to be achieved. Another example of brazen hypocrisy regarding the hyping of "democracy"

The west's moral failure over Georgia by Sergei Bagapsh and Eduard Kokoity

One year ago, Georgia's leaders ordered a military attack on unarmed civilians in South Ossetia. By any common understanding this action was a war crime and the ensuing conflict led to recognised independence for Abkhazia and South Ossetia, of which we are the elected leaders.

From the moment of the Georgian attack there has been a vast moral abdication in the west, among politicians, intellectuals and media – a failure to honestly confront what Georgia did. This moral failure has profound consequences for us and it is preventing western leadership from dealing realistically with the new boundaries of nationhood here.

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are free and independent countries, goals sought by our people for centuries. We will never again be a part of Georgia. Over the past two decades, we have worked hard to prepare for our place in the community of nations; by promoting development of a civil society, by encouraging a free press and by holding contested elections in which our citizens chose their leaders. The same cannot be said of Georgia, whose last two leaders have come to power through revolution.

We want to raise our children without worrying every day about a reckless leader with a US arsenal at his disposal. Yet instead of demanding truth and accountability about atrocities committed by Georgia's US-trained and equipped military last August, the west is rearming our neighbour and committing billions of dollars in aid to the same rash leadership .

After independent observers, journalists and human rights groups began confirming the Georgian actions, some US and western leaders – against all reason and justice – said that it was no longer important who started the August war. Military aggression against civilians is never unimportant.

US leaders say that unquestioning military and financial support for Georgia is the surest path to freedom and democracy in the region. But even the US has acknowledged President Mikheil Saakashvili's failure to uphold his democratic credentials, including the silencing of critics in the media and the crushing of political dissent.

The truth is that on 7 August 2008 an irrational Georgian leader used US military support to launch a brutal attack on South Ossetia, hours after publicly assuring Ossetian civilians that he had ordered a ceasefire. The truth is that Grad rockets and cluster bombs killed women, children and the elderly in the middle of the night, and only Russian intervention prevented an even greater atrocity.

Georgia does not need more weapons; it needs more tolerance and political freedom.If the Obama administration genuinely wanted to promote peace, stability and democratic values in our region, it would insist that Georgia sign a pact of non-aggression against our countries.

The language of US leaders says peace, but their actions communicate otherwise. In his visit to Tbilisi last month, US vice-president Joseph Biden made the following comment: "It's a sad certainty but it is true," he said. "there is no military option to reintegration [of Abkhazia and South Ossetia]."

Why would it be "sad" that Georgia should not use its military to attack our people? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/06/georgia-abkhazia-south-ossetia)

Any comments regarding this appeal?

The security and safety of civilians don`t matter, when US foreign policy objectives need to be achieved. ...

Why should the USA give a shit about those civilians? They aren't American citizens? Our Constitution applies to US citizens ONLY! Georgian? Ossetias? Fuck 'em, let 'em die.

Baron Max

The security and safety of civilians has never mattered in any war other than recent ones... and half the time those civilians aren't civilians anyway.

Everyone takes a side. Easy to say a bomb killed a dozen "civilians", but in reality most of those would have cut your throat rather than let you have your way.

General question. Whoever is the current bad guy invades the USA, doesn't abide by your policy regarding "civilian" casualties.
What are you going to do? Complain to their courts? Or fight?

Do you really want to know why you haven't won a war since Vietnam?

Why should the USA give a shit about those civilians? They aren't American citizens? Our Constitution applies to US citizens ONLY! Georgian? Ossetias? Fuck 'em, let 'em die.

Baron Max
This is as crazy as it can get......get a life....:crazy::crazy:
You can not debate issues so stay out off them . :mad: .

This is as crazy as it can get......get a life....

Oh, so you think the USA cares about those people???? How can you tell? What evidence do you have that the USA cares about them so much?

Baron Max

Oh, so you think the USA cares about those people???? How can you tell? What evidence do you have that the USA cares about them so much?

Baron Max
Any human being should care about innocent people . It is just common sense . The thread is about the US NOT caring about innocent civilians .
We are humans and we should care very much about who die and who live . We have the powers of voting, contributing to candidates......etc .
:D .

Funny. Expected. Pathetic.

Part of this resistance comes from a group of leaders in the west so steeped in a cold war mentality that they can only view our countries as pawns in an endless geopolitical struggle between Russia and the US and Europe. That leaves our republics, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, in the unfortunate position described in an African proverb: when the elephants dance, the grass gets trampled.

I suppose you think that since the cold war is over, Russia is now a tame little kitten with the best of intentions?

Nope.

It's still a geopolitical struggle. Russia could very well annex Georgia by military force, and it's friendly republics are being used as pawns. We damn well will meddle wherever we see fit. I admire Biden's leadership here.

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are free and independent countries,
Apparently Russia & the prez of South Ossetia had other plans...

August 30, 2008

Kremlin announces that South Ossetia will join 'one united Russian state'

The Kremlin moved swiftly to tighten its grip on Georgia’s breakaway regions yesterday as South Ossetia announced that it would soon become part of Russia, which will open military bases in the province under an agreement to be signed on Tuesday.

Tarzan Kokoity, the province’s Deputy Speaker of parliament, announced that South Ossetia would be absorbed into Russia soon so that its people could live in “one united Russian state” with their ethnic kin in North Ossetia.

The declaration came only three days after Russia defied international criticism and recognised South Ossetia and Georgia’s other separatist region of Abkhazia as independent states. Eduard Kokoity, South Ossetia’s leader, agreed that it would form part of Russia within “several years” during talks with Dmitri Medvedev, the Russian President, in Moscow.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4635843.ece
In any event, the notion that the 2 are 'free and independent countries' seems ludicrous. The term 'Russian satellites' seems more apropos.

Funny. Expected. Pathetic.
What is funny, expected and pathetic ?.
Please explain and debate your views . :shrug: .

I just think its funny that we blame the USA and whin about "interfering". Come on. Every single fraking country on this planet can be connected in one way or another to every other one. All are working for their own interests. from the smallest island nation in the pacific to the big dog USA. of course being the top dog right now means we have more influence but so fraking what?

I wonder, Communism is an European ideology. China is Communist. Communist China was poor. It's all the Europeans fault!!?? Someone's fault but not the Chinese! Please. The only nation to suck it up, that I can think of, is Japan. They seriously just shut up, took responcibility, looked forward and struggeled forward. Following WWIIK Russia, the USA, Europe, China, Korea, everyone would have been trying to influence Japan's future. But, they didn't whine they just worked hard and worked smart. This is the difference between why Japan is successful and Iran isn't. The Iranians are still blaming Great Satan for something 3 decades ago. The Japanese in 3 decade went from zero to hero. See the difference..?

That's what bugs me about this sort of whinny thread.... Georgians are getting boned,,, it's the USA fault? No... it's their fault they let Russia bend them over and stick it in deep. Georgia had its chance and they screwed up, now they are Russia;s bitch and better get used to wearing lip stick - such is history.

meh....

It seems you just like the so called big Satan.....so enjoy your hypocrisy .

OK Mike, yeah, "The USA", that is you me and all Citizens, are completely and utterly responsible for ALL and EVERY single decision the Georgian population makes.

Yup.

They made some stupid decisions and are now Russia's little bitch - and that is 1/300 millionth your fault. The Georgians, nothing is their fault. Nope. It's all your fault.

Fell better?
:)

Apparently Russia & the prez of South Ossetia had other plans...
In any event, the notion that the 2 are 'free and independent countries' seems ludicrous. The term 'Russian satellites' seems more apropos.

Do you regard Kosovo as "free and independent"? Do you regard Afghanistan as a US satellite?

Do you regard Kosovo as "free and independent"? Do you regard Afghanistan as a US satellite?
Kosovo seems to me to be a different sort of situation, as it didn't break away from the nation it had supposedly been a part of... ..or at least the nation which had broken away from the nation which it had once been a part of... ...or something... ...in order that some washed up old superpower with delusions of slapping it's empire back together could 're-absorb' it to further said goal.

As for Afghanistan, I like the term "protectorate", but a turd by any other name, so to speak. "Base of Operations" works, too.

Iraq and Afghanistan are US colonies and calling them anything else is deceitful, manipulative and disgraceful .

You don't know the meaning of the word.

Iraq and Afghanistan are US colonies - this may be true, it depends on what a "colony" is I suppose. I thought colonies were places where Citizens were encouraged to move to and settle in? You know, colonizing. Like when the English colonized Australia or when Arabs colonized Egypt.

Is Japan a colony of the USA? What about Korea? We had wars in those countries as well and maintain military bases there.

Iraq and Afghanistan are US colonies - this may be true, it depends on what a "colony" is I suppose. I thought colonies were places where Citizens were encouraged to move to and settle in? You know, colonizing. Like when the English colonized Australia or when Arabs colonized Egypt.
Is Japan a colony of the USA? What about Korea? We had wars in those countries as well and maintain military bases there.

Everyone knows what a colony is .
We do not need geniuses to explain them to us .
:D .

Any comments regarding this appeal?

The problem is that Russia is large, powerful, and nuclear. You'll notice that the US can't really go after North Korea in any meaningful way either. The horse is already out of the barn in both places.

Or, more simply: they can't threaten to invade them because the Russians could - and would - tell them to fuck off with complete impunity. They could scarcely even get into Georgia, to be honest.

I hope that clarifies your understanding of the issue. You have to understand political, logistical and military limitations. The US is not Superman, whatever the papers in Tehran might side-handedly allude to in their denunciations.

The Case for Leaving Iraq — Now (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1915148,00.html)

The gist of the colonel's argument is that there is nothing significant that a continued U.S. military presence can do to improve either the delivery of "essential services" to Iraqis, or the ability and inclination of Maliki's sloppy and quarrelsome Shi'ite-dominated government to reconcile with the Sunnis and Kurds.

In fact, there are a growing number of warning signs that the Iraqi government is no longer under the sway of their American forces that brought it into being. Reese notes a "sudden coolness" being displayed by Iraqi commanders towards their American counterparts after June 30, the date on which the Status of Forces Agreement concluded between Baghdad and Washington last December required that U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq's towns and cities. Following that date, suspects detained by U.S. soldiers were freed by Iraqis. And the Iraqi government openly disdained the recent offer by Vice-President Joe Biden, during a visit to Baghdad, to help mediate in its conflicts with Kurds and Sunnis. Top military adviser Reese likened the relationship between Iraqi and U.S. soldiers to "a father teaching his kid to ride a bike without training wheels, " explaining: "Our hand on the back of the (Iraqis') seat is holding them back and causing resentment. We need to let go before we both tumble to the ground."

Col. Reese's point is simple: Despite having more than 130,000 troops there, the U.S. has lost all strategic influence with the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and with it any ability to influence the outcome in Iraq. So why drag it out?


I find it kind of funny behavior for a colony? I mean, the USA exerts very little control over Iraqi behavior. THAT does NOT happen in a colony. Just another one of those puzzling conundrums that suggests that Iraq is not a USA colony? Come on, we haven't begun colonizing the land and while sure the USA did try to support a fraction and install a puppet government - it didn't take and so it's time to leave. I don't think Iraq was a colony at all.

Kosovo seems to me to be a different sort of situation, as it didn't break away from the nation it had supposedly been a part of... ..or at least the nation which had broken away from the nation which it had once been a part of... ...or something... ...in order that some washed up old superpower with delusions of slapping it's empire back together could 're-absorb' it to further said goal.

As for Afghanistan, I like the term "protectorate", but a turd by any other name, so to speak. "Base of Operations" works, too.
No. Kosovo is not a "special" case as some would have you believe. There is no difference between Kosovo/South Ossetia/Abkhazia fragmentation via the right to self determination, except that an independent Kosovo is US & Co. approved for strategic reasons.

Currently Afghanistan is an US colony. Period.

The problem is that Russia is large, powerful, and nuclear. You'll notice that the US can't really go after North Korea in any meaningful way either. The horse is already out of the barn in both places.
Yes.
Or, more simply: they can't threaten to invade them because the Russians could - and would - tell them to fuck off with complete impunity. They could scarcely even get into Georgia, to be honest.
Who are "they"?
Gestures are important. There is plenty the US and the UN can do to via gestures (just as they do globally) to promote peace and security in the region. Furthermore failure to confront war crimes (from both sides), and then re arming an unstable regime is utterly hypocritical. (No different from the same moral failure regarding Palestine.) Obviously surrounding Russia with NATO states is the objective.
I hope that clarifies your understanding of the issue. You have to understand political, logistical and military limitations. The US is not Superman, whatever the papers in Tehran might side-handedly allude to in their denunciations.
Militarily the US should cut supplies to Georgia. This would ensure a better chance at stability in the region. No, the US is far from superman, only a bully boy that engages down and out nations.

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are free and independent countries, goals sought by our people for centuries. We will never again be a part of Georgia. Over the past two decades, we have worked hard to prepare for our place in the community of nations

This is what I call "Plan for an independent or autonomous political separation". How do countries react against these kinds of activities; "plans against their territorial integrity"? Check out the history of modern/nation states, almost all of them used military options, not because it was right or wrong; just because it is the nature of the game. It is accepted by all International Law tradition. Written by humans, played by all. You must have expected this kind of reaction if you had been "worked hard to prepare for" your place in the community of nations. Can you imagine such a nation state that would willingly give its territories? What’s the point then?

We want to raise our children without worrying every day about a reckless leader with a US arsenal at his disposal. Yet instead of demanding truth and accountability about atrocities committed by Georgia's US-trained and equipped military last August...

There are two possibilities here:

1- US does not want you to upraise against Georgia:
a) because US does not love you
b) because US does not feel anything about you, but it wants to help Georgia, since this country is its ally.

2- US only care about Russia.

In any case, it does not matter what you or Georgia “want”, but rather what US and Russia want. This is the power politics. Old style, stupid, does not care about single individual’s feelings (like “raise our children without worrying” shit), no single individual actually can do anything about it, it is “system”, bigger than humans. Ugly, unfortunate, yet it’s true. You also know that it’s true; this is why you can ask this:

If the Obama administration genuinely wanted to promote peace, stability and democratic values in our region, it would insist that Georgia sign a pact of non-aggression against our countries.

What should America do? "Stand aside Russia; I will defend Georgia's territorial integrity!" No, definitely not. It is not principles and written agreements and strict laws are governing international system: It's a jungle. And America would not go any conflict with Russia, not now and definitely not for this, neither for Iran, nor for any other regional stress. This is why Biden expressed that "It's a sad certainty but it is true, there is no military option to reintegration [of Abkhazia and South Ossetia]” .
He was not thinking how many civilians would or would not die due to a military operation. He was thinking further than this; “yes, it is sad because normally it is our (US and Georgia) “right” to keep our ground intact. People die, shit happens. But it is still in our global culture and international mechanism that once you give in, you will keep giving and giving. Every loss could trigger the next one and you will finally be gone, like the mighty Roman Empire, and like other examples. It is “sad” that you can not fight for your loss. But it’s a certainty, and you should live with it. It also hints that, people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia should not expect any harm from US or Georgia; not because they are being loved by them, because it is sad that Russia is there…” That’s what he was more likely thinking.

Don’t be such spoiled bastards, there are nations, cultures and groups in this world that have no chance to gain any independence from their oppressors, unified nation states; some of them don’t even have a defined territory.

This reminded me the poor lesbians, for instance…

The US is helping only their own interests everywhere . Do not expect much from them .

[I] Don’t be such spoiled bastards, there are nations, cultures and groups in this world that have no chance to gain any independence from their oppressors, unified nation states; some of them don’t even have a defined territory.
What is your point?
This reminded me the poor lesbians, for instance…
Seriously friend, what?

The US is helping only their own interests everywhere . Do not expect much from them .The people in the USA also help a LOT of non-American Citizens.

That aside, tell me, which nation do you suppose helps more non-Citizens when compared with the USA? Japan helps a lot of non-Japanese, but, it's mainly to further their vested interests. They help build infrastructure in Asia for example. That infrastructure is made using Japanese parts, which will need to be purchased from Japan in the future. The loans come from the Japanese bank, they will need to be paid back. The electricity helps the people there to purchase Japanese goods.


As an example


Anyway... which nation would you say helps more non-Citizens than the USA?
Mexico? :p

I am referring to foreign politics and international games and Not social services.....etc .

What is your point?


My point is, your "hypocricy exposed" has no meaning when you think all cultures who are suffering because of somebody else's culture, some traditional and territorial claims, or tidal waves of international system.

Hypocricy ehh...

In the early nineties, a war of ethnic-nationalism commenced when the Abkhaz ethnic minority revolted against Georgian control in Abkhazia. The conlict lasted a year, and in the end Abkhaza stole its self-government from Georgia and became the de-facto republic it is today. During the war, significant human rights violations were reported by both sides. The worst of these were from the Abkhaz military, where a possible 20, 000 ethnic Georgians were reportedly murdered in a camaign of ethnic cleansing. Another 250, 000 Ethnic Georgians became refugees when forced from their homes. These violations against ethnic Georgians in Abkhazia are officially recognized by the United Nations and the OSCE.


What were they saying in your text: "We love people, encourage free press, democracy, our people are determinant..." Bull shit! If they were Palestinians, Amazon tribes, Kurdish people, Tibet people, or many other culture who has no direct support of a strong Russia behind them, they couldn't kill civilians and cry for independence while blaming others with hypocricy.

I still defend poor lesbians, I think they deserve more peacefull and free from fear life than any other national projects. Nations are imagined communities and they see other types of existences as expendable for the sake of nation. No my friend, if you isolate one nation's hypocricy and not seeing that others do the same when they find any opportunity, that does not mean that you are after justice. You just pick on a famous example, and blaming the player instead of the game.

I am telling you this: Abkhaz military did not kill Georgian civilians in 1992 and 1993 because of US support on Georgia. So their hypocricy is originated much before than 1492 too.

The US is helping only their own interests everywhere . Do not expect much from them .

Just like everyone else who can afford to.

I am referring to foreign politics and international games and Not social services.....etc .OK then, lets make two questions:

1) Which nation do you suppose provides the most social services to non-Citizens?

2) Which nation do you suppose is the most fair-minded in terms of foreign politics and international intrigue?

My point is, your "hypocricy exposed" has no meaning when you think all cultures who are suffering because of somebody else's culture, some traditional and territorial claims, or tidal waves of international system.

Hypocricy ehh...

In the early nineties, a war of ethnic-nationalism commenced when the Abkhaz ethnic minority revolted against Georgian control in Abkhazia. The conlict lasted a year, and in the end Abkhaza stole its self-government from Georgia and became the de-facto republic it is today. During the war, significant human rights violations were reported by both sides. The worst of these were from the Abkhaz military, where a possible 20, 000 ethnic Georgians were reportedly murdered in a camaign of ethnic cleansing. Another 250, 000 Ethnic Georgians became refugees when forced from their homes. These violations against ethnic Georgians in Abkhazia are officially recognized by the United Nations and the OSCE.


What were they saying in your text: "We love people, encourage free press, democracy, our people are determinant..." Bull shit! If they were Palestinians, Amazon tribes, Kurdish people, Tibet people, or many other culture who has no direct support of a strong Russia behind them, they couldn't kill civilians and cry for independence while blaming others with hypocricy.
Ah. OK. Fair enough. Is that a good reason for the US to arm old foes Georgia? The hypocrisy is the US`s supposed stance against (allegedly) militant regimes, like Iran, Iraq and N.Korea while supporting OTHER known militant regimes like Georgia and Israel.
I still defend poor lesbians, I think they deserve more peacefull and free from fear life than any other national projects. Nations are imagined communities and they see other types of existences as expendable for the sake of nation.
What region of the world are you referring to? Where I am, folk are free to pursue whatever sexual proclivities they choose.
No my friend, if you isolate one nation's hypocricy and not seeing that others do the same when they find any opportunity, that does not mean that you are after justice. You just pick on a famous example, and blaming the player instead of the game.
A prime example of double standards, and in this case the player gets the blame. Of course the game stinks too.
I am telling you this: Abkhaz military did not kill Georgian civilians in 1992 and 1993 because of US support on Georgia. So their hypocricy is originated much before than 1492 too.
Are you speaking from experience friend?

*beep beep*
mike47... hello....???

:p

What region of the world are you referring to? Where I am, folk are free to pursue whatever sexual proclivities they choose.

NO, Straw, they are not. Enough.

Ah. OK. Fair enough. Is that a good reason for the US to arm old foes Georgia? The hypocrisy is the US`s supposed stance against (allegedly) militant regimes, like Iran, Iraq and N.Korea while supporting OTHER known militant regimes like Georgia and Israel.
There wouldn't be any need for hypocrisy if not for the need to placate.

Of course, it is rather difficult to see those in charge of aggressive regimes being any more concerned about their hypocrisy than you are about yours.

The Case for Leaving Iraq — Now (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1915148,00.html)



I find it kind of funny behavior for a colony? I mean, the USA exerts very little control over Iraqi behavior. THAT does NOT happen in a colony. Just another one of those puzzling conundrums that suggests that Iraq is not a USA colony? Come on, we haven't begun colonizing the land and while sure the USA did try to support a fraction and install a puppet government - it didn't take and so it's time to leave. I don't think Iraq was a colony at all.

Your thinking is beyond just wrong it is deceitful too ...:( .

There wouldn't be any need for hypocrisy if not for the need to placate.

Of course, it is rather difficult to see those in charge of aggressive regimes being any more concerned about their hypocrisy than you are about yours.
Thank G-d we are fast moving towards a multi polar balance of power. The glory days of the aggressive regime are over.

Currently Afghanistan is an US colony. Period.

There is no coherent definition of "colony" that Afghanistan would currently qualify for.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of alternative terms for you to choose from, designed to describe exactly such situations: client state, satellite state, puppet state, etc.

You should use an accurate term, if accuracy is important to you. If it's not, and you simply favor the connotations of colonialism for their emotive value, then you should stop pretending to be dealing in accurate fact.


Thank G-d we are fast moving towards a multi polar balance of power. The glory days of the aggressive regime are over.

Multi-polar power configurations ("balance" seems premature, at this point) typically exhibit greater levels of conflict and destruction than unipolar configurations. See the World Wars, for example.

There is no coherent definition of "colony" that Afghanistan would currently qualify for.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of alternative terms for you to choose from, designed to describe exactly such situations: client state, satellite state, puppet state, etc.

You should use an accurate term, if accuracy is important to you. If it's not, and you simply favor the connotations of colonialism for their emotive value, then you should stop pretending to be dealing in accurate fact.
How about US "outpost", with attached connotations of "empire" and "imperial" and "clinging"?
Multi-polar power configurations ("balance" seems premature, at this point) typically exhibit greater levels of conflict and destruction than unipolar configurations. See the World Wars, for example.
That old chestnut. But it does put the brakes on carte blanche for willy nilly invasions somewhat.

The USA has been the sole superpower for 5 decade. The USSR is a "superpower" paradigm was a hoax. By the late 1970s out airforce was decades more advanced than anything the USSR could produce. Not to mention our economy, technology, etc.. etc.. etc...

mike47, you want to think of Iraq as a colony, then go for. Tell you what. As Iraq is a colony why don't you just get your arse on a plane and move on over there and live.

I mean, it is a colony after all....

I'm sure 30 min in Iraq, and a good splash of reality, you'll see Iraq is NOT a colony of the USA.

stop whinning
:p

How about US "outpost", with attached connotations of "empire" and "imperial" and "clinging"?

"Outpost" is fine by me, although it to my ear it doesn't carry the connotations you list.


That old chestnut. But it does put the brakes on carte blanche for willy nilly invasions somewhat.

Not sure what you mean by carte blanche, but there seems to be fewer invasions these days than there were during the Cold War, or the multipolar period before that.

A multipolar world order could easily increase the frequency and ease of invasions, depending on how it works. The dominant powers might simply decide to divvy up the world between them, giving each of them carte blanche to invade any country in their respective sphere, for example. Even if the disincentives for invasion do increase, it could still result in more invasions if the incentives to invade (due to great power competition) also increase. And there is myriad recent historical evidence for exactly such an outcome.

And anyway there are worse things than invasions. Such as great power conflicts, World Wars, nuclear annihilation, etc.

Thank G-d we are fast moving towards a multi polar balance of power. The glory days of the aggressive regime are over.
You mean, like it was just before World War I?
Good luck with that.

Apart from the last couple of decades, there has almost always been a tenuous balance. Never changed a damned thing, did it.

And soon the fanatics will have nukes, too. One can only hope they'll be fat and rich by then, and too comfortable to actually consider upsetting the apple cart by using them. You know, like the Americans.

. You know, like the Americans.

You mean, the only ones who used them?

Yeah, them. The same ones who never have since. Even when they're losing wars.

You, of course, are the type who wants to put dangerous weapons in the hands of extremists because it's "not fair" they don't have them.

Yeah, them. The same ones who never have since. Even when they're losing wars.

You, of course, are the type who wants to put dangerous weapons in the hands of extremists because it's "not fair" they don't have them.

They are already in the hands of extremists, who used them without accountability. :rolleyes:

They were the first ones to use them, and the last. Very few people knew or believed the effect they'd have,. and once that was observed they haven't been used since, even when the USA has lost wars.
"Without accountability"? Whats that supposed to mean? If someone wanted to drop a big bomb in world war two they had to go before a committee to ask permission?

You're turning into a fucking idiot, SAM.

They were the first ones to use them, and the last. Very few people knew or believed the effect they'd have,. and once that was observed they haven't been used since, even when the USA has lost wars.
"Without accountability"? Whats that supposed to mean? If someone wanted to drop a big bomb in world war two they had to go before a committee to ask permission?

You're turning into a fucking idiot, SAM.
Whatever the rationale, its a permanent stain on US morality. Period. (not that anyone is surprised)

Whatever the rationale, its a permanent stain on US morality.

So you imagine nations to have some kind of moral status? Not only that, but a permanent one, transcending state, individual, subsequent actions, etc.

Which, if any, nation would you label as "moral?"

So you imagine nations to have some kind of moral status? Not only that, but a permanent one, transcending state, individual, subsequent actions, etc.

Which, if any, nation would you label as "moral?"

Ask yourself a question. In the name of human progress, why should nations not aspire to improving moral status? Would that be good or bad, for you and me?
Having said that of course that is not the actual reality, although there are some nations, for example New Zealand, who aspire to do the right thing. Admirable.

Getting back to said stain, do you think Hitler will ever be forgiven for the slaughter he caused?

Ask yourself a question. In the name of human progress, why should nations not aspire to improving moral status?

First you'll have to define what a nation's moral status is.

I thought I'd indicated that it was a novel concept, to me.


although there are some nations, for example New Zealand, who aspire to do the right thing.

Do you imagine that there are nations who aspire to do the "wrong thing?"

How do we tell, in general, what is "the right thing?"

Moreover, where's history in this formulation? If all it takes it an "aspiration to do the right thing," then how do the actions of 50 years ago add up to a permanent downgrade in moral status?

Cause there's certainly no shortage of national crimes in New Zealand's history. Are they somehow impermanent for not involving nuclear fission?


Getting back to said stain, do you think Hitler will ever be forgiven for the slaughter he caused?

Doubtful, but it seems to me that the German nation has already largely been forgiven for the slaughter Hitler led them to.

Likewise, the Japanese seem largely to have come to terms with their history with America.

It won't be long now until every single person who was alive during WWII is dead, forgiven or not. Do their bygone actions continue to downgrade the moral status of their nations in perpetuity, or is it simply a matter of the nation's current aspirations?

Whatever the rationale, its a permanent stain on US morality. Period. (not that anyone is surprised)


Query: are you an American citizen or are you a foreign national? Are you a legal resident in the USA?

Almost every post you make here is anti-America this or anti-America that. Clearly you have an arab muslim background but it sounds like you have a complex about America too.

First you'll have to define what a nation's moral status is.
I thought I'd indicated that it was a novel concept, to me.
If a nation stands for human rights and freedom of expression, and backs that up with concrete action, that could indicate the status.

Novel or not, certain Presidents like hyping their (Nations) moral relevancy in speeches with words like "freedom", "peace", "democracy", etc. Of course the actions don`t follow.
Do you imagine that there are nations who aspire to do the "wrong thing?"
There are certainly nations that enjoy imperial aspirations. The "wrong thing" here would be the utter disregard for human rights, ie, civilian casualties, hunger, displacement, urban destruction, etc. in pursuance of influence.
How do we tell, in general, what is "the right thing?"
Small defensive military, pacifist, socially orientated, environmentally aware, minding their own business, etc.
Moreover, where's history in this formulation? If all it takes it an "aspiration to do the right thing," then how do the actions of 50 years ago add up to a permanent downgrade in moral status?
The track record since the event speak for themselves, don`t they? The antithesis of the "the right thing".
Cause there's certainly no shortage of national crimes in New Zealand's history. Are they somehow impermanent for not involving nuclear fission?
Yes of course, historically British Colonialism caused tragedy as it did everywhere it reared its ugly head. As a nation, (NZ) they have learned from their mistakes and are clearly and consistently pursuing the "right thing".
Doubtful, but it seems to me that the German nation has already largely been forgiven for the slaughter Hitler led them to.
But its a crime to deny the holocaust? That memory is so strong, is been legislated.
Likewise, the Japanese seem largely to have come to terms with their history with America.
Yes, it make great economic sense.
It won't be long now until every single person who was alive during WWII is dead, forgiven or not. Do their bygone actions continue to downgrade the moral status of their nations in perpetuity, or is it simply a matter of the nation's current aspirations?
Current actions and policy, can clearly determine moral aspirations. But the stain can fade away if given enough time.

They were the first ones to use them, and the last. Very few people knew or believed the effect they'd have,. and once that was observed they haven't been used since, even when the USA has lost wars.
"Without accountability"? Whats that supposed to mean? If someone wanted to drop a big bomb in world war two they had to go before a committee to ask permission?

You're turning into a fucking idiot, SAM.
The US government has no values, no morals and no accountability . It is a blind bully with too much power. Alas and alas !!.

If a nation stands for human rights and freedom of expression, and backs that up with concrete action, that could indicate the status.

"Could?" That's not much of a definition....


Novel or not, certain Presidents like hyping their (Nations) moral relevancy in speeches with words like "freedom", "peace", "democracy", etc. Of course the actions don`t follow.

So the hype of certain Presidents is what determines national moral status?

There are certainly nations that enjoy imperial aspirations.

Again with the "aspirations." Does it follow that, upon giving up said aspirations, their impact on the moral standing of the nation disappears?

Where is the permanent moral impact of past actions, here?


The "wrong thing" here would be the utter disregard for human rights, ie, civilian casualties, hunger, displacement, urban destruction, etc. in pursuance of influence.

And if the disregard is not "utter," or in the service of some pursuit besides influence? If the destruction is rural, or the casualties military?


Small defensive military, pacifist, socially orientated, environmentally aware, minding their own business, etc.

And if the defensive military is large, or mind is paid to human rights issues in other nations?


The track record since the event speak for themselves, don`t they? The antithesis of the "the right thing".

I thought the event itself, rather than some subsequent sequence of events and aspirations, was supposed to have permanent effect. Is morality a state of (national) mind, or is it the sum of historical actions?


Yes of course, historically British Colonialism caused tragedy as it did everywhere it reared its ugly head. As a nation, (NZ) they have learned from their mistakes and are clearly and consistently pursuing the "right thing".

So those mistakes are somehow impermanent in a way that nuclear attacks are not? They are, apparently, subject to some mechanism of reparation and atonement, that nuclear attacks do not qualify for?


But its a crime to deny the holocaust? That memory is so strong, is been legislated.

This has what to do with the moral standing of the German nation again?


Yes, it make great economic sense.

If we buy that explanation, it follows that national morality is not a terribly interesting subject. After all, if a nation that was victimized in a way that permanently stains the morality of another nation will ignore these factors for simple monetary gain, then what relevance does it have to anything?


Current actions and policy, can clearly determine moral aspirations.

Hold on, a minute ago we were using aspirations to determine moral standing, and now it's "moral aspirations?"

And again, what happened to history? That was the entire question, remember?


But the stain can fade away if given enough time.

So it is not "permanent. Period." then? The mere passage of time will eventually erase it, and active reparation can clean it even more quickly. No?

"So it is not "permanent. Period." then? The mere passage of time will eventually erase it, and active reparation can clean it even more quickly. No?
It is permanent. Period. To get back to the gist of the issue. The US will carry the indelible stain of (for now) being the only nation to wreak mass carnage via nukes.

What I was attempting to convey, was that the best way forward under such circumstances would be top do the next "right" thing. No luck thus far.

So like, are people embarrassed to admit that they aren't American now? Perhaps they feel that not being American would somehow delegitimize their rabidly anti American sentiments..?

It would make sense as not being an American is a general theme among those who subscribe to the "I HAET AMERIKA" club.

No. Kosovo is not a "special" case as some would have you believe. There is no difference between Kosovo/South Ossetia/Abkhazia fragmentation via the right to self determination, except that an independent Kosovo is US & Co. approved for strategic reasons.

Currently Afghanistan is an US colony. Period.
Not "special". Just different.

At the very least, Kosovo can interact with the rest of Europe.

In South Ossetia, they've apparently got the options of -
a)Russia
b)Russia
c)Russia



Thank G-d we are fast moving towards a multi polar balance of power. The glory days of the aggressive regime are over.
Hold on to your hat.

The Ch'in Empire ain't even got up to speed yet.


How about US "outpost", with attached connotations of "empire" and "imperial" and "clinging"?
Like I said - Base of Operations.

Not "special". Just different.

At the very least, Kosovo can interact with the rest of Europe.

In South Ossetia, they've apparently got the options of -
a)Russia
b)Russia
c)Russia

No difference at all. But, for the West to recognize South Ossetia, it would have to condemn Georgia for its actions. Thus hypocrisy exposed.

Hold on to your hat.

The Ch'in Empire ain't even got up to speed yet.
Its getting there fast as.

Like I said - Base of Operations.
Like India was a base of operations for the Brits to dominate the region.

It is permanent. Period.

And what is it that differentiates this permanent factor from the other impermanent ones you just mentioned? Fission?


To get back to the gist of the issue. The US will carry the indelible stain of (for now) being the only nation to wreak mass carnage via nukes.

Again, why is the "via nukes" category salient here? Is a "stain" somehow "delible" if mass carnage is wreaked by non-nuclear means?

Would the stain by somehow "delible" if other nations were to use nukes?

Do you actually possess consistent definitions of the terms you speak in, or is this just a rhetorical ploy to focus scorn on the United States?


What I was attempting to convey, was that the best way forward under such circumstances would be top do the next "right" thing.

How is that a "way forward," if the stains are "permanent/indelible?" If the moral status can't be recovered, then what's being advanced here? Why not just continue to use nukes? After all, refraining from doing so isn't going to affect your moral standing: it's permanently stained.


No luck thus far.

The lack of nuclear attacks for 60 years, NPT, massive reduction in nuclear arsenals since the end of the Cold War, aren't the "right" things to do?

What is, then? And what difference is it supposed to make when moral standing is permanently defined by prior actions?

No difference at all. But, for the West to recognize South Ossetia, it would have to condemn Georgia for its actions. Thus hypocrisy exposed.
If the Kremilin declaration I cited is their actual intent, we already recognize it.

It's called Russia.

So like, are people embarrassed to admit that they aren't American now? Perhaps they feel that not being American would somehow delegitimize their rabidly anti American sentiments..?

It would make sense as not being an American is a general theme among those who subscribe to the "I HAET AMERIKA" club.
There is a huge difference between The Americans who want to live their lives peacefully and the Administration who led them to two terrible wars . Saying the truth is neither hatred nor racism . If your government is wrong you ought to speak against it . Killing INNOCENT men, INNOCENT women and INNOCENT children and causing millions of refugees are very terrible CRIMES against humanity .

I agree but notice his unwillingness to give a straight answer to a straight question.