The Russia-Georgia Conflict - Stoking The Embers Of The Cold War

good analysis. and we thought the cold war would actually be over!

CR,

I enjoyed reading your article. While I don't necessarily agree with its direction, it is well reasoned and argued. For reasons that you can well imagine, I've been following this all rather closely. At Blogcritics Magazine, you can view two of my articles on it under the Politics section if you wish.

Prof. Michel Chossidovsy of Global Research views this as a western provocation, a view that might hold some currency on this list.

I suggest to you that this is not a return to the Cold War. A new, and very disturbing element has been added into the mix - Russia is backing Iran after other powers have laid explosive powder all around the Middle East. We saw a very minor explosion of that powder in 2006 when HizbAllah, a pup sitting on Iran's lap, attacked Israel with missiles. This present fighting is another minor explosion. Gruzia (Georgia) as the pup on America's lap attempting to subdue a Russian backed rebellion in its territory. And the Americans have kicked the dog off their lap. It barks in pain as the Russians land kick after brutal kick into its ribs.

Now, Russia has put Iran on its lap - along with the empire of suzereignty that the Iranians have built that stretches from the mountains of Afghanistan and the Pakistani border to the quiet waters of the Mediterranean lapping at the Lebanese and Syrian shore.

The question is now whether this fighting will be a fuse to start a wider war. Fleets gather in the region, and they are not their for the pleasant bathing in the Persian Gulf or the Mediterranean.

I don't foresee a Cold War like what we saw 50 years ago, a war of nerves and cold knuckled non-confrontation similar to what many of us grey haired folk remember.

NO.

The question is simply whether the conflagration will come soon - or, for some reason that I can't imagine, later.

Shabbat Shalom
Ruvy

Dear Ruvy,

Thanks for offering your comments on the subject. I look forward to reading your articles in Blogcritics.

It's all about creating "shock" that would allow steering national US sentiment towards glorious John McWar JUST before the convention. It is NOT about Caspian oil, NOR is it about NATO. How CONVINIENT, that Russia told everybody what it is going to do if attacked, so apparently US was listening. Check Naomi Klein's excellent work [Shock Doctrine] on how to steer sheep "us" into whatever war your heart desires. http://www.democracynow.org/2007/9/17/the_shock_doctrine_naomi_klein_on

Again, it is all about US domestic John McCain election - the only chance for neocons and warmongers like them to maintain the control. Forget oil, forget NATO. NATO is a Cold War relict and it grows weaker on the West side by the day. The western US allies finally realize that they are just instruments in US policy.
I challenge you, test it - check for the "Cold War" rhetoric during Republican convention!!

inyourface #4

Russia invades Georgia to support Republican candidate. Thought provoking theory.

Ciao, Guido

inyourface, a not disimilar view here:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080818/scheer2

crs:

good post:)

Fashioned along the lines of a blitzkrieg, the Georgian military launched a heavy rocket and artillery fire and air strikes, killing hundreds of innocent civilians.

later in the post you mention

In the past, Israel has also supplied military equipment to Georgia. As Peter Hirschberg reports 'In recent years, ties have also taken on a military dimension, with military industries in Israel supplying Georgia with some $200 million worth of equipment since 2000. This has included remotely piloted planes, rockets, night-vision equipment, other electronic systems, and training by former senior Israeli officers.'7

there is another minor point you overlooked: israel also trained georgian soldiers and were interestedly monitoring the performance of georgian soldiers

and a digression:

Costing 3.6 billion dollars, it is one of the most expensive oil projects. The interests in this massive project involves BP. The other partners are Unocal (US) and Turkish Petroleum Inc. The oil is pumped through pipelines and shipped via the Turkish port Ceyhan on the Mediterranean. Significantly, Ceyhan is located near to the US air base Incirlik. The pipeline project had top-heavy advisors who held extremely senior positions in the government of US. Some of the important officials - Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, James Baker III, Brent Scowcroft, and Dick Cheney- have shaped US strategic oil interests in the region.5

there was another pipeline that unocal was interested in building...and its front men were hamid karzai and zalmay khalilzad (the president and futre president of afghanistan) and these two almost negotiated a deal with mullah omar

the deal fell through because mullah omar selected a lower bid (by a turkish firm)...at that zalmay was reported to have told mullah omar that the US would make an example of him and the talebans

this threat was carried out in the aftermath of 9/11

but now it seems the talibans would have the last laugh

and while the discussion about the taliban was going on, they were invited to and feted at the White House, a fact covered only by the BBC.

Has anyone read:

Robert Dreyfus, _Devil's Game_

regarding so-called "allies", who are used, abused and then discarded by the imperial powers, there's an interesting anectode recounted in a piece somewhere by Tariq Ali.

After Pakistan was used as an "ally" during the Russian invasion of occupation of Afghanistan, and when the whole thing was over (precipitating the birth of the Taliban, supported to the hilt by the US administration) the Pakistani's expected some "rewards" for being loyal "allies". As is well known, the US administration had better diversions after this one. Apparently a Pakistani general complained bitterly to a high ranking US admin official about his country being ignored after they had served their role as "allies"" (useful idiots??). According to Tariq Ali, the response of the US official was: (paraphrase)

"Allies? Allies? You were never our "allies"". Pakistan was simply a condom we used to enter Afghanistan. We all know what happens to used condoms, don't we".

Not sure if this incident really ever happened or not, but even if it did not, this is usually the pattern and the result for all those who willingly line up to serve as allies for one imperial project or the other, all in search for oil, gas and of course power for more oil, gas and other resources, while screaming "freedom" and "democracy" and supporting dictators, unless the democratically elected person happens to be on "their" side. Will the Mikhail Saakashvili, the "pro-West" democractically elected leader, learn from this? Of course not. Is he stupid and lacking commonsense? Of course not. But he did tell off Condoleeza Rice in the press conference yesterday. He did not mince words against those who had egged him on (the US, France, Nato), even though of course he criticized Russia too. Did anyone notice the sullen, ashen expression on Rice's face last night? Such is the way of the world of real politics of oil and global power.

"Allies? Allies? You were never our "allies"". Pakistan was simply a condom we used to enter Afghanistan. We all know what happens to used condoms, don't we".

A most appropriate comment - on that I may send on to the sitting crime minister, Ehud Olmert, and the hottie panting to be his successor, Tzipora Livni. Perhaps amending "condom" to "sanitary napkin" would bring the thrust of the point home to the lovely Ms. Livni....

As for realities of Israeli aid to Gruzia (Georgia), consider this from Ynetnews.
Source: Secret IDF material went unguarded in Georgia

The Israeli aid was carried on by a private corporation with the assent and cooperation of the IDF. The employees were former soldiers. But companies in it for the money aren't always careful about other considerations. From the article:

Hirsch's company was responsible for training an elite search and rescue unit, and training was handled by the companies of two other reserve officers, all of which hired ex-soldiers like Tomer. This resulted in hundreds of former IDF soldiers working as trainers in Georgia over the past few months.

Tomer said he and his friends had at first received guidelines for the handling of covert material, listing what they could and couldn't tell Georgian soldiers about IDF activities. But in actuality, he said, the Georgians were told top secret information.

"When I arrived in the operations room I saw a book of IDF safety instructions that shouldn't have been there," he said. "There were IDF CDs that explicitly said, 'Confidential' documenting army activities, charts from special units' operations, and officers' names." He added that the room was not guarded, making this information easily obtainable to everyone.

Tomer said the main reason for the infidelity was mercenary. "The training companies wanted to finish the projects as quickly as possible in order to create more projects and make more money," he said. "We knew the training had to be completed quickly because the soldiers would soon have to get into real military activity."
...................................
when the training was officially over, Tomer did not feel that his soldiers were ready for war. "By Israeli standards, the soldiers had almost zero capability and the officers were mediocre," he said. "It was clear that taking that army to war was illogical."

By keeping in touch with one of his soldiers, Tomer discovered that most of the men he had trained had indeed been killed in the war.

"Allies? Allies? You were never our "allies"". Pakistan was simply a condom we used to enter Afghanistan. We all know what happens to used condoms, don't we".

A most appropriate comment - on that I may send on to the sitting crime minister, Ehud Olmert, and the hottie panting to be his successor, Tzipora Livni. Perhaps amending "condom" to "sanitary napkin" would bring the thrust of the point home to the lovely Ms. Livni....

As for realities of Israeli aid to Gruzia (Georgia), consider this from Ynetnews.
Source: Secret IDF material went unguarded in Georgia

The Israeli aid was carried on by a private corporation with the assent and cooperation of the IDF. The employees were former soldiers. But companies in it for the money aren't always careful about other considerations. From the article:

Hirsch's company was responsible for training an elite search and rescue unit, and training was handled by the companies of two other reserve officers, all of which hired ex-soldiers like Tomer. This resulted in hundreds of former IDF soldiers working as trainers in Georgia over the past few months.

Tomer said he and his friends had at first received guidelines for the handling of covert material, listing what they could and couldn't tell Georgian soldiers about IDF activities. But in actuality, he said, the Georgians were told top secret information.

"When I arrived in the operations room I saw a book of IDF safety instructions that shouldn't have been there," he said. "There were IDF CDs that explicitly said, 'Confidential' documenting army activities, charts from special units' operations, and officers' names." He added that the room was not guarded, making this information easily obtainable to everyone.

Tomer said the main reason for the infidelity was mercenary. "The training companies wanted to finish the projects as quickly as possible in order to create more projects and make more money," he said. "We knew the training had to be completed quickly because the soldiers would soon have to get into real military activity."
...................................
when the training was officially over, Tomer did not feel that his soldiers were ready for war. "By Israeli standards, the soldiers had almost zero capability and the officers were mediocre," he said. "It was clear that taking that army to war was illogical."

By keeping in touch with one of his soldiers, Tomer discovered that most of the men he had trained had indeed been killed in the war.

What I had to say was so good that I thought it should be repeated.

Seriously, it is hard getting comments posted to DC. The site responds slowly, if at all, and it results in my double posting, as well as others.

But he (Saakashvili) did tell off Condoleeza Rice in the press conference yesterday. He did not mince words against those who had egged him on (the US, France, NATO), even though of course he criticized Russia too. Did anyone notice the sullen, ashen expression on Rice's face last night?

Saakshvili didn't get the State Deptartment memo that when the US government shoves a stick up your ass, you are supposed to smile in gratitude, and tell everyone what great friends the Americans are. I hope that Rice had one in her "purse" to give to the man. And hope that Rice had some Woolite with her to clean off the piss stains Saakshvili left on her skirt....

temporal #7

Thanks for the comments. Your other comments about about the failed oil deal with the Taliban provides an interesting perspective on the so called war on terror.

You are spot on when you say that Israeli Military advisers helped the Georgian Military.Georgia was helped to become a credible military force along with other allies to counter the Russian bear in the Caspian oil region.

commonsense, #8

Did read Dreyfus the Devils Game which deals with the subject- the nexus between Islamic fundamentalism and US foreign policy. There is another book (Unholy Wars) exploring the short sighted US foreign policy of using Islamic elements in the war in Afghanistan. I think i referred to Dreyfus's book in my blog 'the construction of Synthetic terror'

Ruvy,
One of the most puzzling questions about the Georgian conflict- Did Mikhail Saakashvili hope that a swift military action against the Russian ally South Ossetia would solve his problem with the break away province.

Did the US- NATO plan to trick Russia into the Quagmire of humanitarian disaster in the Caucasus region? The diabolical plan of using Georgia failed badly as the military capability of Georgia has been damaged significantly.It will take years of effort to repair the military damage inflicted on Georgia.In the end Mr Saakashvili got a bloody nose.

Sridhar,

this article at Blogcritics attempts to show that this is more than just a mere NATO diversion, or an attack on Russian backed rebels. There are more issues at stake than mere control over a few square miles of land, or even access to oil, though they might not seem important to a South Asian.

As I've pointed out, those devoted to the destruction of the Jewish entity here have been laying explosive powder all over the region. The real question is when the powder keg will blow - and how it will blow.

One of the most puzzling questions about the Georgian conflict- Did Mikhail Saakashvili hope that a swift military action against the Russian ally South Ossetia would solve his problem with the break away province?

Saakashvili and Olmert are mere condoms to the United States and EU. And Saakashvili is a convenient punching bag for Putin. But the Russians are after far more than bloodying the man's nose, or even kicking him out of power.

They are actively trying to suborn the Russian speaking population of this country with Russian language propaganda from Hamas and HizbAllah, they are going after prime real estate land in Jerusalem, they have the pearl of their fleet in the Mediterranean. They have already intimidated the foreign minister, that hottie going after Olmert's job, Tzipora Livni.

The "mystery" in timing might have to do with that other agenda hinted at in my article at Blogcritics referenced above. Unlike most, I tend not to forget or dismiss that other Actor in events in history.

only US is to be blamed for georgia crisis. they are following a policy of intimidation, manipulation and aggression in order to secure their interests. so what do you expect from other states who have conflicting interests. the actions of US have made them extremely insecure and the russian military operation is an example of just that.

Sridhar,

Driving home the connectedness of the way regional strategy is planned by the Russians, Debkafiles reports that Russia is considering nuclear missiles for Syria, Mediterranean, Baltic. From the article:

DEBKAfile's military sources report Moscow's planned retaliation for America's missile interceptors in Poland and US-Israeli military aid to Georgia may come in the form of installing Iskandar surface missiles in Syria and its Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad.

Russian Baltic and Middle East warships, submarines and long-range bombers may be armed with nuclear warheads, according to Sunday newspapers in Europe.
..................The Iskander's cruise attributes make its launch and trajectory extremely hard to detect and intercept. If this missile reaches Syria, Israel will have to revamp its anti-missile defense array and Air Force assault plans for the third time in two years, as it constitutes a threat which transcends all its defensive red lines.

Moscow's war planners know this and are therefore considering new sea and air bases in Syria as sites for the Iskander missiles. Russia would thus keep the missiles under its hand and make sure they were not transferred to Iran. At the same time, Syrian crews would be trained in their operation.

An absolutely brilliant piece of writing Mr CRS.The roots for this conflict goes back during the era of Mikhail Gorbachav(hereinafter called M.G.) and Eduward Shevardnadze(E.S.) when both these Bastards went licking Rony Regans ars 'for a few dollars more'and ended splitting the Soviet Union.Georgia has always been a strategic place in the Soviet Political Regime primarily because of potential of Natural Resources, Human Resource, which was being supplied specially to the Russian army.The 'Rose Revolution'was not merely to overthrow E.S. but to ensure that Israel got the benefit of it and by doing so the U.S.would also get a base in this region.
I would not like to get into the nitty-gritty of payments or who the beneficiries are.We must realise that behind every action by the U.S.there are two entities that operate together.one is the Senator or the secretary of state/ Vice President and the other a large multinational corporation.The extent of activities to get a foot hold into the region can be lecherous and even its a blood bath(like Iraq)the U.S will back the buisness interests of the multinational corporation.Essentially the oil and the armament industry form the bulk of business and every U.S.President has ba pay back period for the obligations received.Geo Politics yes plays a n important part but in every single act of the U.S. there is a business tie-up.In many of my replies to your writings in this blog i have made appeals to readers to read Lenin's monumental work titled'Imperialism the highest stage of Capitalism'
I wouldn't be surprised if Mcain wins the election as the U.S. has a big agenda of destabilising the 'Bolivarian Revolutuion' sweeping Latin America and the American multinationals are gradually loosing ground, need for diluting profits and above all the impact of Cuban Influence.Corporations have also a major agenda as to how to counter the growing Commercial Imperialism of China.
The jewish lobby in the U.S.is working very hard to keep the conflict in the middle east and divert attention of people to the more pressing issue of survival of the 3/4 of the worlds impoverished people who are on the brink of death.
Perhaps the agenda of the U.S. goes on and on and there is no point in highlighting as many in this blog are aware.
All said and done Mr.Sridhar your article opens the clogged mind of many people.Perhaps an article of this scholarship should also be published in the ALTERNATIVE MAGAZINES AND HOSTED ON FREE WEBSITES AROUND THE WORLD AS I WONDER HOW MANY IN THE UNDER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES HAVE ACCESS TO I.T AND A BLOG LIKE THIS.ASSUMING YOUR ARTICLE IS PUBLISHED IN 'MONTHLY REVIEW' IT ALSO GETS TRANSALTED INTO LATIN, FRENCH,DUTCH,ITALIAN,RUSSIAN ETC.
Perhaps the best feed back will be got from subscribers of 'Monthly Reveiew'as you may(tho not very sure)get a reply from people like John Foster Bellamy,Noam Chomsky,Aijaz Ahmed,Sameer Amin,David Barsamian, Arundati Roy etc etc.Keep up the extra ordinary scholarship.

Sridhar,

Well researched piece.

However, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss democracy as a cliché. Overused? That depends on whether you've ever lived without it. I doubt you'll find many political dissidents referring to the concept as cliché.

Interesting how the "experts" are shaping this current event to fit their own views and/or cause.

I pray for a quick resolution.

Ciao, Guido

Guido:

""However, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss democracy as a cliché. Overused?"'

I don't disagree. However, the key player in all of this, the US administration, is quick to dismiss democracy and embrace dictators when it suits its agenda, while going on and on about the "free world", "the rose revolution" etc. etc. when it does not. All about access to control of resources, disgustingly disguised as a love for the "free world". So, yes, the cliche of "democracy" is indeed sometimes overused, as in the nightmare that is now Iraq.

"...the key player in all of this, the US administration, is quick to dismiss democracy and embrace dictators when it suits its agenda, while going on and on about the "free world", "the rose revolution" etc. etc. when it does not. All about access to control of resources, disgustingly disguised as a love for the "free world". So, yes, the cliche of "democracy" is indeed sometimes overused, as in the nightmare that is now Iraq."

"Interesting how the "experts" are shaping this current event to fit their own views and/or cause."

Ciao, Guido

Guido,'

Sorry, I didn't get your drift, perhaps because I'm a jack of all trades and not even remotely an "expert" on anything!

Ciao,

CS

Vinod Joseph, you say the Russian response was "swift and bloody" -- I disagree. The Russian response was powerful and effective, destroying Georgian infrastructure, but certainly it was not bloody, not was it aimed at taking civilian lives.

Obviously, Georgia has sought to make itself a US catspaw in the region, but has clearly over-reached itself. As someone on the net put it, "they mistakenly thought they were a player -- as opposed to merely being the ball."

The US is seeking to take full advantage of Russia's retaliatory response, to herd the other East European nations under its "protective" wing.
A missile radar deal has been signed with Poland, to match another one with the Czech Republic. Ukraine has now deactivated regional defense radars that were jointly managed with Russia, and is also imposing restrictions on the movements of Russia's Black Sea fleet from the port of Sevastopol.

Germany has uptil now been a more sober voice of restraint, refusing to strongly side against Russia in this conflict. But now even Merkel on her latest visit to Tbilisi has succumbed to pressure in voicing her support for Georgia's entry into NATO.

Pakistan -- particularly its praetorian military shadow-rulers -- will be especially gleeful at this latest turn of geopolitical events. Their ilk have long drawn strength from Cold War animosities, milking Western support for military aid and political backing. It was at the height of the Cold War that ISI and AlQaeda flourished most, taking their jihad terror campaigns to unprecedented heights. If the Cold War returns, then jihadism as strategic tool may yet regain popularity in Western policymaking circles. We Indians should be worried. Above all, we should not be caught off guard, like the last time.

Why did every former WarsawPac country flee Russian influence for membership in NATO and/or the EU?

I suppose they were "herded", cajoled, or otherwise tricked. No doubt the leadership of said countries would be enlightened to learn they are the lapdogs of America. Democracy has little play here. It's all about power, oil, and the great Satan (Incorporated). As state leaders, they should be better informed. Poor bastards!

This explains all the dissidents who fled to the former USSR and the Georgians currently seeking Russian asylum.

Ciao, Guido

Guido-26

Because Russia was not a rich country.

Guido, #21
'However, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss democracy as a cliché.'

Thank you for your comments.

The words democracy as a cliche was used in a context to mean that US did not care a jot for real democracy in countries like Georgia but wanted regimes which were favourable to US interests. I am unable to subscribe to the view that when a government is pro US/ pro West it is also a democracy.

While it is true that a lot of well meaning individuals participated in the Rose Revolution for democracy and freedom, on the basis of evidence available, it could also be said that it was carefully choreographed to play to US geopolitical interests. For instance, the Freedom House- a NATO entity headed by an ex CIA director James Woolsey plus other top ranking ex-officials of US government- provided propaganda support to the colour coded revolutions and cynically manipulated the movement to its advantage. A manual called 'From Dictatorship to Democracy' written by Gene Sharpe (Albert Einstein Institution)offers tips to destabilize governments.

The bloom went off the Rose Revolution.After the pro US Saakashvili controlled power in Georgia, he clamped down on free speech, shut down free press and used brute force on his opponents.i am not aware if US establishment raised a hue and cry about the lack of democracy in Georgia under Saakashvili. May be they didn't care.

Sanjay #25

'you say the Russian response was "swift and bloody" -- I disagree. The Russian response was powerful and effective, destroying Georgian infrastructure, but certainly it was not bloody, not was it aimed at taking civilian lives.'

Maybe I should have written 'swift and appropriate' to describe the Russian response.
Thanks for your detailed comments.

Ruvy,

I read your blog and I am grateful for the insights you have provided on the issue.

However our perspectives differ- The Russians may have adequate grounds to suspect US interests in the region. They are not exactly comfortable with the idea of encirclement of ex-soviet groups friendly to US interests.Iran is equally nervous with Israel(a nuke power)which also threatens Iran of bombing to the stone age.

With the stakes being high- in geopolitical terms- Russia may find it convenient to support Iran.You may call it immoral but Russians may call it amoral.The semantic varieties of meaning blur in the dirty world of geopolitics.

Sridhar,

With the stakes being high- in geopolitical terms- Russia may find it convenient to support Iran. You may call it immoral but Russians may call it amoral. The semantic varieties of meaning blur in the dirty world of geopolitics.

However my religious ideas influence me, I'm never so stupid as to call one gang of thieves and murderers "immoral" while sanctifying a different gang. The "moral" gang of thieves and murderers has not yet arisen, and given that there has been no messianic Redemption yet, all "governments" - gangs of thieves and murderers - are by definition either immoral or amoral. The distinctions do blur, as you point out.

I agree with you that Russians get nervous with being surrounded by a hostile power (and never mistake this - America is a hostile power vis a vis Russia) and that from their point of view (or what they perceive is their point of view) it is beneficial for them to try and use Iran as a cat's paw.

I honestly do not think that the Iranian regime is nervous about Israeli nuclear power. The Shah (evil as that SOB was, he looks better and better against the "Islamic Republic" with each passing year) also hankered after nuclear power and nobody said boo. In addition, he was relatively friendly to Israel.

Iran, no matter who rules it, regards itself as the heir to the great Persian empires of the past (the Zoroastrian one is no longer in favor, but there are plenty of other Persian empires to emulate) and feels itself entitled to the accoutrements of empire - one of them, in this day and age, being nuclear weapons.

If tomorrow the Shi'a mullahs were to disappear (along with their brand of Islam), and a neo-Zoroastrian regime were to take over in Teheran, that regime also would want nuclear weapons.

What makes the desire of the present regime for nuclear weapons so scary (to me, at least) is not that they want the accoutrements of empire - but that they want to eliminate me (and over six and half million of my fellow Israelis) in the process, and are actively working to accomplish that goal.

Sridhar:

""The words democracy as a cliche was used in a context to mean that US did not care a jot for real democracy in countries like Georgia but wanted regimes which were favourable to US interests. I am unable to subscribe to the view that when a government is pro US/ pro West it is also a democracy.""

Well put! Even somebody with hardly any brains (such as me) is able to understand this simple but not simplistic point. Especially the last sentence in the quote above.

Guido:

""This explains all the dissidents who fled to the former USSR and the Georgians currently seeking Russian asylum."

All about moving to a better pastures when the opportunity comes. Do you really believe that MOST of them do so due to their love for democracy? (I do not for a moment doubt that some do and there are sincere people who do love democracy. But how on earth did we come to equate democracy with the US alone?? Or even when a country becomes pro-US? Is Musharraf such a democrat? The power of propaganda?)

For DC Newbies:

Ruvy in quotes: (editors, feel free to delete if not relevant, although i think they are relevant)

On the role of God in geopolitics:

""Unlike most, I tend not to forget or dismiss that other Actor in events in history.""

On the archetypical understatment:

""However my religious ideas influence me..."


On the acid test of any nation, human, animal or inanimate objects:

""The Shah (evil as that SOB was, he looks better and better against the "Islamic Republic" with each passing year) also hankered after nuclear power and nobody said boo. IN ADDITION, HE WAS RELATIVELY FRIENDLY TO ISRAEL"

Ruvy:

""The Shah (evil as that SOB was, he looks better and better against the "Islamic Republic" with each passing year) also hankered after nuclear power and nobody said boo""

Ha, but he was an american ally, propped up after the US administration helped with the destruction of the ELECTED government of Mossadegh in 1956 (58?). So why would anybody (meaning US really) say boo? He would "behave" and would be supported to the hilt all the time, until "condom time", regardless of all the torture chambers, the death squads, the SAVAK etc. A predictable pattern, so where's the surprise??

Re: comment #35. The point is that the Shah hankered after nuclear weapons - he never got them. He was never trusted enough by the American government that sort of supported him - and turned on him also in the end. But nobody said that his desire for them was a threat to world peace, though all of his smaller neighbors felt he was a damned big threat.

The point of that part of my comment was and remains
1..Any Persian regime will want the accoutrements of empire;
2..that the "Islamic Republic" might actually get them, and
3..given their willingness to sacrifice millions of Persians to exterminate us Jews, they are a real threat to us.

But forget the threat to us; like herring, we Jews are cheap. Go to Debkafiles and discover how that the Iranian satellite carrier space launch Sunday, Aug. 17, was prompted by a joint caution to Tehran from Saudi King Abdullah and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.

From the article:

Tehran immediately responded to the warning by launching the Safir satellite carrier into orbit, thereby exhibiting a ballistic missile capable of reaching outside the Middle East, as far as Britain and France, should they decide to join an American attack on Iran, as well as US military installations on that continent.

sridhar:

would appreciate your take on "debkafiles"


cs: mossadegh was 1953 (i recall)

Sridhar #28

Thanks for the reply. Please be patient while I state the obvious.

Mutual agreements between countries benefit both parties. Political and business dealings between former Warsaw Pac countries and Western Europe abound. There is no mention of them. However, when America brokers a deal, the relationship morphs from symbiotic into something sinister and parasitic.

"... [the] US did not care a jot for real democracy in countries like Georgia but wanted regimes which were favourable to US interests."

"...it was carefully choreographed to play to US geopolitical interests."

"...plus other top ranking ex-officials provided propaganda support to the colour coded revolutions and cynically manipulated the movement to its advantage."

"i am not aware if US establishment raised a hue and cry about the lack of democracy in Georgia under Saakashvili. May be they didn't care."

I think it's safe to assume that if any other country were taking the US role in Georgia we wouldn't be having this debate.

Perhaps Europe would be better off without NATO and US involvement. Mr. Putin would agree. If not for NATO and especially the US, the wall would still stand and Russia wouldn't have to reinvade its neighbor. This little fact is consistently and conveniently missing from subject posts.

Ciao, Guido

Perhaps Europe would be better off without NATO and US involvement. Mr. Putin would agree. If not for NATO and especially the US, the wall would still stand and Russia wouldn't have to reinvade its neighbor. This little fact is consistently and conveniently missing from subject posts.

Guido,

For 18 years we were able to talk about most geo-political issues without having to think about when and how Russian troops might roll over somebody's border. Those days are now over. No matter how we slice the kashkeval cheese, and no matter how bad it stinks, the sad truth is that American imperialism, disgusting as it is, is far preferable to Russian imperialism.

But, I don't think we are in for another white-knuckle cold war as we saw growing up. Too many people are all ready to fight that last war all over again. I think that will be a deadly error. I think events will move far faster than any of us realize to a very hot war that we cannot even imagine right now.

Guido:

""Perhaps Europe would be better off without NATO and US involvement.""

Perhaps. But the US does need the excuse to be in Europe, and in Korea, and in Japan, and now in Pakistan, and in Afghanistan, and in Iraq etc. etc. A total of almost 1000 bases (that are publicly acknowledged) around the world, protecting no doubt the so-called "free world" and simultaneously generating much global love and sympathy. I feel for them since no other country is willing to undertake this supremely selfless and thankless task. Nothing but kudos and more power to them.

Ruvy:

""and no matter how bad it stinks, the sad truth is that American imperialism, disgusting as it is, is far preferable to Russian imperialism.""

the happy truth is that there is no law of nature about the inevitablity of imperialism. Just as it was the case for feudalism, off-with-their-heads monarchy etc. etc. Why must one assume a sitution as given, etched in stone?

Ruvy:

""Iran, no matter who rules it, regards itself as the heir to the great Persian empires of the past...and feels itself entitled to the accoutrements of empire - one of them, in this day and age, being nuclear weapons.....they want to eliminate me ""

Fact check, as opposed to conjectural not-quite-history:

""Iran has not invaded any country over the past two centuries""

This is not what we can say for many countries, including of course the US, Israel, Japan etc. etc. and one more etc.

To the contrary, Iran was invaded by Iraq, supported and abetted by the US and its so-called "allies", including of course, Israel

sridhar:

""cs: mossadegh was 1953 (i recall)""

Thanks Sridhar! And why was he toppled? He had the audacity to actually nationalize the Iranian oil industry. Replaced by the monster Reza Shah Pahelvi. But he was "our" (ie. US) monster. A coup engineered in Guatemala to dislodge the ELECTED government in 1956. A coup engineered by the US in Chile in 1972 topple and assasinate Salvadore Allende partly because he dared to nationalize the copper industry, replaced by the sadistic dictator, monster Pinochet. But he was "our" monster, to hell with the discourse of the "free world". After many such stories, fast forward to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, almost toppled because he dared to talk of nationalizing the oil industry. etc. etc. But there will always be feather-brained folks who will term this focus on the struggle between the US and the former USSR for the control of natural resources, particularly energy sources, as "simplistic". Usually folks who cannot look beyond their noses, have no inkling of these events or if they do, they explain it away by apologizing for imperialism or wonder why their own country is not on fast track on the road to imperialism. Whether all this is a combination of the struggle for resources and geopolitical power or not is, as they say, a total no-brainer. Yet there are folks who continue to debate the assinine issue of "whether it is possible to impose democracy on Iraq by force or not", as if, that is the ultimate goal of the tragic shit in Iraq.

Guido #38

I merely pointed that we are adopting double standards when it comes US foreign policy. It is assumed it is only other countries such as Russia which have bad intentions when it comes to foreign policy.What was missing from the debate (in western media)was that Russia had every reason to feel threatened as Georgia was egged on to settle scores with South Ossetia( an Russian ally). The Russians perceived that their country was being weakened by US- NATO axis.

It is Pavlovian reflex action conditioned by propaganda to think that US is only guided by benevolence and that the bloodbaths organized by US is somehow less gory than the bad Commie countries.

From the fall of the Berlin wall US has attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments and crush more than 30 popular nationalist movements fighting repression.I would not call that a modest achievement.

The point is when the western media constantly harps on the exceptional altruism of US in its conduct with other nations- is it odd to say that the Emperor is without clothes?

commonsense,
'Yet there are folks who continue to debate the assinine issue of "whether it is possible to impose democracy on Iraq by force or not", as if, that is the ultimate goal of the tragic shit in Iraq.'

The only liberation Iraq got was that they were liberated from their oil fields by Uncle Sam.

the happy truth is that there is no law of nature about the inevitability of imperialism. Just as it was the case for feudalism, off-with-their-heads monarchy etc. etc. Why must one assume a situation as given, etched in stone?

I have made no such assumption. That which is etched in stone - the Ten Commandments - I do not argue with. But it is not etched in stone that the imperialism we find running rampant on the planet presently, or any of the other evils that retain so much attention here and elsewhere, are either etched in stone or are permanent. Indeed, the Books of Prophecy I pay attention appear to indicate quite the opposite. But they also indicate that things will get worse before getting better.

Fools always scoff at such things. Wise people read them, contemplate them and look carefully around them. Even if they do not agree, they at least have the sense not to mock what they read.

As I told Sridhar in comment #31: The "moral" gang of thieves and murderers has not yet arisen, and given that there has been no messianic Redemption yet, all "governments" [including that of the State of Israel] - gangs of thieves and murderers - are by definition either immoral or amoral.

sridhar #44

I was attempting to highlight the anti-American slant and imbalance evident in your article and not so subtle comments. I failed miserably. I'll try again at the risk of sounding repetitive.

1. "I merely pointed that we are adopting double standards when it comes US foreign policy."

As was I...in the opposite direction: "Political and business dealings between former Warsaw Pac countries and Western Europe abound. [yet] There is no mention of them. However, when America brokers a deal, the relationship morphs from symbiotic into something sinister and parasitic."

2. "It is assumed it is only other countries such as Russia which have bad intentions when it comes to foreign policy."

Assumed by whom? Also, I'd be interested to see some examples of Russia's benevolent intensions of foreign policy.

3. "What was missing from the debate (in western media)was that Russia had every reason to feel threatened as Georgia was egged on to settle scores with South Ossetia( an Russian ally). The Russians perceived that their country was being weakened by US- NATO axis."

Here're a few western debates you may have overlooked:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/weekinreview/10traub.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/opinion/11kristol.html

http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/08/12/georgia-russia-and-americas-role-in-the-new-war/

4. "It is Pavlovian reflex action conditioned by propaganda to think that US is only guided by benevolence and that the bloodbaths organized by US is somehow less gory than the bad Commie countries."

Please forgive me for modifying your quote to make a point: It is Pavlovian reflex conditioned by propaganda to think that US is guided by evil.

5. "...and that the bloodbaths organized by US is somehow less gory than the bad Commie countries."

I would agree that all "bloodbaths" are gory irrespective of cause or participants. If you'd like to debate this separate issue, then we'll have to agree on the definition of terms before proceeding.
6. "From the fall of the Berlin wall US has attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments and crush more than 30 popular nationalist movements fighting repression.I would not call that a modest achievement."

Please provide the list of governments, national movements, and the repression these movements were battling.

7. "The point is when the western media constantly harps on the exceptional altruism of US in its conduct with other nations..."

It has been my experience that the mainstream western media tends to downplay "the exceptional altruism of US in its conduct with other nations". I'd be interested in seeing something leaning the other way. Do you have some sources?

8. "...is it odd to say that the Emperor is without clothes?"

No. And I would apply the same adage to some bloggers.

Again, the point of my criticism is to point out, in my humble opinion the anti-American bias obvious in your article and comments. Perhaps that is your intention. If so, then be honest and call it what it is; propaganda.

Ciao, Guido

On Guido's Red Herrings:

A number of predictable red herrings, served up raw, without wasabi; another Pavolvian reflex, quite commonly encountered when debating serious issues. The charge of "anti-Americanism" is somehow expected to silence anybody and everybody who is mistakenly assumed to be on the "other side". The second minor red herring, also served up raw, using categories such as "evil", "good guys" and "bad guys" whenever there's a serious discussion of interests, ideologies, imperialism etc. For some unfathomable reason this Pavolovian "anti-American" charge is flung exclusively and only by SOME (I did not say all!) Americans. It would be be unthinkable for some Italian to introduce Anti-Italianism into an argument; or even the French to charge Anti-Frenchism, even when, becuase they were not a part of the so-called "coalition of the willing"", some childish folks were pouring bottles of French Wine were poured down the drains in the US and were busy re-christening French Fries as "Freedom Fries" etc. Not sure about the genealogy of anti-Americanism as the show-stopper in any serious argument, but nobody warned me not to expect adventures in absurdistan whenever a serious argument erupts.

The red herrings:

Guido:

""I was attempting to highlight the anti-American slant and imbalance evident in your article""

""Again, the point of my criticism is to point out, in my humble opinion the anti-American bias""

""It is Pavlovian reflex conditioned by propaganda to think that US is guided by evil.""

This

This is all getting rather repetitive.

We all know that Sridhar's perspective is distinctly different from Guido's. Guido has, after all, put his life on the line in the armed forces of his country. So it stands to logic that he will sense the anti-American slant of this article more strongly than some others might here.

I have my own opinions of the United States, and they are not necessarily good. But it is unreasonable to fault Guido for having pride in the nation he has served so loyally, and for demanding what he regards as a fair hearing for his country.

To continually call what he writes a "red herring" is to deny him that fair hearing.

guido and cs:

an excerpt from eric margolis (follow the link and read the full version):

WASHINGTON DC- The Bush administration appears to have pulled off its latest military fiasco in the Caucasus. What was supposed to have been a swiftly and painless takeover of rebellious South Ossetia by America's favourite new ally, Georgia, has turned into a disaster that left Georgia battered, Russia enraged, and NATO badly demoralized. Not bad for two days work.

Equally important, Russia's Vladimir Putin swiftly and decisively checkmated the Bush administration's clumsy attempt last week to expand US influence into the Caucasus, and made the Americans and their Georgian satraps look like fools.LINK

From the Eric Margolis link in comment #50.

The west must accept Russia has vital national interests in the Caucasus and the former USSR. Russia is a great power and must be afforded respect. The days of treating Russia like a banana republic are over. Have we learned nothing from World War I or II, both of which began with flare-ups in obscure Sarajevo and the Danzig Corridor?

The US's most important foreign policy concern is keeping correct relations with Russia, which has thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at North America. Georgia is a petty sideshow. US missiles in Poland and radars in the Czech Republic are a dangerous, unnecessary provocation that is sowing dragon's teeth for future confrontation.

If Eric Margolis was a good Christian and a member of England's upper class instead of an American Jew with no clue, he'd make a good stand-in for Neville Chamberlain.

[conjecturing edited)

#49 Ruvy et al,

Perhaps I was in error trying to establish my credentials by exposing some of the content of my life. For better or worse it seems I'm labeled by a few as the rightwing American military zealot, and thus my comments interpreted as such. However, my hope is that most DC readers will judge the words and not the man.

Ciao, Guido

Temporal #50,

Undoubtedly the Russians have taken advantage of an overstretched America. Blame is a matter for the political bloviaters to decide.

Here's the more colorful version of Margolis read for the Bush haters:

http://www.bigeye.com/foreignc.htm

And here is an objective broad based analysis sans politics.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/real_world_order

Finally, here is an unedited but reformatted copy of an email from Nato Jiadze in Georgia, dated 16 August:

"My Dear friend,

Thank you for you support such terrible time. This is very great help. from your side. you are real friend.

They continue killing, looting murdering civilians. They control central highway, nobody can move them. there was signed cease-fire, Rice even sead that they will start moving right away, but they continue to occupie other villages close to Tbilisi, They also don't allow to take back killed people, among them are civilians as well. this is horrible..

There are about 60 000 refugees for naw, without home, many houses are burnt. They fired forest, we cant stop fire, it is impossible...They are killing fiscally and economically as well...

I could not imagine that in 21-st century, would be withess such kind of brutality and unfairness..

I really respect other Nations, have friends from different Nations as well as Russians, but I don't know if this already broke bridge will be restore. I am really disappointed ,This is shame of Russion Nations.

They continue implementing Informational WAR, blame US for ethnic cleansing, the is falls, They don't care Osetian and Abxas people, They are dreaming implement Imperial thoughts, restore spoil Emperier. , This is made by cruel Generals and Politicians. I do hope that ordinary Russian People have peacefull thoughts.

This is 15:00 p.m naw from yestarday after Rice breafing in Tbilisi, but no information about withdrouwal so far, can you Imagine we are constant fear, threat. They are danger of civilized World.

Thank again for your friendly support, I will write if there would be peace

nato"

You can see a dated picture of Nato here:

http://www.britishcouncil.org/pep22.pdf

Ciao, Guido

Guido:

""For better or worse it seems I'm labeled by a few as the rightwing American military zealot, and thus my comments interpreted as such. However, my hope is that most DC readers will judge the words and not the man.""

I totally agree. That's why I think most labels such as "leftwint", "right-wing" or "with both wings", "anti-american", "pro-american" etc. detract from WHAT the person is saying and provide means for setting up straw non-arguments.

Guido:

""And here is an objective broad based analysis sans politics.""

I disagree. One cannot squeeze out politics from such discussion. Reminds me some american senators complaining that other senators are "playing politics". LOL, they ARE politicians; should they be playing baseball during work-time?

a link:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/19/opinion/edgreenway.php

"here is an unedited but reformatted copy of an email from Nato Jiadze in Georgia, dated 16 August:"


Gut-wrenching images and pleas of the war-torn. Propaganda war does not get any better. What would you do if an Iraqi or Afghan were to write similar letters?

It seems America is infallible, and beyond criticism or dissent in matters of foreign policy and wars - any criticism or dissent is dismissed and stigmatized as anti-americanism, aiding and comforting the enemy, showing disrespect to men in uniform, surrendering to axis of evil, neo-chamberlainian, blame-america-first ism - so much so even major political parties have become afraid to antagonize the war establishment no matter how frivolous and draconian be the military adventures. Unipolar Power without accountability is what America's neocons seems to be after.

Commonsense:

I never thought I'd see this on a CRT screen, but I find myself agreeing with most of what you've written in comment #54. Miracles do happen, apparently.

While you are all arguing over all these issues, I thought I would update you all with some real news.

This is reported by the AP, appearing in the Jerusalem Post

Norway: Russia to cut all military ties with NATO

Norway's Defense Ministry says Russia has informed it that it plans to cut all military ties with NATO.

Ministry spokeswoman Heidi Langvik-Hansen says the country's embassy received a telephone call from Russia's Defense Ministry on Wednesday, saying Moscow plans "to freeze all military cooperation with NATO and allied countries."

Norway was told in the telephone call a written note about this would be sent out shortly.

Russian officials were not immediately available to confirm the information and officials at NATO headquarters said they have not been informed of any such moves.

CS #54

Did you read the STRATFOR analysis? Please provide a quote in its proper context from the article that is politicized one way or the other.

"Reminds me some american senators complaining that other senators are "playing politics"."

As opposed to (insert any country here) senators complaining that other senators are playing politics. Why are you focusing on American senators CS?

Ciao, Guido

Kerty #56

I provided the quote without comment.

Ciao, Guido

Guido:

"Reminds me some american senators complaining that other senators are "playing politics"."

As opposed to (insert any country here) senators complaining that other senators are playing politics. Why are you focusing on American senators CS?""

Not sure about you, but I am not in the business of apologizing for politicians of any country, including India of course. Politicans play politics and this is their job description. I focus on American senators, becuase "playing politics" is the phrase most commonly used by them and reported on mainstream TV. The point was not, as you might want to divert it, "american politics" but rather, how can one provide a non-political account of what's happening in Georgia is beyond commonsense. I look to you for help. Can you really find a "non-political" analysis? Like how? the view from nowhere? the view from God? Archimedes relived?

Guido,

Please try, if you can, refrain from being the ""thekedaar"" (contractor) of americanism. You are assuming I'm not American.

Guido,

""Why are you focusing on American senators CS?""

A multiple choice test for you since you have appointed yourself as the official ""thekedaar"" (private contractor) for sniffing out them non and anti-americans. I could be:

1. An alien, complete with a conical head and wierd eyes, straight from Mars.

2. I could be a naturalized alien, ie. not a cyborg, but 100% organic.

3. I could be a hyphenated american, just like you, but handicapped by a lack of the italian lingo.

4. i could be as american as american pie (a la don maclean, if you are old enough as me to remember him), complete with the "chevy to the levy"

5. I could be the real non-american as those who live on reservations of of it.

6. I could be an illegal alien, just one among the 12 million or so, trying hard to get rid of the conical head and the wierd eyes.

7. I could be a desi-American, hip deep in both cultures and societes. Hip deep enough in both societies to be neither pro nor anti-American, pro nor anti-Indian, but not hip enough to pass your acid test of the "real american".

(Hint: 7)

Guess which american wrote these famous first line of poetry??

"I have seen the best minds of my generation, destroyed by madness"

(Hint: Allen Ginsberg, "Howl")

Now you can howl as much as you can that I'm being unfair, but trust me, I speak as an insider, hip-deep in both sides of the shit, in India and the U S of A. I am not sure you cannot do the same, but it will take you a while, and I am not talking of the desi side of the equation either. Am I being self-righteous here? You bet. But then, at the risk of being characteristically immodest, I deserve to be a tad self-righteous.

So exactly which american are you acting as the watch-dog for?

The STRATFOR analysis was presented as a non-partisan view of the conflict. Hopefully you found it such.

I didn't expect an answer to the second question, but thank you for the thoughtful reply. I should have said it was rhetorical. It was put out there for you...a reflection of bias? Based on the witty response you must disagree.

I'll assume this is declamatory: "So exactly which american are you acting as the watch-dog for?" If not, let me know and I'll answer best I can.

"... I deserve to be a tad self-righteous." Congratulations!

Ciao, Guido

"The STRATFOR analysis was presented as a non-partisan view of the conflict. Hopefully you found it such"

That is because USA has taken its war-mongering and foreign policy out of its political arena, beyond debate, dissent, critique, political discourse. When one party takes an aggressive initiative, the other party falls in line in order not to appear soft. Political parties go to extreme length to disagree and debate on trivial Tweedledee and Tweedledum, but never anything of substance that debate the foundation of policies. Merits and demerits of foreign policies are left to think tanks and state/pantagon department operatives and presented to America and world as Fait Accompli without any media debate or political discourse. System of classified secrets and national security arguments keep foreign policy-making a closely-guarded clandestine operation beyond public debate. One can't trust anything that comes out of think-tanks or media in America.

George friedman: Author of Guido's Stratfor paper

2003, before Iraq war

You've got a team in the White House that is unafraid of world public opinion because they know it is unreliable, self-serving and hypocritical,'' says George Friedman

2001, after Milosevic was arrested

And in Yugoslavia, the political cost of extraditing Milosevic will be high. Expect NATO countries to reward Belgrade, quite possibly with the most unusual of prizes -- handing Kosovo back to the Serbs

2003, before the Iraq

And, the U.S., as Friedman points out, on the brink of world hegemony, is going to find out who its friends are. "I do so enjoy Canadians (against the war) getting so obsessed with human rights, and then pay no attention to places like Venezuela,'' says Friedman, who thinks Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is next on Bush's military agenda.

Kerty #64

"That is because USA has taken its war-mongering and foreign policy out of its political arena, beyond debate, dissent, critique, political discourse."

I understand war as a foreign policy instrument; I wasn't aware war-mongering was. Unless you mean to include it as the threat of military action, in which case it can be persuasive providing the threat is credible.

Disagree with the statement however. Google all or part of the sentence for multiple examples of debate, dissent, critique, and political discourse from the USA.

"When one party takes an aggressive initiative, the other party falls in line in order not to appear soft. Political parties go to extreme length to disagree and debate on trivial Tweedledee and Tweedledum, but never anything of substance that debate the foundation of policies."

Politicians play politics. But they also discuss important issues.

"Merits and demerits of foreign policies are left to think tanks and state/pantagon department operatives and presented to America and world as Fait Accompli without any media debate or political discourse."

Political discourse seems essential to decision making:

"Although the president remains the principal initiator of American foreign policy, there are now more relevant players, more issues, and more pressures. Foreign policy has become more people's business, debated and conducted for the most part by more people with substantive training and experience in foreign affairs from both the public and private sectors. Nor does politics stop at the water's edge as it used to. Today partisan and institutional politics pervade practically all aspects of foreign policy-making."

From: THE MULTIPLE INFLUENCES ON U.S. FOREIGN POLICY-MAKING, Stephen Wayne

"System of classified secrets and national security arguments keep foreign policy-making a closely-guarded clandestine operation beyond public debate."

I would guess that keeping your cards close to the vest may provide an advantage in foreign relations dealings. I think all countries practice this.

"One can't trust anything that comes out of think-tanks or media in America."

Not unless one were strongly biased, prejudiced, or both. I think a more accurate statement would be, one cannot trust everything that comes from any politically motivated entity.

Ciao, Guido

Chandra,

I would like to reply but I'm unclear of the point. Can you be a bit more precise? Thanks.

Ciao, Guido

Chandra,

Strategic Forecasting, which I occasionally quote myself [but not often - I find Debkafiles gives better analysis of past events than Strategic Forecasting] considers $295 a year for these services a bargain....

I'll let you figure out why I don't rush out with a credit card and purchase this "bargain".

Guido #63,

Sincerely and honestly, take it at face value, I have not a clue what you are talking about in comment #63. And it is not because of my English (or American)

Guido:

"The STRATFOR analysis was presented as a non-partisan view of the conflict. Hopefully you found it such"

Yes, i read it and congratulations! You do have a sense of humour (or humor). Non-partisan? Indeed!

Ruvy

I know that we agree on almost nothing but I love debka. I am a regular subscriber and they are a fantastic source for many global issues.

Guido

George Friedman, who is the head of STRATFOR is not neutral nor and as I pointed our with a few quotes is competent.

Chandra,

Debka is a good source for after the fact analysis. The reason is that they are run by a husband and wife team who live in Jerusalem not too far from the Knesset building who are former members of the Mossad, Israel's spying agency. And their sources are in the Mossad as well. So, in essence, what you get are the points of view of the Mossad, whose job it is to make sure that the enemies of this country do not destroy her (if the political leaders haven't enough sense to follow their advice, that is a different question).

So, the product they provide is high quality. But, they have weaknesses as well as strengths. The vast majority of the Mossad are non-religious or anti-religious Jews and they have biases of their own, which occasionally show through.

Before the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, they actively wanted such an invasion. Saddam Hussein had missiles and other weapons of mass destruction and if he had used them against Israel, they would have been a threat to thousands of lives. So in its reporting of events in 2002 from the region, they tried to jump the gun on an American invasion, and like Protestant preachers hoping for Armegeddon, they kept anticipating actions which might have been interpreted as indicative of war.

Sadddam Hussein got rid of these weapons in late 2002 and early 2003, shipping them by truck over the border to Syria (something which Debka also reported on). Since then, they've been they've been stored and guarded by Syrian soldiers in the Beka'a, a valley in south Lebanon just north of us in Israel.

That's why they were never found in Iraq after the American invasion - they weren't there to be found!

After the HizbAllah rocket assault in 2006, a largely European fleet was sent off the coast of Lebanon - it is still there. It had the partial participation of elements of the American Sixth Fleet at first. It was the wet dream of the Mossad, that Israel and America would be military allies, with Israel fighting at America's side. Originally that is how they reported the presence of the American elements of the Sixth Fleet. I reported on that in this article in Sept. 2006. Ten days later, I reported on how Debka changed its dance steps. The evidence of how events broke out in the area backed up what I had suspected in the initial article I had linked to - that there was no intent on the part of the United States to allow Israel to fight at its side as a partner.

So, Chandra, when it comes to analyzing future events, I'm a lot more wary of what Debka has to say.

By contrast, George Freedman, from Strategic Forecasting, is just an American Jew without a clue - like Eric Margolis is.

The author CR Sridhar writes....."The pipeline project had top-heavy advisors who held extremely senior positions in the government of US. Some of the important officials - Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, James Baker III, Brent Scowcroft, and Dick Cheney- have shaped US strategic oil interests in the region.",...

What we are witnessing today in the Caucuses is the result of a policy of encirclement of Russia ,policy espoused by the very same people the author has mentioned in his article.These people once served on Government and they now moonlight for various corporations and think tanks advocating policy...policy that is increasingly belligerent in its rhetoric.These are the very same people who appear on the mainstream media with their lies and distortions.Russia's Putin stands in their way.The propaganda "bullet points" have already been determined; "Putin is a menace","Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet empire", "Putin is an autocrat".


Author Mike Whitney observes dryly....."In June, former foreign policy adviser to President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, presented the basic storyline that would be used against Russia two full months before the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia. The article appeared on the Kavkazcenter web site. Brzezinski said the United States witnessed "cases of possible threats by Russia, directed at Georgia with the intention of taking control over the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline".

Brzezinski: "Russia actively tends to isolate the Central Asian region from direct access to world economy, especially to energy supplies..If Georgia government is destabilized, western access to Baku, Caspian Sea and further will be limited".

Brzezinski's speculation is part of a broader scenario that's been crafted for the western media to provide a rationale for upcoming aggression against Russia. Brzezinski is not only the architect of the mujahadin-led campaign against Russia in Afghanistan in the 1980s, but also, the author of "The Grand Chessboard--American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives", the operating theory behind “the war on terror” which involves massive US intervention in Central Asia to control vital resources, fragment Russia, and surround manufacturing giant, China

"The Grand Chessboard" is the 21st century's version of the Great Game. The book begins with this revealing statement:

"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power.....The key to controlling Eurasia is controlling the Central Asian Republics."

Putin's problems can be traced back to a speech he made in Munich nearly two years ago when he declared unequivocally that he rejected the basic tenets of the Bush Doctrine and US global hegemony. His speech amounted to a Russian Declaration of Independence. That's when western elites, particularly at the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Enterprise Institute put Putin on their "enemies list" along with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Morales, Mugabe and anyone else who refuses to take orders from the Washington Mafia.

Here's what Putin said in Munich:

The unipolar world refers to a world in which there is one master, one sovereign---- one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.… What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization.

Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves---wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. More are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper-use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.

We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate. And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.

I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.

Every word Putin spoke was true which is why it was not reprinted in the western media.

“Unilateral and illegitimate military actions”, the “uncontained hyper-use of force”, the “disdain for the basic principles of international law”, and most importantly; “No one feels safe!”

Putin's claims are all indisputable, that is why he has entered the neocons crosshairs. He poses a direct challenge to what Brzezinski calls the "international system", which is shorthand for the corporate/banking cartel that is controlled by the western oligarchy of racketeers.

could the editor just clear up comment #74...guess preparing something on word and copy pasting doesn't work.

@ From the Sidelines:

More often then not, your enemy tells you the truth. And, as you point out, Putin was telling the truth.

But that doesn't mean that he himself will act honestly. Thousands of South Ossetians were evacuated from the area weeks before the Gruzian forces attacked; one gets the distinct feeling that they were set up and baited by the Russians, and that they fell in to a honeyed Venus' fly trap. The soldiers that the Israelis attempted to train were all killed. But now, on the strength of the Israeli trained corpses, Russian ships dock in Syria, preparing missiles against my country.

Maybe the masters of the American elite think they have Putin in their gunsights - but we in Israel are in the gunsights for real - first by Arabs, then by Iran backing the Arabs, and now by Russia backing Iran and the Arabs, both. And the same masters of the American elite who think they have Putin in their gunsights are leaving both Gruzia and us to twist in the wind, waiting for death to strike - kind of like used condoms....

CS #63

I don't know any simpler way to put it. My writing skills are just not up to par.

I was attempting to highlight (in my opinion) the seemingly anti-American bias in your comments. There's no shortage here at DC; my impression. Apparently you disagree with that assessment and conversely consider my remarks naively and irrationally pro-American. I think that's it in a nutshell.

Here's another bit of criticism if I may. Please don't take it personally.

"Please try, if you can, refrain from being the ""thekedaar"" (contractor) of americanism. You are assuming I'm not American."

You presume too much. I don't know you or what you're thinking and wouldn't try to read your mind. I humbly advise you to do the same.

Finally, it appears some DC commentators believe that I'm the blind defender of America and find the US infallible. It's no secret that I think the world is a better place with America in it. Many disagree and that's fine. But some interpret that statement as arrogant and self righteous and infer I think the US is perfect...that is false and nothing I can say, or don't say will change their minds. Not once have I ever suggested the infallibility of any nation, yet I have been accused of just that. Perhaps the chasm between perceptions is too great.

In my mind there are two diametrically opposed positions one can take. Pick a nation and concentrate on the positive examples and espouse that, or do the opposite. Of course our positions are influenced by media, experiences, and individual mindset.

I think the truth usually lies somewhere in the chasm between the opposing views.

Ciao, Guido

CS #70

Lovely quip void of argumentative substance.

Ciao, Guido

Chandra #72

Please provide the links to the source articles of the quotes. I don't understand how you can rationally discredit the author using such brief examples out of context. Thanks.

Ciao, Guido

Guido,

I'd be last person to call you the blind defender of America who finds the US infallible. I respect those who served in the Armed Forces of the United States, and who have pride in their country. I may disagree with you, but all such disagreement is with full respect for you. No man who has been in combat is likely to be a blind defender of anything, other than his buddies and his commander, if they have merited it.

Not every man comes out of such experience feeling this pride, though; some feel ill used by the government they have served (most of us average folks are usually grateful for veterans). This is not just true in the States. It's true here as well. Don't let others try to pigeonhole you, and especially don't hold your peace because of them.

Shabbat Shalom,
Ruvy

Shabbat Shalom,

Guido #77:

Perhaps what you mean by anti-american or anti-indian means different things to us. An example might clear this up:

1. if someone lambasts some policy of the indian government, internally or globally, it would, in my view never be "anti-Indian". However, where you detect signs of alleged "anti-Americanism", it is ALWAYS about discussion of policies not comments on character/personalities/traits etc. of the American people. It is illegitimate to engage in a discussion, pros and cons of American domestic or foreign policy, and then come back with the counterpunch of "anti-americanism" when the other person disagrees with and sharply criticizes a policy. However, this happens quite often with you and you are off the blocks with the charge of anti-americanism. Given american involvement globally, for better or for worse, I am not surprise you find anti-americanism everywhere, partcitularly on DC. However, think about it: is it possible to engage in a discussion of the policies of the american policies without the default position being "my country, right or wrong"?? Hamstringing your opponent before she/he can open her mouth is a trick that simply will not wash. "Anti-Americanism" is usually a reflex response to stop any critical discussion. Anybody with or without commonsense can see that. The discussion of policies have to do with pros and cons, and too bad if you find most folks here siding with the cons, not the neo-cons. By your definition, a wrong one, much of the world is allegedly "anti-american""

2. Anti-Indian is NOT a ruthless criticism of the policies of the Indian govt or its politicians or it police force etc. You see that on DC all the time without such childish charges being hurled around. Anti-Indian surely is when someone like Ruvy calls Indians "barbaric natives". Now that characterization has nothing to do with any policy as such, but is a slur. Nobody has ever (I may be wrong, so let me say I HAVE NEVER) characterized any american trait, personality or culture in such a manner. So, I challenge you to point out ONE anti-american statement I have made on DC ie. if I have poked fun at americans, their culture, their lifestyle, their mannerisms etc. etc. etc.


As for your earlier query about whether it is only "American senators who accuse each other of playing politics""

1. As far as I know, and I may be wrong, there are no senators in India or England or France...

2. "playing politics" is an american phrase that is not used in India or England.

3. they do not use english in governmental discussions in France or Belgium, much less phrases such as "playing politics""

4. On CNN etc. "playing politics" is a common phrase used by american politicians to denounce each other.

5. "Playing politics" is not a major crime, just an interesting paradoxican accusation with no substance.

6. On why this comment of mine was flagged by you as indicating an "anti-american" slant, is beyond me.

Not for me to advise you how to be less hyper-sensitive and to stop tilting at windmills. However, given the global entanglement of the US, if you are in this mode, there will be no shortage of windmills for you to tilt at, but they will not be anti-american windmills.

Guido #77:

Perhaps what you mean by anti-american or anti-indian means different things to us. An example might clear this up:

1. if someone lambasts some policy of the indian government, internally or globally, it would, in my view never be "anti-Indian". However, where you detect signs of alleged "anti-Americanism", it is ALWAYS about discussion of policies not comments on character/personalities/traits etc. of the American people. It is illegitimate to engage in a discussion, pros and cons of American domestic or foreign policy, and then come back with the counterpunch of "anti-americanism" when the other person disagrees with and sharply criticizes a policy. However, this happens quite often with you and you are off the blocks with the charge of anti-americanism. Given american involvement globally, for better or for worse, I am not surprise you find anti-americanism everywhere, partcitularly on DC. However, think about it: is it possible to engage in a discussion of the policies of the american policies without the default position being "my country, right or wrong"?? Hamstringing your opponent before she/he can open her mouth is a trick that simply will not wash. "Anti-Americanism" is usually a reflex response to stop any critical discussion. Anybody with or without commonsense can see that. The discussion of policies have to do with pros and cons, and too bad if you find most folks here siding with the cons, not the neo-cons. By your definition, a wrong one, much of the world is allegedly "anti-american""

2. Anti-Indian is NOT a ruthless criticism of the policies of the Indian govt or its politicians or it police force etc. You see that on DC all the time without such childish charges being hurled around. Anti-Indian surely is when someone like Ruvy calls Indians "barbaric natives". Now that characterization has nothing to do with any policy as such, but is a slur. Nobody has ever (I may be wrong, so let me say I HAVE NEVER) characterized any american trait, personality or culture in such a manner. So, I challenge you to point out ONE anti-american statement I have made on DC ie. if I have poked fun at americans, their culture, their lifestyle, their mannerisms etc. etc. etc.


As for your earlier query about whether it is only "American senators who accuse each other of playing politics""

1. As far as I know, and I may be wrong, there are no senators in India or England or France...

2. "playing politics" is an american phrase that is not used in India or England.

3. they do not use english in governmental discussions in France or Belgium, much less phrases such as "playing politics""

4. On CNN etc. "playing politics" is a common phrase used by american politicians to denounce each other.

5. "Playing politics" is not a major crime, just an interesting paradoxican accusation with no substance.

6. On why this comment of mine was flagged by you as indicating an "anti-american" slant, is beyond me.

Not for me to advise you how to be less hyper-sensitive and to stop tilting at windmills. However, given the global entanglement of the US, if you are in this mode, there will be no shortage of windmills for you to tilt at, but they will not be anti-american windmills.

Aijaz #20

Sorry for the delay in replying to your comments.

The war in Iraq was not conducted so that the people of Iraq could taste freedom. One of the important reasons appears to be control of oil fields.With Saudi Arabia perceived as unstable by US it had secure another supply. Iraq is second to Saudi Arabia in her capacity to supply oil. As you point out the Bush administration has senior officials with interests in the oil business. Bush himself has connections with oil business. The war on Iraq was a racket.
'I wouldn't be surprised if Mcain wins the election as the U.S. has a big agenda of destabilising the 'Bolivarian Revolutuion'

I am not very convinced that the power realities will change much if Obama comes to power.The Foreign policy of US was constantly hostile to other countries when they persued other methods of development even when the President was a Democrat.During Carter's Presidency( Democrat) Brzezinski was a hawk and he played the devils Game of involving the Islamic elements in the war against the Russians in Afghanistan.And with bloody consequences. The other example which comes to my mind is that of the Presidency of John F Kennedy- again a Democrat- when there were vicious wars waged against Latin America.Don't forget Clinton who quickly backed out of his election promises.

I hope I am wrong about Obama.

Ruvy,I agree there are no angels in world politics.However the record shows that Russia moved in to protect its citizens in its backyard just as Israel would have when provoked into a response.

In a 2006 referendum, 99% of South Ossetians said they supported independence from Georgia. The voter turnout was 95% and the balloting was monitored by 34 international observers from the west. No one has challenged the results. The province has been under the protection of Russian and Georgian peacekeepers since 1992 and has been a de facto independent state ever since. If Putin applied the same standard as Bush did in Kosovo, he would unilaterally declare South Ossetia independent from Georgia and then thumb his nose at the UN.

The coverage of the western media in this regard has been abysmal. Nearly every article and TV news segment begins with accusations of Russian aggression concealing the fact that the Georgian Army bombarded and invaded the capital of South Ossetia one full day before the first Russian even tank crossed the border. By the time the Russians arrived, the city was already in a shambles and thousands were dead.These facts are not in dispute by those who followed the developments as they took place. Now the media are revising the facts to manage public perceptions, just as they did with the fictional WMD in Iraq. Many people think that the press learned its lesson after they were exposed for using bogus information in the lead up to the war in Iraq. But that is not true. The corporate media--especially FOX News, CNN and PBS continue to operate like the propaganda arm of the Pentagon. Its disgraceful.

What took place in South Ossetia on August 7, was not an invasion or a siege; it was a massacre. There are no military installations in the city of Tskhinvali. In fact, there are no military targets at all. It is an industrial center consisting of lumber mills, manufacturing plants and residential areas. It is also the home to 30,000 South Ossetians. When Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili ordered the city to be bombed by warplanes and shelled by heavy artillery last Thursday, he knew that he would be killing hundreds of civilians in their homes and neighborhoods. But he ordered the bombing anyway.There was no "Battle of Tskhinvali"; that's another fiction. A battle implies that there is an opposing force that is resisting or fighting back. That's not the case here. The Georgian army entered the city unopposed; after all, how can unarmed civilians stop armed units. Most of the townspeople had already fled across the border into Russia or hid in their basements while the tanks and armored vehicles rumbled bye firing at anything that moved.The people had no way to defend themselves against a fully-equiped modern army.

It was a war crime.

The success of the Bush Regime’s propaganda, lies, and deception with gullible and inattentive Americans since 9/11 has made it difficult for intelligent, aware people to be optimistic about the future of the United States. For almost 8 years the US media has served as Ministry of Propaganda for a war criminal regime. Americans incapable of thinking for themselves, reading between the lines, or accessing foreign media on the Internet have been brainwashed.Its not very difficult,they have been brought up on a diet of infotainment and porn.

As the Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, said, it is easy to deceive a people. You just tell them they have been attacked and wave the flag.

Ruvy,I agree there are no angels in world politics.However the record shows that Russia moved in to protect its citizens in its backyard just as Israel would have when provoked into a response.

In a 2006 referendum, 99% of South Ossetians said they supported independence from Georgia. The voter turnout was 95% and the balloting was monitored by 34 international observers from the west. No one has challenged the results. The province has been under the protection of Russian and Georgian peacekeepers since 1992 and has been a de facto independent state ever since. If Putin applied the same standard as Bush did in Kosovo, he would unilaterally declare South Ossetia independent from Georgia and then thumb his nose at the UN.

The coverage of the western media in this regard has been abysmal. Nearly every article and TV news segment begins with accusations of Russian aggression concealing the fact that the Georgian Army bombarded and invaded the capital of South Ossetia one full day before the first Russian even tank crossed the border. By the time the Russians arrived, the city was already in a shambles and thousands were dead.These facts are not in dispute by those who followed the developments as they took place. Now the media are revising the facts to manage public perceptions, just as they did with the fictional WMD in Iraq. Many people think that the press learned its lesson after they were exposed for using bogus information in the lead up to the war in Iraq. But that is not true. The corporate media--especially FOX News, CNN and PBS continue to operate like the propaganda arm of the Pentagon. Its disgraceful.

What took place in South Ossetia on August 7, was not an invasion or a siege; it was a massacre. There are no military installations in the city of Tskhinvali. In fact, there are no military targets at all. It is an industrial center consisting of lumber mills, manufacturing plants and residential areas. It is also the home to 30,000 South Ossetians. When Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili ordered the city to be bombed by warplanes and shelled by heavy artillery last Thursday, he knew that he would be killing hundreds of civilians in their homes and neighborhoods. But he ordered the bombing anyway.There was no "Battle of Tskhinvali"; that's another fiction. A battle implies that there is an opposing force that is resisting or fighting back. That's not the case here. The Georgian army entered the city unopposed; after all, how can unarmed civilians stop armed units. Most of the townspeople had already fled across the border into Russia or hid in their basements while the tanks and armored vehicles rumbled bye firing at anything that moved.The people had no way to defend themselves against a fully-equiped modern army.

It was a war crime.

The success of the Bush Regime’s propaganda, lies, and deception with gullible and inattentive Americans since 9/11 has made it difficult for intelligent, aware people to be optimistic about the future of the United States. For almost 8 years the US media has served as Ministry of Propaganda for a war criminal regime. Americans incapable of thinking for themselves, reading between the lines, or accessing foreign media on the Internet have been brainwashed.Its not very difficult,they have been brought up on a diet of infotainment and porn.

As the Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, said, it is easy to deceive a people. You just tell them they have been attacked and wave the flag.

Saakashvilli was led to beleive that he would be offered substantially more support than has actually been proffered by the United States.Who's working the strings behind the scenes?...Is Saakashvili betting that McCain will win the Presidential race?.Why did Saakashvili pay a lobbyist and what did McCain promise Saakashvili?

As Alexander Cockburn notes.."McCain's chief foreign policy advisor, a rabid hawk called Randy Scheunemann, has until recently worn two hats, acting as McCain's lead foreign policy man and also as a lobbyist for Georgia. Filings by the McCain campaign and reports to the US Department of Commerce required of all lobbyists acting for foreign governments show that between Jan. 1, 2007, and May 15, 2008, the McCain campaign paid Scheunemann nearly $70,000 and, across the same period , the government of Georgia paid Scheunemann's firm,Orion Strategies, $290,000 in lobbying fees. Scheuneman has since quit the lobbying firm, a 2-man operation.

So Scheunemann indubitably had the ears of both Saakashvili and of McCain. What advice he tendered his patrons is a matter of speculation, but any advisor to McCain would certainly regard a vintage cold-war era confrontation between the United States and Russia as potentially a huge plus for McCain. The Republican candidate certainly seized the opportunity for manly bluster about Russia's conduct...."

Professor Alan Lichtman says.."First, McCain had a unique and privileged pipeline to President Saakashvili. McCain's top foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann, was a partner in a two-man firm that served as a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government. Scheunemann continued receiving compensation from the firm until the McCain campaign imposed new restrictions on lobbyists in mid-May. Scheunemann helped arrange a telephone conversation between McCain and Saakashvili on April 17 of this year, while he was still being paid by Georgia.

Second, while most Senators would hesitate to conduct their own private foreign policy, McCain follows his own muse and defers to no one, including the President of the United States. Third, McCain has benefited politically from the crisis in Georgia. As with the Eisenhower administration's rhetoric of liberation, McCain's swift and belligerent response to the Soviet actions in Georgia has bolstered his shaky standing with the right-wing of the Republican Party. McCain has also used the Georgian situation to assert his credentials as the hardened warrior ready to do battle against a resurgent Russia. He has pointedly contrasted his foreign policy experience with that of his Democratic opponent Barack Obama.

Since the crisis erupted, McCain has focused like a laser on Georgia, to great effect. According to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released on August 19 he has gained four points on Obama since their last poll in mid-July and leads his rival by a two to one margin as the candidate best qualified to deal with Russia.

Although McCain does not speak officially for the Bush administration, Saakashvili would likely take very seriously any communication from the presumptive Republican Party nominee for president. As with the CIA in the Hungarian crisis of 1956, McCain may well have given the Georgian president greater assurances of American backing for his actions than the US government could provide.

At minimum, John McCain has a lot of explaining to do. He must explain the precise role that the paid lobbyist played in shaping his policies on Georgia and Russia. He must explain why he retains the lobbyist as his foreign policy advisor even though Scheunemann will ultimately benefit from the revenue raking in by his company. McCain must reveal precisely what he said to Saakashvili in the April 17 conservation and the other private contacts he claims to have had with the Georgian president. On the eve of the presidential election, the American people deserve no less. We should not have to wait decades to find out what really happened in Georgia. ..."

Temporal#37

'would appreciate your take on "debkafiles"'

Must apologize for the delay as my net was down.
Debka is an internet journal which represents the Mossad viewpoint of International affairs. Ruvy has provided the details of this internet journal.

I remain sceptical about Debka as it slants material to suit Israeli point of view.What it knows and what it publishes are any one's guess. But there is one explosive detail that it published - there was a mole or rogue network within the US government which divulged secrets without which 9/11 would have never happened. But this promising line of inquiry was soon abandoned for scoring propaganda points as Debka made an astonishing claim that secret codes were divulged by the rogue network within US govt to the Iraqi intelligence.

Ruvy has quoted Debka files in connection with the Georgian crisis suggesting that Russia has added explosive gunpowder in the region.But what about the inconvenient truth that US never abandoned its Military bases round the world even after the cold war ended? US was increasing its sphere of influence in Russia's backyard. What do think Putin should do? Ignore the threat and play golf with Bush? He chose the old strategy of making friends with enemies of US.I agree with Ruvy- the world has become a more dangerous place.

Guido:

""It's no secret that I think the world is a better place with America in it.""

Guido, why hold back with such a luke warm comment? Why not go the whole hog and quote Madame Allbright instead: "America is the indispensable nation". Regardless of whether the dispensable nations agree or not. They do not count.

Guido, nobody thinks that this post is anti-Indian, because it not. Indeed such views are routinely posted AND welcomed on DC.

Deepti: (from another thread)

""Bangalore holding the Olympics? We still have electricions getting electrocuted on rainy nights doing their jobs trying to get the power back on.

Roads are left dug open, clogged sewers etc

I don't care about Olympics nor do I care about what the world thinks about us. We have our good points but we stink of corruption.

Where does all the tax payer money go?

My educated neighbors kids shit and pee in front of my gate and throw trash on the side plot which on a windy day it blows into my yard. Thats India for you.""

So, get off your thekedaari (contractorship) of america high horse, if you can, but I don't think you can, but you can try.

Ruvy #80,

Thanks for the kind words. Sincerely appreciated.

Ciao, Guido

CS #82

As entertaining as they may be, I have no intention of sifting through your posts.

For the record: "an•ti-A•mer•i•can - Spelled Pronunciation [an-tee-uh-mer-i-kuh n, an-tahy-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation-adjective

1. opposed or hostile to the United States of America, its people, its principles, or its policies."

How would you categorize someone's comments that were exclusively negative about a nation...any nation? Would you surmise the person making those comments was a tad biased or slanted? Would that person be espousing truth by only showing one side of the argument? Would they fit the definition above?

"The discussion of policies have to do with pros and cons, and too bad if you find most folks here siding with the cons, not the neo-cons. By your definition, a wrong one, much of the world is allegedly "anti-american""

Your right...it's too bad.

You might ask yourself why? Why aren't the comments more positive? Where's the balance? If something, anything is berated enough it will eventually be demonized. It doesn't matter what form; person, place or thing.

Please present this forum with one positive comment you've made about America.

Ciao, Guido

Guido:

""You might ask yourself why? Why aren't the comments more positive?""

That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it would be to ask youself the same question.

Guido:

""For the record: "an•ti-A•mer•i•can - Spelled Pronunciation [an-tee-uh-mer-i-kuh n, an-tahy-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation-adjective

1. opposed or hostile to the United States of America, its people, its principles, or its policies." ""

For the record? As in a neutral record from a neutral dictionary? C'mon now, you could do with some commonsense (no pun intended). If anti-american in your, presumably american dictionary means "opposed to the United States of America...its policies", you can bet your last penny that outside of the United States, barring those "allies" (usually ruthless dictators thru history and their hangers on , or very exceptionally elected leaders but who are yes-men to US policies and their hangers on) who are used and cast aside as condoms.

BTW, the dictionary you have, does it also define anti-English, anti-French, anti-Indian, anti-Pakistani? As i said before, only some Americans, perhaps they have imbibed too much nationalistic/unthinking patriotic kool-aid, the kind that picks on others for not putting on that flag button before going on TV, the kind for whom the pledge of allegiance is more important than making sure 45 million americans are covered my some form of medical insurance, are up in arms about something called "anti-Americanism". A bizarre fusion of pretend paranoia and self-righteousness. Summed up by the secretarly the former Secretary of State Madame Madeleine Albright (I have no doubt she was quite, but as for all-bright??) modest understament of the century: "America is the indispensable nation". The dispensable nations no doubt agree.

So if you really want an honest answer to your disarmingly naive question: ""Why aren't the comments more positive"", you might try some modest introspection and perhaps a couple of history books that are slighly different from hagiographies of the nation you appear to worship uncritically. Better still, make sure those histories are written by solid, patriotic americans, even though you would suspect them of having sold their souls to not-so-secret cabal of anti-Americans.

Guido:

From another thread again, but not entirely irrelevant. From Mark your fellow-American.

""My mistake is a product of my background. I come from a country where we value self-criticism; and one where the full diversity of opinion is taken into the mix -- from aboriginals, long-established American families, naturalized citizens, new immigrants, residents, and visitors.""

Too bad there are exceptions like you who take umbrage at any criticism from others. And too bad for the other desis who cannot withstand criticism from Mark, about India, and predictably label him "anti-Indian". Perhaps you and the other Indians who are mysteriously pissed off at Mark the American for judging India, can form a not-so-secret cabal for attacking anti-Americansism and anti-Indianism??

CS #92

"Please present this forum with one positive comment you've made about America."

From the rant in your previous posts, I'll assume you can't.

Ciao, Guido

My apologies. 1 out of 2497 or .004 percent positive comments. That is balance. I stand corrected.

Excuse me now, I must adjust my lapel flag pin and go cast aside some allies like condoms. Then I'll drink some nationalistic/unthinking patriotic kool-aid. After which I'll pick on some others for not wearing their flag button. Then recite the pledge of allegiance a few times...which in my narrow view is more important than making sure 45 million Americans are covered by medical insurance. But I must confess that all this makes me feel a little paranoid and self-righteousness. No problem though, because uncritically worshiping my heroes like Madame Madeleine Albright always makes me feel better.

You certainly don't fit anyone's definition of anti-American CS; least of all mine.

"Too bad there are exceptions like you who take umbrage at any criticism from others."

You mean like the well intended constructive criticism in posts #92...and in similar postings that infect this forum like a virus? Only the paranoid and self-righteous could take exception.

Ciao, Guido

Guido:

"Please present this forum with one positive comment you've made about America."

Two responses:

1. The mild response: I searched myself, but could not come up with a single one. You are almost right about this, except for the fact that just because I could not find a single positive comment I have made about America DOES NOT mean that I did not make one on DC. Actually I did, but the problem is that it simply cannot be found. If you are confounded by my logic, I refer you to a now very famous quote by the gentle, charming and completely unflappable US politician of whom you might have heard. Donald Rumsfeld who was kind enough to send american troops to "shock and awe" Iraqis into becoming instant democrats. Here is what he said:

""There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Donald Rumsfeld""

In other words, just because even I cannot find anything postive I have said about America on DC, DOES NOT mean I did not say something postive.


2. The slightly acerbic but not mean response:

Guido: ""Please present this forum with one positive comment you've made about America."

From the rant in your previous posts, I'll assume you can't.""

I am not, in the business of pimping for any nation or government, American, Indian or Martian on DC. But that does not mean that I have never pimped for them. Same logic as above applies. Just because I cannot find any comment of mine pimping for any government or country, DOES not mean I never did. "It's hard out there for a pimp". (BTW, I do not intend to label you a pimp or anything of that sort; it's just that I'm not into cheerleading for any country or govt, so I could have used the term "cheerleader", but pimp is more colorful)

Although if it makes you happy, I will say that without America this world would have been a total loss for sure. This is not one can say for the other "dispensable" nations (Albright; All-Bright). You are easily pleased!

I believe that we have produced as much light as we possibly could on this topic and we are headed full-speed towards producing pointless heat and acrimony. So I must desist from locking any more horns on this topic, and not because I am not horny either. Even I get tired of useless drivel and my own devious, snide, pathetically tiresome unclever turn of the phrase.

Guido:

PS:

I was slimy enough to this comment on Mark's thread, in anticipation of your query (clever of me, but not quite since you are predictable) just to boost my count of comments favourable to America, or at least favorable to Americans, just to boost my tally! It's 2 out of 247 now! I'm getting there! Hang in there, in a week or two I'll be a certified "my country, right or wrong", rah rah rah, hip deep in official kool-aid type of an american patriot.

""Mark,

Just hang in there! Your so-called critics would not bat an eyelid if the same comments came from a fellow-desi and some of them may not hold back when generalizing and judging Americans. But they sure cannot handle a critique from an amost-outsider. Much of it has to do with the in-group, outgroup thingie, overlayed with a sense of unacknowledged inferiority and self-denial hammered in deep during colonialism, even though some of these folks will claim they are fighting colonial thinking. It's a neurosis that devours the holder of such views even though the holder himself/herself feels she/he is "defending the dignity" of India or perhaps some other project that is even more pompous and vaingloriously grandiose. Just hang in there and write more on DC to expand the domain of basic commonsense :) ""

CS #96,

"I am not, in the business of pimping for any nation or government, American, Indian or Martian on DC. But that does not mean that I have never pimped for them. Same logic as above applies. Just because I cannot find any comment of mine pimping for any government or country, DOES not mean I never did. "It's hard out there for a pimp". (BTW, I do not intend to label you a pimp or anything of that sort; it's just that I'm not into cheerleading for any country or govt, so I could have used the term "cheerleader", but pimp is more colorful)"

The current issue (where it's devolved at this point) isn't about forwarding, or "pimping" the agenda of any country. It's about criticism vs. bashing and conversely praise vice propaganda.

You bash the US. You may deny it and surmise I arrived at that conclusion due to my "pretend paranoia and self-righteousness". But the fact is, any rational person need only read a fraction of your remarks to come to the same conclusion. WHY you always berate America is something only you can answer. But to claim you are only "criticizing", then spew the garbage in #92 when someone challenges you is disingenuous to say the least.

Conversely, you state I "worship uncritically" the US. I'll refer you to posts #52 and #77 rather than repeat myself.

Finally, and I mean this with all sincerity; what you say or don't say about any nation means squat to me. I assume the feeling is mutual. However, the words posted to these boards are what they are and claiming otherwise won't change them.

Ciao, Guido

Mere Bhai Guido (My dear brother Guido),

I'd promised to desist, but one more response, simply to your response.

Your perception that I am "anti-American" is not correct. You look at some statements I and others make and you assume that most of us have nothing better to do than run the US down. However, you are not making this up, because for sure most of our statements DO APPEAR to be anti-American. But appearances are misleading and have to be INTERPRETED, not taken at face value, as the main-stream media does (the cool aid)

Here is another view: not speaking for others, but I am resolutely allergic to colonialism and its latter day incarnation, Empire. Simply put, the idea that some countries/nations have the god-given or humanly given right to exploit, bully, patronize other nations, while proclaiming to deliver "civilization", "democracry", "freedom" "law and order instead of chaos" etc. etc. (the cool aid component). Any colonial power and empire will follow this pattern. There are no exceptions, despite the variations in rhetoric due to local conditions, history etc. etc.

So, what appears as anti-Ameicanism to you, is anti-Empire and this applies to ANY country that either occupies that position or aspires to it. It used to the the Soviet Union too, and may well be that Russia will again reach that position. China is hankering after it too. And in India too, there are many who would love to see their country to become an empire of sorts. Some of these folks are found on DC too.

Defenders of Empire are of course driven by that most raw of emotions that gets them by the balls (applies to men only of course) and that is of course reflexive nationalism and patriotism. I am not saying that you are in that category because I don't think you are naive.

So, what you interpret as anti-Americanism, is a critique of imperial adventures, and applies to ANY country that aspires to this horrible, exploitative postion, all the time cloaking itself in self-righteous virtue. The USSR was a master of it and may well be again in the future. But I repeat myself.

One way of looking at the 1000 plus military bases that the US empire maintains, is that they are looking out for opportunities to inject democracy and freedom. An interesting point of view. Colonialists from Britain to Belgium proclaimed the same while robbing the colonies blind.

However, if you wish to defend empire, I would recommend these two books by the foremost court historian Niall (prounounce Neal) Ferguson. He is British, but it's just a matter of time before he begins referring to himself as "we Americans" just like another expat in American, Christopher Hitchens. Both are reliving Empire vicariously, their own country Britain, as shadow of its former colonial self. You I believe will love these books as Ferguson is an unembarrased defender of Empire and colonialism.

These two books are:

Ferguson, Niall (2003). Empire: the rise and demise of the British world order and the lessons for global power. New York: Basic Books

Ferguson, Niall (2004). Colossus: The Price of America's Empire

Nothing more to say really, except that, once again, it is not about YOU, so don't take it personally. There are countless Americans who would take issue with you with such vigour that you'd be surprised.

Remember, it's for nothing that the act that chips away at the civil liberties of Americans is called the Patriot Act, even while apparently democracy and freedom are allegedly exported abroad. And not for nothing, when Senator McCarthy destroyed the lives of thousands, the committee bringing the charges against the so-called tratiors was called The House of Unamerican Activities.

A final issue: compile a list of all the brutal dictators the US administration has supported and continues to and you will run out of paper. The same goes for the USSR; and China and India if they ever reach that wretched position, will do the same. Even a self effacing Switzerland would too, if they were an imperial power.
Not so much to do with America or the USSR or China, but the postion they occupy and the actions they take to defend their priveleges and access to resources and power. Plain commonsense

Guido:

""what you say or don't say about any nation means squat to me."'

You may be right, but I seriously doubt it; you wouldn't bother responding.

Guido:

""You bash the US...""

That's what you think. Most reasonable people who have been subjected to colonialism or the ravages of empire, will not say too many good things about the governments of countries that are responsible for it.

You think people are "bashing" the US just for the fun of it. The critics of the US foreign policies would do and indeed do do the same for any country that functions as an empire, trying to control and corner resources (oil etc.) and to exert power wherever it can. It could be China or the resurgetnt Russia, or even India in the future. Any country that is aggressively imperialistic will not be seen too kindly by those who are the subject of its policies.

You may want to defend empire, and if you do, you might want to look at this book by a famous court historian Niall Ferguson, who does exactly that. It will help you to make some arguments in favour of ruthless imperialism. The books are:

"Ferguson, Niall (2003). Empire: the rise and demise of the British world order and the lessons for global power. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-02328-2."

This book makes most reasonable people puke, but you may agree with most of it.

A couple of years ago the bush admin. appointed a special team headed by a woman to control the PR for its policies. A year later, the director of this image makeover resigned as she could make little headway.

What you consider to be frivoulour anti-Americanism is a critique of empire. It could be the US, the ex-USSR or China. For my views on empire, you may want to look at my short piece on DC "Sir Salman: Have Pen Will Kneel".

Perhaps you are right that the US has over a thousand bases all around the world only for the purpose of spreading democracy and freedom while keeping the "bad guys" at bay. Perhaps their label of the "axis of evil" is indeed accurate and we should all be grateful rather than being churlish and supremely ungratefuly. On the other hand, perhaps there is another way of looking at it, and that other way has nothing to do with so-called anti-Americanism as such even though on the surface it may appear to you as such. There is a very visceral and emotive response to so-called anti-American sentiments. Not for nothing was the committee that destroyed the lives of thousands of innocents during the vicious McCarthy era, was called The House of UnAmerican Activities. Not for nothing is the act that destroys the civil liberties of Americans, is called the Patriot Act.

As I said, we have pretty much come to the end of the discussion. If you think you are witnessing many so-called "anti-American" sentiments on this thread, you might want to keep in mind the topic at hand.

Ciao.

Dr. CS,

"You may be right, but I seriously doubt it; you wouldn't bother responding."

Thanks for the psychoanalysis. Your breadth of expertise continues to astound me.

"You think people are "bashing" the US just for the fun of it."

Psychiatrist and mind-reader...amazing! And I thought I said this: "WHY you always berate America is something only you can answer."

"What you consider to be frivoulour anti-Americanism is a critique of empire."

No. I think (are you reading my mind?) as previously stated, that someone who's comments are always excessively negative would indicate that the person is anti-(people, place, or thing). Are you reading my posts doctor? Or interpreting them using your well honed diagnostic skills?

"Perhaps you are right that the US has over a thousand bases all around the world only for the purpose of spreading democracy and freedom while keeping the "bad guys" at bay."

I'm sorry, I'm unable to recall making this claim and I can't find the quote. However, I concur that some nations remain democratic to this day due to the forward deployment of American forces. I wouldn't say it's the "only" reason. But you seem to know better than me what I'm REALLY saying.

"For my views on empire, you may want to look at my short piece on DC "Sir Salman: Have Pen Will Kneel"."

I believe enough of your unbiased and balanced views are evident in this thread. But if you think adding this to my reading list will cure my "bizarre fusion of pretend paranoia and self-righteousness"...well then, doctors orders!

"If you think you are witnessing many so-called "anti-American" sentiments on this thread, you might want to keep in mind the topic at hand."

I will! Thank you for that gentile and informative session. I feel much better now.

Ciao, Guido

Guido,
On the question of anti-Americanism i have a simple observation to make- if your posts, news shown on CNN and BBC are anything to go by- then you are guilty of anti-Russian propaganda. You seem to be missing the Russian side of the story.

Let me explain- How would you in US react to a change of government in Mexico which is hostile to US interests. Suppose you have evidence that Russia is actively funding the anti US government in Mexico- what would the US government do?
Bomb Mexico to extinction?

On the issue of anti-Americanism I am reminded of a joke which is popular in Middle East- it goes this way- There is a bus full of Americans traveling in a foreign country. The Americans inside the bus are having a good time and they can't see anything outside as the windows of the bus are dark. The idiot of a driver drives the bus over the sidewalk killing innocent people.Then the idiot driver rams the bus in a crowded market place killing more people but the American passengers do not stop the driver.Finally, the bus is stoned and stopped and the Americans face a very angry crowd wanting to lynch them.One American is heard telling the other American-'It can't be happening to us. Why do they hate us?'

Guido,

I just wonder if any one in the 1940's condemning Hitler for his genocide of six million Jews would be described as being anti-German?

Just a thought- there lot of people in Europe who are critical of US policies but are friendly to American people.The interests of US are served by her critics and not her friends.

(Guido, you have the last word; this response of mine does not count, hence in parenthesis. You may wish to have more than the last word if you wish, by giving us all a tally of how many times the US forces have supported democracies as opposed to ruthless dictatorships. Yes, you have extra time and yes you can use history textbooks written by americans as americans as american pie. This kind invitation for you to respond is brought to you in response to your remarkable statment :"However, I concur that some nations remain democratic to this day due to the forward deployment of American forces.". And also because you are pretty good with numbers and percentages, demonstrated by your quick tally of how many of my comments were "favorable" to the US and those that in your register, were "anti-American". If you do the tally for yourself, you might be in for a surprise. I say this because I have, as you well know, incredible mind-reading capabilities)

RB #102,

Let me answer your questions with a few simple ones of my own.

Why are the bordering nations of Mexico and Canada friendly to the US?

Why are the former soviet satellite countries so eager to abandon Russian influence and join the west?

Debating US and Russian policy in light of this subject may be entertaining but the point is mute; the people of Eastern Europe have already decided the issue by voting with their feet.

The bus joke is very amusing.

Ciao, Guido

RB #103

"I just wonder if any one in the 1940's condemning Hitler for his genocide of six million Jews would be described as being anti-German?"

No clue! I'm not Jewish and wasn't around in 1940.

"Just a thought- there lot of people in Europe who are critical of US policies but are friendly to American people. The interests of US are served by her critics and not her friends."

I believe the US and her allies are served by both.

Ciao, Guido

Guido:

""Why are the bordering nations of Mexico and Canada friendly to the US?""

(nations cannot be friendly or unfriendly. Nations are not entities with emotions. Indeed they mostly exist in the imagination, which is bolstered by symbols such as the flag, national anthems, pledge of allegiance, independed day rituals etc. etc., designed to ignite compulsive, sometimes brainless, unthinking natinalism and patriotism)

(Only individuals who occupy political positions or the general populations can be friendly, unfriendly or not give a diddly squat. if you think the average canadian or mexican is "friendly" to the US adminstration and its policies, you might want to visit those two countries or just read their newspapers, editorial one day. when it came to the crunch, both the canadian and the mexican govts. pointedly refused to be dragged into the so-called "coalition of the willing" despite bullying threats from the US ambassadors in each country about dire consequences and the denial of lucrative contracts in the reconstruction of Iraq, after the destruction.)

(States are friendly or not friendly with other states due to interests. Canada and Mexico are quite dependant on the US economically. Even so, they pointedly said thanks, but no thanks when they were being unwillingly dragged into the so-called "coalition of the willing". The new conservative government in Candad is decidedly more friendly though. The earlier government was Liberal (the dreaded term of abuse in the US being of course "liberal""))

(No state has permanent friends or allies. They only have permanent interests. Some allies are more durable than others. Most of them in the end are condoms, used for some interest or the other. It's just that some are Durex brand of condoms that last, while others are generic brands that break easily and can be discarded without any pangs of guilt on the part of the "discarder". Re: the anectode about Pakistan being the condom the US administration used to enter Afghanistan))

CS,

Congratulations. You completed a post without any reference to my cranial activity.

You're right...I should have been more succinct. "Friendly" nations in so far that the populations and leaders generally share the same values and interest. And yes, they have their differences.

The condom analogy doesn't accurately reflect the symbiotic relationships and agreements between allied leaders. Unless your motive is to cast disparaging remarks, in which case it's very useful.

Ciao, Guido

Interesting article!
Thanks for posting.
I enjoined reading the article.

Guido:

""The condom analogy doesn't accurately reflect the symbiotic relationships and agreements between allied leaders""

This is an incident that apparently actually happened in Pakistan (as reported by Tariq Ali). As is usually the case, some "allies" of imperial powers are usually temporary ones that are cast aside once they have performed their role as useful idiots. After the Soviet Union was driven back from Afghanistan, with the help of "ally" Pakistan, the US, as was expected and following the imperial script forgot all about Pakistan. A Pakistani general, while complaining the one visiting US official reminded him of all the promises and the fact that Pakistan was an "ally". The US official supposedly resonded (paraphrase):

"Pakistan an ally of US? Pakistan was simply a condom we used to enter Afghanistan. What do you think happens to condoms after they have been used".

This incident, if it actually happen, does dramatise the point about so-called allies and how and when they can be thrown to the wolves after they have played their role. In Vietnam etc. etc. etc., and not it seems Georgia too.

Guido:

""Congratulations. You completed a post without any reference to my cranial activity""

Thanks! I will refer to it whenever I detect any :)

Sridhar, I agree with you with respect to your reply to Aijaz Hassan Mansoor's reply to your article.Yes Obama will be one more President as he has to repay the corporate debts.There is nothing new in the American presidential election.

****

["George Soros" should have his own IP address.

From that IP:

* "Aijaz Hassan Mansoor" has posted 2 comments
* "George Soros" has posted 1 comments]
editor

Hope for world peace!