So where are those hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters ? Shouldn't they be on the streets protesting in Europe ;and the United States over the illegal war of aggression being conducted by Russia against Georgia ? Where are the burning Russian flags and paper mache Putins hanging in effigee ? :confused:

Hello tom:

They're all inside on their computers like you. Which begs the question, why aren't you on the street with your sign?

excon

Believe it or not, the war's not getting much coverage in the media as I think it should. It may be due to Edwards or the olympics, but as I was discussing this with a friend of mine at starbucks the other day, a couple next to me asked, "There's a war in Europe?"

Why are you concerned about protesters? It's not your war.

I guess you don't see the hypocrisy .

I did not see the Ruskies try to make their case for war at the UN did you ?

I guess you don't see the hypocricy .Nope. Please explain.

BTW no one has used the term 'ruskies' since the cold war when it was the USSR.

Get used to it. This is August 1968 all over again. While the Ruskies invaded Czechoslovakia the world protested Vietnam.

get used to it. This is August 1968 all over again. While the Ruskies invaded Czechoslovakia the world protested Vietnam.

So where are those hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters ? Shouldn't they be on the streets protesting in Europe ;and the United States over the illegal war of aggression being conducted by Russia against Georgia ? Where are the burning Russian flags and paper mache Putins hanging in effigee ? :confused:


I believe you when you say you're confused. You seem to be into side shows and the politics as usual, when we need to cut through the fat and get to the meat. Parts of our nation's populace, the portion of die-hard Dubya fanatics, all need a reality check and I'm going to give it to them. You're boss, that you voted for twice, needs Russia (your old Ruskie buddies), preferably if we are to take on the task of Iran in the near future. It's a mafioso chess match, and the US is a player for convenience here. When nine-eleven occurred we warred on Afghanistan. That's the same Afghanistan that Reagan helped against Russia, by looking the other way when Pakistan was on issue for nuke capability. Decades later... Dubya, couldn't get to Bin Laden, turns attention to Iraq, a whipping boy in effect, not that that Saddam didn't have it coming for other reasons, he did, however make Iran stronger in the process. However in the past that should had been Israel's responsibility a decade earlier, but G. Herbert W. Bush decided to take on that task... and remove the Israelis from the equation. So the Israelis obliged and mistakenly listened to the US. BTW that got us nowhere productive, unless you want to count General Schwarzkopf riding in parades a glorious event. And Dubya, the drugstore cowboy, other than his short blusterous yelling tantrum at Putin in the Olympic games press box, is walking a fine line here.

Now I am confused by your fractured fairy-tale.

:rolleyes: Well Tom, you're one of the better mushrooms, and unlike many Americans, at least you admit to being confused. There's forty years of previous world history on record that leads us into current events and those facts are meaningless to you. I'm not surprised though.

Those hundreds of thousands of anti-American, European protestors and flag burners are leftists; Putin is a leftist. It's the old "no enemy to the left" song-and-dance, and not hypocritical at all. The question is why the MSM plays-up blatant anti-Americanism the way it does. But, alas, that is not hypocrisy either; it is, simply, what they believe.

Yes I'm confused by your interpretation.


When nine-eleven occurred we warred on Afghanistan. That's the same Afghanistan that Reagan helped against Russia, by looking the other way when Pakistan was on issue for nuke capability.
By the time of 9-11 a completely different group was running Afghanistan ;a group that harbored AQ while it trained to attack the USA . There is no connection between Reagan and the Afghan nation we warred against. As for Pakistan ;when President Bush said you are either for us or against us ,who do you think he was directing his comments towards ? Pakistan's reluctant help in the GWOT has been crucial .Do you think we will be able to maintain a presence in Afghansitan without Pakistan air and land routes for supply ?


Dubya, couldn't get to Bin Laden, turns attention to Iraq, a whipping boy in effect, not that that Saddam didn't have it coming for other reasons, he did,
Plans for the Iraq war went into motion before (in your words)Dubya, couldn't get to Bin Laden .
I agree ;Saddam had it coming for many reasons.



However make Iran stronger in the process.

That's debatable .No doubt they would've been had we cut and run . I see Iran as being surrounded by US forces almost everywhere they look and with enough pulling teeth we are convincing the world that Iran with nukes is not acceptable.

I see no indication that we need the Ruskies. They are not the future ;they are the old empire grabbing for the brass ring one more time before demographics and China overtake them. Their big hold is on the gonads of Europe . That is the real reason why this war was fought... blood for oil.

By the time of 9-11 a completely different group was running Afghanistan ;a group that harbored AQ while it trained to attack the USA . There is no connection between Reagan and the Afghan nation we warred against. As for Pakistan ;when President Bush said you are either for us or against us ,who do you think he was directing his comments towards ? Pakistan's reluctant help in the GWOT has been crucial .Do you think we will be able to maintain a presence in Afghansitan without Pakistan air and land routes for supply ?.


So you think that Afghanistan up till then in their history was the local candy store with their various governments singing Shirley Temple's "good ship lolly pop?" Of course not. Anybody that knows Afghanistan history knows it is also war torn. It's all about our convenience in manipulating the players, just like Reagan did when he ended up looking the other direction on Pakistan's nuclear capability. When it fit our governments agenda to support the Afghan rebels against the communist we did so. How convenient that Americans should forget our own history. Here's a little trip down memory lane...

Cape Cod Times: Bin Laden once had U.S. support, experts say (September 17, 2001) (http://archive.capecodonline.com/special/terror/binladen17b.htm)


"OMAHA, Neb. - As America fought wars around the globe in the 20th century, one principle guided U.S. alliances: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
In the war against Hitler, the United States found common cause with Stalin. In the war against Japan, America aided Vietnamese rebel Ho Chi Minh. In Third World struggles, America helped Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein.

As Afghan rebels fought Soviet invaders in the 1980s, the United States gave aid from afar while Saudi exile Osama bin Laden provided support from within Afghanistan.

Bin Laden emerged quickly after last week's attack on America as the prime suspect, directing a global network of terrorists from camps in Afghanistan.

His apparent role in the attacks and the possibility of retaliation generated acute interest in Omaha, home to about 300 former Afghan refugees and the nation's only Center for Afghanistan Studies.

Before most of the world knew who bin Laden was, Thomas Gouttierre, director of the Afghan program at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, spent several months studying him for the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan in 1996 and 1997.

Gouttierre, who has 37 years experience dealing with Afghanistan, used his sources to confirm for then-U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali that bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan after leaving Sudan.

Gouttierre still has his bin Laden file, including maps showing the locations of his training camps in the mountainous Central Asian nation.

The UNO scholar never met bin Laden but saw his compound in the city of Kandahar and once saw his motorcade pass as the terrorist leader traveled protected by security vehicles.

Gouttierre also spent part of his U.N. duty meeting and studying the Taliban, radical Muslim clerics who were and still are fighting for control of Afghanistan. The Taliban reportedly control about 95 percent of the country now.

Even before last week's attack, the United States and the United Nations had called for the Taliban to turn bin Laden over to face trial for previous terrorist bombings.

Such a demand is unrealistic, Gouttierre said.

"The Talibs are not as powerful as Osama bin Laden," he said. "It's more likely that he could throw them out."

When Gouttierre was in Kandahar in 1999, he said, Afghans told him that most advisers to Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban's top leader, were Pakistanis. Since then, he said, Arabs tied to bin Laden have gained influence with Omar.

The rural clerics of the Taliban have little education or sophistication, he said, and rely heavily on the outsiders in their fledgling efforts to govern.

"The Taliban have kind of become almost a junior partner in the strategic plans of Osama bin Laden and the Pakistani extremist elements," Gouttierre said.

Abdul Raheem Yaseer, an Afghan native who is campus coordinator of UNO's Center for Afghanistan Studies, described the situation in his homeland bluntly: "Osama bin Laden is the master. How could a servant hand in his master?"

Western outrage toward Afghanistan has taken on new meaning in the wake of Tuesday's attack, but Americans were outraged at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan 22 years ago. The United States boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics. President Jimmy Carter embargoed exports to the Soviet Union.

The CIA funneled arms and other support to the mujahedeen, Afghanistan's "freedom fighters."

Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan, saw Afghanistan as a potential Vietnam for the Soviets' "Evil Empire."

Thousands of Muslim radicals joined the CIA and mujahedeen, including bin Laden, the wealthy son of a Saudi road builder. Though he didn't actually take up arms, he helped build roads and arms depots, using his own funds and CIA money.

"We funded him, we and the Saudis," said Glynn Wood, professor of international policy at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. "He was not seen as any kind of threat until Desert Storm."

Pakistani investigative journalist Ahmed Rashid reported recently that the CIA funded an underground arms depot, training facility and medical center that bin Laden helped build in 1986 near the Pakistan border. There bin Laden set up his first training camp.

Rep. Doug Bereuter, R-Neb., likened the situation to the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, where the United States aided a future adversary, Saddam Hussein.

American policies contributed to the environment that exists today, he said, "but it was an inadvertent action."

The United States provided many of the arms used today by all the forces in Afghanistan.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said blaming U.S. policy for today's troubles is too simplistic. The region is incredibly complex politically and socially, the Nebraska Republican said, as were the Cold War calculations that drove foreign policy.

"It's always easy to look back at a policy 20 years ago and say we made a mistake," Hagel said.

"I suppose you could make a case we made an error to support the mujahedeen to drive out communism in Afghanistan," he said. But allowing communism to control the country also would have been bad, considering its proximity to Pakistan and Iran.

"The reality in those days," Hagel said, "was anything that hurt the Soviets we did.""




plans for the Iraq war went into motion before (in your words)Dubya, couldn't get to Bin Laden .
I agree ;Saddam had it coming for many reasons.

Nobody suggested that he didn't have Iraq in his sights. I'm saying that I know he did and that he went after Iraq because they were an easier target for Bush after realizing that Bin Laden escaped the noose.



That's debatable .No doubt they would've been had we cut and run . I see Iran as being surrounded by US forces almost everywhere they look and with enough pulling teeth we are convincing the world that Iran with nukes is not acceptable.

Huh? I took speech class, traveled competitively, and been in many debates. I certainly wouldn't want the task of suggesting Iran is weaker because the US attacked Iraq.


I see no indication that we need the Ruskies. They are not the future ;they are the old empire grabbing for the brass ring one more time before demographics and China overtake them. Their big hold is on the gonads of Europe . That is the real reason why this war was fought.....blood for oil.

Wow! Tom, I don't know why yourself, amongst the few other die-hard McCain supporters here, refuse to open up your eyes. I'm not suggesting that Democrats are that much more advanced, but I told you that the US is a player in the international mafioso chess match.

Chris Meserole: What Georgia Got Wrong: Iran (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-meserole/what-georgia-got-wrong-ir_b_118489.html)


"That the violence in Georgia has revealed is just how extensively Washington has realigned its interests in central Asia. The Bush administration has no desire to let Georgia burn, yet that's exactly what it's doing.

And the reason is that Bush has no choice. There are only two ways to contain the Iranian threat: one is to use Israel as a military proxy -- in essence, to green-light Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear installations. If need be the Bush administration will prove willing to do this, but they'd prefer not to; there would be immediate military fall-out in Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel, not to mention another surge in the energy market.

The only other option is diplomacy. And here Russia comes back into play: since Russian banks and technology are currently keeping Iran afloat, it's the only country with sufficient leverage to force Iran to stop its nuclear program. Without Russian approval, the threat of added sanctions is all but meaningless.

That is why Bush is letting Russia have its way with Georgia. To be sure, ultimately Bush will step in -- in fact, Russia, wary of another Chechnya, seems to be banking on that happening. But full American intercession won't come until Russia feels confident that it has degraded Georgia's military to the point where it neither will nor can risk invading Abkhazia or South Ossetia any time soon.

What remains to be seen in all this is whether Putin will return the favor. At present, the Bush administration thinks it's trading violence in Georgia for potential violence in Iraq and Lebanon."

Tom, I think it goes something like this. Bush opened the door by invading a sovereign nation so Russia is just following his lead and therefore, we have no room to talk. The leftists are I'm sure cheering Putin and sympathizing with his comments:

"They of course had to hang Saddam Hussein for destroying several Shiite villages. But the current Georgian rulers who in one hour simply wiped 10 Ossetian villages from the face of the earth ... are players that have to be protected."

Nobody should be cheering Putin. Well I take that back. Maybe Dubya will be if he gets use out of Russia on the Iran nuclear issue. But the fact remains that our government moves the pawns when their own motives suit them.

Bobby let me take this opportunity to correct you about this growing myth that we either favored OBL or created him. The United States did not support the "Afghan Arabs" ;those fighters that came into the Afghan conflict from the Arab world .
the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill." [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden .]

Ayman al-Zawahiri, confirmed that the "Afghan Arabs" did not receive any U.S. funding or help .

"While the United States backed Pakistan and the mujahidin factions with money and equipment, the young Arab mujahidin's relationship with the United States was totally different."

"... The financing of the activities of the Arab mujahidin in Afghanistan came from aid sent to Afghanistan by popular organizations. It was substantial aid."

"The Arab mujahidin did not confine themselves to financing their own jihad but also carried Muslim donations to the Afghan mujahidin themselves. Usama Bin Ladin has apprised me of the size of the popular Arab support for the Afghan mujahidin that amounted, according to his sources, to $200 million in the form of military aid alone in 10 years. Imagine how much aid was sent by popular Arab organizations in the non-military fields such as medicine and health, education and vocational training, food, and social assistance ...."

"Through the unofficial popular support, the Arab mujahidin established training centers and centers for the call to the faith. They formed fronts that trained and equipped thousands of Arab mujahidin and provided them with living expenses, housing, travel and organization."
[Knights Under the Prophet's Banner]

As for your other point ;the Ruskies do not want a showdown with us over Iran. They can't win that ;nor is it in their interests to have a nuclear armed Iran with missiles that can reach inside the motherland .

There is a certain logic that we will not commit to an armed conflict with them over Gerogia ;but they are close to stepping into a hornets nest there.

This very well could be their "Iraq". Note that the Georgian Army fell back instead of drawing a line and standing to fight. The Ruskies are walking into territory where the population has a vivid memory of the last time the Ruskies occupied them. The Georgian Army looks to me to be falling back intact to a defensive position in the Lesser Caucasus Mts. If the Ruskies bog down then expect an Iraqi style insurgency .

Notable is the fact that there are many US advisors on the ground with presumably plenty of experience in that type of combat . IEDs anyone ? Night raids on isolated Ruskie units ? They will rue the day they crossed through Roki Tunnel .If push comes to shove a strategically placed bomb could cut off the Ruskie land route supplyline . Then a couple of strategically placed mines in the Black Sea could really give them problems. Expect the US to transfer SAM and anti-tank capability to the Georgians.

Talking about history ;check out the fierceness of the Georgian fighter throughout history ;especially the Hulagu Khan's army . Let the Ruskies bleed for a while.

My guess is that when a final settlement is made that South Ossetia will be permitted to become semi-autonomous .The Ruskie KGB kleptocrats who keep summer homes there will be able to hide the rubles they skim from the oil revenue and will be happy.

Bobby let me take this opportunity to correct you about this growing myth that we either favored OBL or created him.For another opinion on this please watch the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares

Part 1: Politics - The Power of Nightmares, (Part 1/3), “Baby it's Cold Outside“ (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727&ei=5c2iSKKyG5DmqwL9jeyCBA&q=power+of+nightmares&hl=en)

Part 2: The Power of Nightmares Part 2: The Phantom Victory - by Adam Curtis (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4602171665328041876&hl=en)

Part 3: The Power of Nightmares Part 3: The Shadows in the Cave - by Adam Curtis (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2081592330319789254&hl=en)

Here's the Wiki entry: The Power of Nightmares - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_Nightmares)

Curtis perpetrates this myth that the US and AQ cooperated. They had similar goals of undermining the Ruskie invasion of Afghanistan but worked independent of each other to achieve that goal. Sorry ;Curtis is flat wrong !

Curtis perpetrates this myth that the US and AQ cooperated. They had simular goals of undermining the Ruskie invasion of Afghanistan but worked independent of each other to acheive that goal. Sorry ;Curtis is flat wrong !It's amusing how you believe you are smarter than a whole group of people travelling the world, interviewing people, doing research and showing unedited archival footage. Keep reading your blogs tommie-boy!

Yeah Curtis and Michael Moore... perfect together. I wonder if there has been a tin foil hat created big enough for their heads ? Not even the MSM buys into their conspiracy clap trap. Hey I got to give him credit he made money and got awards for his film from the Euro-trendsetters but let's not mistake his fiction with serious investigative journalism.

Not even the MSM buys into their conspiracy clap trap. "The Power of Nightmares, subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear, is a BBC documentary film series"

I rest my case . The beeb a long time ago stopped being objective.

Whereas most people view as much more objective than US media.

Uhhuh here is what former beeb reporter Robin Aitkins says about them :

The BBC's world is one in which America is always wrong, George W. Bush is a knuckle-dragging simpleton, people of faith are frightening ignoramuses, and capitalism is a rot on the fabric of social justice. Through this prism, the United Nations is the world's supreme moral authority, multiculturalism is always a force for good, war is never warranted, and U.S. Republicans sprinkle Third World children over their Cheerios for breakfast.

The beeb tells the international audience what they want to hear. Objectivity has nothing to do with it . They are 100% funded by the left leaning British government.

Even the beeb admits to it's biases

BBC report finds bias within corporation - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554833/BBC-report-finds-bias-within-corporation.html)

They are 100% funded by the left leaning British government.They are funded by whatever government is there at the time, conservative, labour or liberal. The reporting has always been the same. Speaking of tinfoil hats, how's yours? :D

"It the left, the left, they are the root of all evil!!!!!!11111!!!"

LOL!

I see no indication that we need the Ruskies. They are not the future ;they are the old empire grabbing for the brass ring one more time before demographics and China overtake them. Their big hold is on the gonads of Europe . That is the real reason why this war was fought.....blood for oil.


Well with a country like France, that gets most of its own power via nuclear plants, there does not need to be a war : "blood for oil!"

But hey, with Pelosi and the environmentalists taking a vacation, the result will be blood for imported oil. :(