Most of us here were against the invasion of Iraq, correct?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

We were disturbed by it, sickened by it, saw it as totally unjustified, saw it as a violation of international law, etc. Some of us, myself included, even went out and protested against it.

Likewise, our current president was against the invasion of Iraq when it happened. After he was elected, he oversaw the withdraw of combat troops from Iraq. The one major military operation he ordered--Libya--did not involve a single American military foot on foreign soil. And while it is true that his foreign defense policy is far from reproach (i.e. drones), it should just as likewise be crystal clear that in terms of use of diplomacy over military force he is exponentially better than his predecessor. Mediated solutions in places like Iran and Syria simply would not have happened in the Bush Administration.

And contrary to what one might think, most of the foreign world actually understands the concept of different American administrations and different policy approaches those administrations might think. And I truly believe that when compared to the Bush administration, the world has found the Obama administration to be far more willing to consider diplomatic solutions to crisis than the Bush administration was. In other words, they aren't the warmongers that the Bush guys are.

So with all of the above facts in mind, can we go ahead and dispense with the notion that the United States lacks the moral authority to call out Vladimir Putin and decry his invasion of sovereign Ukrainian soil as illegal, immoral and in violation of international law and recognized treaties to which Russia is a signatory. Note: I am not arguing that the United States should intervene militarily in the situation. I am simply referring to our ability to speak out against something that I think we all ought to recognize is just wrong on Russia's part.

Moreover, aside from official United States policy, as private citizens and human beings, why do we even need to feel burdened by our nation's past errors in taking a strictly personal position on a foreign matter? I've come across more than one person who feels they simply cannot speak out against Putin because they were a citizen of the United States when it invaded Iraq. It's as if they insist on wearing the heavy albatross of the past administration's deeds around their own neck and that said albatross mandates they remain silent on all matters, lest they be branded some sort of hypocrite. Relax. You were against the Iraq War when it started, and you were ultimately vindicated by history. You are more than free to criticize another country who seeks to take it upon itself to invade another country on pretextual and unjustified pretenses.

[rdharma]

1. Still trying to conflate apples with oranges? nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

2. Still making cryptic, unspecified statements? nt

[rdharma]

7. 'NO' is the answer to that question. 'NO' putsch and 'NO' WMD's in Iraq. nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

11. To what "putsch" are you referring? nt

[rdharma]

13. The putsch in the Ukraine. Where have you been? nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

16. Let me try to get you down on an actual position here.

Are you trying to say that Russia is justified in sending its troops into Ukraine (not "the Ukraine", BTW for future reference) because you view what happened on Maidan square with the end result being Yanukovych fleeing the country, an interim government taking over with new elections scheduled for May, as being a "putsch" (i.e. coup)?

Feel free to deny and clarify, but you are being willfully elusive here.

[rdharma]

31. Yes, it was a putsch. Are you claiming otherwise?

If so, you are being less than honest.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

45. What does that have to do with your position on Crimea and Russian intervention?

And regarding the issue of what happened in the Maidan, it certainly wasn't a military coup, if that's what you are implying. Nor was Yanokvych dragged out by the people and shot Ceacsescau style. Yanukovych willfully chose to flee to Russia, and an interim government was chosen by the Rada until elections could be held in May. If you choose to label it a coup or a "putsch", that what you are going to do, but I don't see that as a fitting label.

But again, you've dodged the ultimate question as to whether or not Russia is justified in invading Crimea militarily. So I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

[rdharma]

54. Who said anything about a "military" coup? A putsch headed by fascist thugs also qualifies......

.... as a putsch.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

57. Are you going to answer the question?

In your opinion, is Russia justified in sending in its military onto soil recognized by international law as being Ukrainian soil, and occupying and potentially annexing that land?

You keep on sidestepping that question.

[rdharma]

62. The entire mess started with the "putsch"... nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

69. Sigh.

You don't want to answer the question. I can only try to infer your opinion since you are intentionally be obstuse about it.

Are you saying that Russia is justified in invading Crimea (and possibly the Ukrainian main land) because you believe what happened several weeks ago in Kyiv as a coup, or in your words, a "putsch"?

Is that your position?

Stomp once for no, twice for yes. Bark twice if you're in Milwaukee.

[rdharma]

71. You got my answer......

If there hadn't been an illegal putsch headed by fascist thugs and encouraged by foreign and domestic corporatists (and CIA), the Russians wouldn't have left their barracks. Capisce?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

73. Okay. So you view Russia's actions as justified.

Glad I could finally pin you down on it.

[stevenleser]

113. I really think that person is putting us on. I dont think anyone could actually believe those

things.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

115. Well under that thinking, I'm sure he would have supported the US invasion of Iraq.

After all, we didn't like Saddam and didn't view his government as legitimate either. So under that thinking, we were free to go ahead and invade that country for our own purposes.

[stevenleser]

120. I just pointed out that very thing to a Russian expat attempting to defend Putin on FB.

They are, in effect, justifying the Iraq war by their reasoning.

[lark]

101. You seem to have a unique take on this

Where did you get the "fascists thugs" threw out the Russian leaning Yanukovych out of office? I haven't heard about the Ukranians being fascists thugs before you.

[polly7]

114. You are correct.

Preparing the Ground for NATO

by William Blum / March 8th, 2014

.....Since the end of the Cold War the United States has been surrounding Russia, building one base after another, ceaselessly looking for new ones, including in Ukraine; one missile site after another, with Moscow in range; NATO has grabbed one former Soviet Republic after another. The White House, and the unquestioning American mainstream media, have assured us that such operations have nothing to do with Russia. And Russia has been told the same, much to Moscow’s continuous skepticism. “Look,” said Russian president Vladimir Putin about NATO some years ago, “is this is a military organization? Yes, it’s military. … Is it moving towards our border? It’s moving towards our border. Why?”1

The Holy Triumvirate would love to rip Ukraine from the Moscow bosom, evict the Russian Black Sea Fleet, and establish a US military and/or NATO presence on Russia’s border. (In case you were wondering what prompted the Russian military action.) Kiev’s membership in the EU would then not be far off; after which the country could embrace the joys of neo-conservatism, receiving the benefits of the standard privatization-deregulation-austerity package and join Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain as an impoverished orphan of the family; but no price is too great to pay to for being part of glorious Europe and the West!

The Ukrainian insurgents and their Western-power supporters didn’t care who their Ukrainian allies were in carrying out their coup against President Viktor Yanukovych last month … thugs who set policemen on fire head to toe … all manner of extreme right-wingers, including Chechnyan Islamic militants2 … a deputy of the ultra-right Svoboda Party, part of the new government, who threatens to rebuild Ukraine’s nukes in three to six months.3 … the snipers firing on the protestors who apparently were not what they appeared to be – A bugged phone conversation between Urmas Paet, the Estonian foreign minister, and EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, reveals Paet saying: “There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition.”4 … neo-Nazi protestors in Kiev who have openly denounced Jews, hoisting a banner honoring Stepan Bandera, the infamous Ukrainian nationalist who collaborated with the German Nazis during World War II and whose militias participated in atrocities against Jews and Poles.....


http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/03/preparing-the-ground-for-nato/

[polly7]

123. Russia has had forces in Crimea since the late 18th century.

The Black Sea Fleet (Russian: Черноморский Флот, Chernomorsky Flot) is a large operational-strategic sub-unit of the Russian (and formerly Soviet) Navy, operating in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea since the late 18th century. Its ships are based in various harbors of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, while its aviation and infrastructure is based in various locations in Crimea, Ukraine and Krasnodar Krai, Russia.

Joint Fleet and its partition[edit]
To ease the tensions, the two governments signed an interim treaty, establishing a joint Russo-Ukrainian Black Sea Fleet under bilateral command (and Soviet Navy flag) until a full-scale partition agreement could be reached. Formally, the Fleet's Commander was to be appointed by a joint order of the two countries' Presidents. However, Russia still dominated the Fleet unofficially, and a Russian admiral was appointed as Commander; the majority of the fleet personnel adopted Russian citizenship. Minor tensions between the Fleet and the new Ukrainian Navy (such as electricity cut-offs and sailors' street-fighting) continued.


Some major ships (including the flagship) of the Soviet and Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, August 2007
In 1997, Russia and Ukraine signed the Partition Treaty, establishing two independent national fleets and dividing armaments and bases between them.[6] Ukraine also agreed to lease major parts of its new bases to the Russian Black Sea Fleet until 2017. However, the treaty appeared to be far from perfect: permanent tensions on the lease details (including often reported issue of lighthouses) control continued. The Fleet's main base is still situated in the Crimean port city of Sevastopol. In 2009 the Yushchenko Ukrainian government declared that the lease would not be extended and that the fleet would have to leave Sevastopol by 2017.[7] However, in 2010 the Russian leasehold was renegotiated with an extension until 2042 and an option for an additional five years until 2047 (see below).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet

If a majority of the Crimean people who do, and have always identified as Russian are calling for protection from the new 'leadership' until a referendum, should they be ignored?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

125. For there to be "protection", there would have to be an actual threat.

And following Yanukovych fleeing office, there was no reports of widespread violence against any ethnic Russians.

So what justified it all?

[polly7]

126. ...........

Carnival in Crimea

THE ROVING EYE
Carnival in Crimea
By Pepe Escobar

Time waits for no one, but apparently will wait for Crimea. The speaker of the Crimean parliament, Vladimir Konstantinov, has confirmed there will be a referendum on greater autonomy from Ukraine on May 25.

Until then, Crimea will be as hot and steamy as carnival in Rio - because Crimea is all about Sevastopol, the port of call for the Russian Black Sea fleet.

If the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a bull, this is the red flag to end all red flags. Even if you're deep in alcohol nirvana dancin' your troubles away at carnival in Rio - or New Orleans, or Venice, or Trinidad and Tobago - your brain will have registered that NATO's ultimate wet dream is to command a Western puppet Ukrainian government to kick the Russian navy out of its base in Sevastopol. The negotiated lease applies until 2042. Threats and rumors of reneging it have already emerged.

The absolute majority of the Crimean peninsula is populated by Russian speakers. Very few Ukrainians live there. In 1954, it took only 15 minutes for Ukrainian Nikita Krushchev - he of the banging shoe at the UN floor - to give Crimea as a free gift to Ukraine (then part of the USSR). In Russia, Crimea is perceived as Russian. Nothing will change that fact.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-05-280214.html


Pro-Russian Crimeans welcome Moscow's decision to send troops

Pro-Russian residents in Crimea's largest cities have shown their approval for Moscow's decision to send additional troops to the Ukrainian peninsula. But not everyone is happy that the crisis has taken this turn.

http://www.dw.de/image/0,,17467431_303,00.jpg
Cars flying Russian flags passed cheering people on the streets of Sevastopol and Simferopol on Saturday (01.03.2014) as pro-Russian Crimeans welcomed the unanimous decision by the Russian parliament to approve the use of the armed forces in Ukraine.

The news followed an earlier decision to move up a referendum on the status of the semi-autonomous region from May 25 to March 30, a decision that was greeted with enthusiasm by Crimea's Russian community, who make up about 60 percent of the population. The referendum could be the first step towards greater independence for the peninsula, and could lead to a possible secession from Ukraine or even a decision to join the Russian Federation.

Symbol of bravery

On Saturday, mass rallies were held in Crimea's two major cities. In Sevastopol, a crowd estimated at more than 5,000 people gathered in the main square, not far from the city's administration building.

Pro-Russian residents of Sevastopol wear the St. George's Ribbon

Many Crimeans have been waving Russian flags and wearing the St. George's Ribbon

They chanted "Rossiya, Rossiya!" and many wore the St. George's Ribbon, a well-known Russian symbol of military valor that is worn in remembrance of the victory over Nazi Germany. In 1941-1942, the seaport of Sevastopol was the scene of one of the fiercest battles of World War II. Russia's Black Sea Fleet is still stationed in the city today under a lease agreement with the Ukrainian government.
Rarely has the atmosphere here been so politically charged. In cafes, grocery stores and on the street, politics is all anyone talks about. Until very recently, it was completely different. "Normally, it's very, very quiet," said Galina, a small business owner. "We stayed silent during the protests in Kyiv, up until the new government decided to overturn the language law. That was the last straw.
Suddenly, 30,000 people filled this square."

http://www.dw.de/pro-russian-crimeans-welcome-moscows-decision-to-send-troops/a-17467545

The Russian Stronghold in Ukraine Preparing to Fight the Revolution

Lawmakers and worried citizens in the pro-Russia Crimea consider their options

By Simon Shuster / Sevastopol @shustryFeb. 23, 2014525

A Ukrainian woman holds a Soviet flag during a rally in the industrial city of Donetsk, in eastern Ukraine, on Feb. 22, 2014
The busload of officers only began to feel safe when they entered the Crimean peninsula. Through the night on Friday, they drove the length of Ukraine from north to south, having abandoned the capital city of Kiev to the revolution. Along the way the protesters in several towns pelted their bus with eggs, rocks and, at one point, what looked to be blood before the retreating officers realized it was only ketchup. “People were screaming, cursing at us,” recalls one of the policemen, Vlad Roditelev.

Finally, on Saturday morning, the bus reached the refuge of Crimea, the only chunk of Ukraine where the revolution has failed to take hold. Connected to the mainland by two narrow passes, this huge peninsula on the Black Sea has long been a land apart, an island of Russian nationalism in a nation drifting toward Europe. One of its biggest cities, Sevastopol, is home to a Russian naval base that houses around 25,000 troops, and most Crimean residents identify themselves as Russians, not Ukrainians.

So when the forces of the revolution took over the national parliament on Friday, pledging to rid Ukraine of Russian influence and integrate with Europe, the people of Crimea panicked. Some began to form militias, others sent distress calls to the Kremlin. And if the officers of the Berkut riot police are now despised throughout the rest of the country for killing dozens of protesters in Kiev this week, they were welcomed in Crimea as heroes.

For Ukraine’s revolutionary leaders, that presents an urgent problem. In a matter of days, their sympathizers managed to seize nearly the entire country, including some of the most staunchly pro-Russian regions of eastern Ukraine. But they have made barely any headway on the Crimean peninsula. On the contrary, the revolution has given the ethnic Russian majority in Crimea their best chance ever to break away from Kiev’s rule and come back under the control of Russia. “An opportunity like this has never come along,” says Tatyana Yermakova, the head of the Russian Community of Sevastopol, a civil-society group in Crimea.

Read more: Crimea, Russian Stronghold in Ukraine, Is Ready to Fight Revolution | TIME.com http://world.time.com/2014/02/23/the-russian-stronghold-in-ukraine-preparing-to-fight-the-revolution/#ixzz2upQsd8u7
http://world.time.com/2014/02/23/the-russian-stronghold-in-ukraine-preparing-to-fight-the-revolution/
http://www.trbimg.com/img-5311cfa7/turbine/lat-crimearussianflags-wre0015647375-20140301/600

Pro-Russia demonstrators wave the colors of Russian military valor at an anti-American rally in Simferopol, in the Crimea region of Ukraine. The sign says, "We will free Ukraine from American occupation." (Sean Gallup, Getty Images / March 1, 2014)

By Sergei L. Loiko
March 1, 2014, 4:36 a.m.

KIEV, Ukraine -- Crimea's new pro-Moscow premier, Sergei Aksenov, moved the date of the peninsula's status referendum to March 30.
On Thursday, the Crimean parliament, which appointed Aksenov, had called for a referendum on May 25, the date also set for the urgent presidential election in Ukraine.

“In connection with a necessity we decided to speed up the holding of the referendum on the stauts of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea,” Aksenov said Saturday in Simferopol at a new government session, the UNIAN information agency reported.

Earlier that day, Aksenov, head of the nationalist Russian Unity organization, appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin “to render assistance in securing peace and tranquility on the territory of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea," UNIAN reported.
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-crimea-referendum-date-20140301,0,2305350.story#ixzz2upSDz443


http://zcomm.org/znetarticle/ukraine-revolts-dark-side/

Ukraine Revolt’s Dark Side

By Conn Hallinan
Source: Dispatches From The Edge
March 3, 2014

......"Svoboda would stop immigration and reserve civil service jobs for “ethnic Ukrainians.” It would end abortion, gun control, “ban the Communist Ideology,” and list religious affiliation and ethnicity on identity documents. It claims as its mentor the Nazi-collaborator Stephan Bandera, whose Ukrainian Insurgent Army massacred Jews and Poles during World war II. The Party’s demand that all official business be conducted in Ukrainian was recently endorsed by the parliament, disenfranchising 30 percent of the country’s population that speaks Russian. Russian speakers are generally concentrated in the Ukraine’s east and south, and particularly in the Crimean Peninsula.

The U.S. and the EU have hailed the resignation of President Yanukovych and the triumph of “people power” over the elected government – Ambassador Pyatt called it “a day for the history books” –but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Prior to the deployment of Russian troops this past week anti-coup, pro-Russian crowds massed in the streets in the Crimea’s capital, Simferopol, and seized government buildings. While there was little support for the ousted president-who most Ukrainians believe is corrupt-there was deep anger at the de-recognition of the Russian language and contempt for what many said were “fascists” in Kiev and Lviv."

[laundry_queen]

131. I disagree with the premise

it's like okaying France to send troops into Quebec because Quebec is majority French speaking and because Harper. Are you okay with Quebec leaving Canada with a 50+1 vote?

[polly7]

132. Am I mistaken, or is France not across the ocean from Quebec???

And yes, I'm fine! with Quebec leaving Canada with a 50+1 vote, though it would be sad to see.

[laundry_queen]

133. Well, that's good to know that you support the break up of Canada.

And it doesn't matter that France is across the ocean - using 'they speak Russian' as an excuse to annex part of another country is a shitty precedent.

[polly7]

135. I believe any people who feel their interests aren't represented under a gov't

and legally chooses to form their own nation or join with any other, have the right to do so .... and peacefully, as well. Why is that good for you to know about me ...... are you going to forward this on to someone in authority?

Yes, it does matter that France is across the ocean. They don't have a vital military base in Quebec protecting their own borders and interests as well as a majority of people who identify as Russian. Apparently, you can't read beyond the 'they speak Russian' 'excuse' to see just why they're afraid of a new right-wing, fascist, repressive gov't. How easy for you to dismiss the wants and fears of people you know nothing about .... but good for me to know this about you, now I just have to figure out why.

[laundry_queen]

136. Again, I disagree.

The consequences for the entire country is extreme. And who gets to decide what is legal - Quebec or Canada? You are saying Quebec can unilaterally separate without having to deal with Canada at all. Even though there are consequences for minorities in both provinces...nearly all my mother's side of my family is French speaking (me and my kids included) and don't live in Quebec, and I have close relatives on the other side of the family that are English speaking and live in Quebec. Breaking up an entire country is a big deal, not a 'well, if they want to go fucking let Quebec leave' kind of belief. That's how my right wing conservative Harperite acquaintances talk.

It doesn't matter that France doesn't currently have troops in Quebec. The premise is the same. That's what you aren't getting. The comparison is valid. Russian troops were supposed to stay on their bases. They didn't. As for 'scared of a new right wing fascist government' that's ridiculous when Putin is the same. I'm not dismissing - unbelievable you would say that sentence - like you know everything about them, LOL and I don't. Of course they have fears, but it was by design. And it's not a reason to annex parts of a country. Putin is no friend of these people.

[polly7]

137. Sorry, I disagree with pretty much everything you've just said above.

I guess that makes us good.

[laundry_queen]

138. Yeah. No. nt

[polly7]

139. Yeah, no, but wtf cares? Not I. nt.

[amandabeech]

95. Don't forget that the Russians refuse to send their troops back to their

bases, whether in the Crimean region or back to Russia. No plebiscite will be looked on as truly valid when the plebes are being controlled by troops of an occupying deploying from their bases in the region that they are attempting to occupy or from invading armies.

Russia, and whomever is acting with them in Crimea, whether by inclination or force, will not allow international UN monitors into Crimea to observe and report on the fairness of such an election.

If Russia will not consent to those two reasonable stipulations, it suggests to me that Russia is afraid of a "no to annexation" vote. Most reliable sources say that about 60% of Crimean voters are of Russian descent. The rest are mostly Ukrainian with a significant minority of least 12% Tatar.Neither the Tatars nor the Ukrainians are likely to vote for anything other than remaining as an autonomous are within Ukraine. There are also suggestions about that voters born during the early '90s or late '80s in Ukraine identify as Ukrainian regardless of their ethnic heritage. Perhaps that Russians realize that a combo of young adult ethnic Russians could join the Ukrainian, Tatar and other groups' vote to turn down the annexation, which would be unacceptable to Putin who apparently cannot sleep at night without complete control of the bases.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

119. Good points. nt

[sabrina 1]

24. Are we still droning people in other parts of the world using 9/11/War on Terror, where

we claim the right to go to any country without even asking, or telling them, to kill some of their citizens without charges, all in 'secret', including US Citizens?

Have we prosecuted any War Criminals to at least demonstrate that when you murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people and torture and maim untold numbers of others, the US will PROSECUTE you?

We do not have the moral authority to preach to the world on matters of human rights.

Are you aware of all the Dictators we are supporting RIGHT NOW?

If you want us to have that moral authority, then stop making excuses for our violations of human rights and sovereignty of other nations. You are only contributing to the world's view that we don't even have the decency to acknowledge our ongoing support for human rights abuses, see Uzbekistan, Uganda, Bahrain among others of our allies.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

32. Do you, Sabrina1, have the moral authority....

.....to declare what Russia is doing in Crimea as wrong?

Let's put aside the laundry list of things our government has done for a second, and talk strictly about you.

[sabrina 1]

65. That's a good question. I might think I do, but then I know that people would have the right to

tell me 'go tell your government to clean up its own act' before telling anyone else what to do'. That is a risk even for those of us who opposed all these things.

But morally, I think I do have the right to criticize everything I criticized here.

However, I am not the one the world is hearing, our government speaks for us right now when our government does that, they are not on firm ground, due to our own foreign policy.

As for Crimea, I don't know enough about it yet, whether a majority of the people have spoken or not and what THEY want.

And since there was no election in Ukraine, we have no idea how a majority there feel about what happened in Kiev.

Just as in the beginning, I didn't know enough about the Libyan people and blindly supported the 'protesters' initially.

I definitely do NOT trust our corporate media so pretty much take whatever they say on major political issues with a huge grain of salt.

THEY ask War Criminals for advice on foreign policy so not much to go on there.

I get your point, that those of us who oppose our foreign policy of supporting Dictators while invading other countries claiming we are doing for it human rights issues, have the moral authority to speak out on the same issues elsewhere.

But we are not the spokespersons and when someone from our country is caught plotting who to install in Ukraine's 'new' government, it's hard to try to claim we had 'nothing to do with it' especially when that individual was put in power.

Do you believe the Corporate Media here? Should they be asking Dick Cheney for advice on Foreign Policy eg? And if not, where are you getting your information that leads to the conclusions you have made?

[Fumesucker]

3. The invasion of Iraq was illegal, correct?

What happened to the instigators of that invasion?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

4. Unfortunately, they remain unpunished.

But what does that have to do with the ability for us as private citizens to criticize other countries when they invade another country without justification?

[Fumesucker]

6. If your dog is taking massive dumps in other people's yards

It hardly behooves you to criticize other people for where their dog chooses to leave his deposits.

Particularly when your own dog hasn't even had his his own butt so much as swatted with a newspaper.

[rdharma]

8. Great reply, Fumesucker!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

9. The relationship between a people and its elected officials is far more complex...

...than the relationship a person might have with his own pet. I think you know that.

I'm just at a loss of words at people who insist they simply cannot weigh in on what is happening in Ukraine because of what our own country did 11 years ago, something that they did not even support themselves. Why do people insist on remaining silent like that?

[Fumesucker]

14. Why's it OK if our politicians do stuff like this but we must speak up if foreign politicians do it?

I honestly don't get how this invasion does not ignite a fire in you to hold *our* politician's feet to the fire instead of pointing at some other nation's politicians.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

20. Because we are dealing with the here and now.

And the here and now is that Russia has currently sent its troops onto foreign, sovereign soil (as recognized by its own treaty), and could possibly be preparing for further military incursion onto the Ukrainian mainland, which could possibly foment a civil war in Ukraine. It is an immediate crisis which should demand international attention.

Yes, we should not forget what happened in Iraq eleven years ago, but the fact of the matter is that we now have a different administration, we have withdrawn our combat troops from that region, and it's now a matter of history. Which isn't to say we shouldn't still have conversations about it.

But it is possible to have conversations about two different things? A discussion on Iraq in no way precludes a discussion on Ukraine.

[Fumesucker]

22. In the here and now our own criminals are on the damn TV telling us how to run things still

[Tommy_Carcetti]

23. And we can and should ignore them.

But what they've got to do with the crisis in Ukraine, I have no clue.

[Fumesucker]

26. It makes it blantantly obvious what the ultimate rule is

Might makes right.

[geek tragedy]

25. do you approach discussions of international law, war, and human rights

from the perspective of a Team USA partisan, or from the perspective of someone committed to principles?

[Fumesucker]

30. Ignoring what your own dog has done makes you someone committed to principles how?

I don't get that..

[geek tragedy]

33. who said anything about ignoring?

you're conflating criticizing an action with seeking out punishment.

it would be hypocritical to call for Putin to be put on trial when Bush has not been put on trial.

It would not be hypocritical to criticize Putin for the same actions Bush we criticized Bush for (Putin has gone one step farther by pursuing annexation via conquest, though with drastically less damage).

Indeed, it would be hypocritical to give Putin a free pass for doing stuff we criticized Bush for.

[Fumesucker]

36. Of course if you don't punish your dog's behavior you are doing nothing to change it

Which for most practical purposes is the same thing as ignoring that behavior.

[geek tragedy]

39. So, you favor a criminal justice system that relies on harsh punishment

and treats rehabilitation as a secondary concern?

[Fumesucker]

46. Swatting the butt with a newspaper is "harsh"?

That's the only punishment I've mentioned.

[geek tragedy]

53. the US suffered more than a swat on the butt from its invasion of Iraq

so long as we're wondering whether the US experienced negative consequences for its illegal actions.

[Fumesucker]

55. What did the instigators of the Iraq war "suffer"?

Cheney was on TV giving his opinion just the other night.

[geek tragedy]

60. besides losing Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008? nt

[Fumesucker]

96. The 22nd Amendment has been superceded?

I had no idea, DU is such a great place because you learn so many interesting things.

[LanternWaste]

104. I can swat the government on its behind for pooping in the neighbors yard...

"such a great place because you learn so many interesting things..."

Like I can swat the government on its behind for pooping in the neighbors yard. The depth of wisdom eludes me on that one... but I'm not very clever at all, and am able to criticize on action in and of itself, without predicating it on another, wholly irrelevant action...

[amandabeech]

100. The point is that we may speak up no matter what government is doing bad things.

There were people who were furious at Bush, Jr., for Iraq.

Are you saying that no one who was furious at Bush, Jr., at the time, or who have come to see that Bush Jr. was in the wrong cannot now speak up against what is going on in Crimea?

If you are, I think that you couldn't be more wrong.

Unjust invasions are unjust invasions no matter which government is doing it.

Elections in countries under foreign arms are often not accurate gages of public sentiment no matter which country has its soldiers on the ground.

[Fumesucker]

140. Of course you can speak up if you wish

Others can also judge the sincerity of your words about other dogs pooping in people's yards when your own dog remains unpunished for doing the very same thing.

[cali]

12. except that an absurd comparison. deplomacy IS the art of hypocrisy

and better ridiculous, sanctimonious, hypocritical words, than war.

"Politics is war without bloodshed. War is politics with bloodshed".

Hypocrisy is integral to diplomacy.

[Fumesucker]

15. The end justifies the means?

I don't think that's exactly the message you intend to convey.

[cali]

59. because there's nothing in that post that says anything of the kind

diplomacy is about avoiding bloodshed.

[Fumesucker]

75. "Diplomacy is the art of saying nice doggy until you can find a rock." Will Rogers

[Bluenorthwest]

17. I think it is possible to oppose all dump taking dogs as a citizen of the planet

you see the dynamic as being purely nationalist, I see it as a global sort of thing.

[Fumesucker]

21. The nationalist part is where you ignore the fact your own dog remains unpunished

In order to thoroughly condemn a neighbor for his dog pooping in a third party's yard.

Because we must look forward rather than backward.

[geek tragedy]

29. can you name a nation that has punished a head of state

for crimes committed against another nation?

If one goes by your yardstick, we might as well disband all multilateral human rights conventions, since every state that participates has done wrong stuff in the past.

[Fumesucker]

34. Ultimately the only actual rule is that might makes right

Chairman Mao and Bob Dylan kind of agreed about power..

Mao said power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Dylan said money doesn't talk, it screams.

[geek tragedy]

37. that is the rule that benefits the powerful. a law-based regime

is the only way the smaller states can try to rein in the powerful.

if the rule is that international law is irrelevant--then we should similarly tell other nations to stuff it when they criticize our record, because who are they to talk?

[Fumesucker]

44. The law means nothing without enforcement..

In a recent and particularly egregious case the law has been forgotten..

Might makes right and everyone knows it.

By no means my preference but that's the takeaway from the entire Iraq debacle up to and including what's happening in Ukraine at the moment.

[geek tragedy]

49. let's use your punish the dog analogy--the dog here is Putin.

Should we whack him on the nose with a newspaper now to discourage him from invading another neighbor, or should we send him the message that there are no consequences to be suffered should he want to send troops into Estonia or Latvia?

[Fumesucker]

58. No, we should whack *our* dog's nose, that would make it appear we were serious about this behavior

Other people get really agitated if you punish their dog, particularly if you come to their home in order to do so.

[geek tragedy]

61. one need not be wholly consistent to be serious nt

[Fumesucker]

68. One can be seriously amusing without even knowing it too n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

85. Nope, your claim is nationalism in the negative, mine is that of a citizen of earth who

opposes invading other countries. You assign teams along national lines, I'm saying those who oppose war oppose war. Your claim seems to be that since we were unable to stop Bush, we must never oppose any other war on the planet. I don't get that bit at all.
I have condemned Bush, I'll condemn Putin for the same things. Sorry if you think I hold the wrong passport. I'm not joining your love of war on a selective basis. I'm against it.

[Fumesucker]

86. I can see it from both sides and my citizen of earth side is disgusted and opposed too

The most powerful statement against this behavior the US could possibly make at this time would be to put Cheney and Bush on trial for Iraq.

[Bluenorthwest]

91. Why not just say that then? Because using your other string of logic, you have no

standing to oppose any war 'cause of Bush being a dog shitting on the lawn.

[Fumesucker]

93. Because I'm imperfect and don't always express myself in the fashion others would have of me

[zeemike]

97. Not just unpunished.but rewarded

With a nice big bowl of Alpo when he is done...and if the neighbor complains just tell him that is in the past and he needs to look forward.

[LittleBlue]

124. /thread

[joshcryer]

141. Same thing that happened to the invader of Georgia.

[polly7]

142. After the west heaped blame on Russia for the conflict, it ignores new evidence of Georgia's crimes

Seumas Milne
theguardian.com, Friday 31 October 2008 16.15 GM

So now they tell us. Two months after the brief but bloody war in the Caucasus which was overwhelmingly blamed on Russia by western politicians and media at the time, a serious investigation by the BBC has uncovered a very different story.

Not only does the report by Tim Whewell – aired this week on Newsnight and on Radio 4's File on Four - find strong evidence confirming western-backed Georgia as the aggressor on the night of August 7. It also assembles powerful testimony of wide-ranging war crimes carried out by the Georgian army in its attack on the contested region of South Ossetia.

They include the targeting of apartment block basements – where civilians were taking refuge – with tank shells and Grad rockets, the indiscriminate bombardment of residential districts and the deliberate killing of civilians, including those fleeing the South Ossetian capital of Tskinvali.
The carefully balanced report – which also details evidence of ethnic cleansing by South Ossetian paramilitaries – cuts the ground from beneath later Georgian claims that its attack on South Ossetia followed the start of a Russian invasion the previous night.

At the time, the Georgian government said its assault on Tskinvali was intended to "restore constitutional order" in an area it has never ruled, as well as to counter South Ossetian paramilitary provocations. Georgian intelligence subsequently claimed to have found the tape of an intercepted phone call backing up its Russian invasion story – but even Georgia's allies balk at a claim transparently intended to bolster its shaky international legal position .


Full article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/oct/31/russia-georgia

[joshcryer]

145. Georgia, like Ukraine, is in the Eurasia roadmap.

It matters little the justifications.

[jwirr]

5. I can honestly say yes to that. The day it happened I sat watching the TV with my family. While they

were all either neutral or for it I got a rough time because I was madder that hell at bush and company. My family soon took a second look.

[Blue_Tires]

48. I remember thinking at the time

"Damn, this case for war seems really flimsy, but I guess it must be legit somehow because there is NO FUCKING WAY IN HELL WHATSOEVER that Colin Powell would stake his political career arguing a false case to the United Nations...Not only would it end him, Bush would get impeached *tomorrow* if it came out that he knowingly made a false justification for such a large-scale military action..."


(to answer your question -- Yes, at that time I also believed in the Tooth Fairy, leprechauns, unicorns, etc. )

[jwirr]

56. Mine was a policy issue. I thought we should fight terrorism by using the law enforcement agencies.

How do you fight a small hidden group with an army of very visible warriors?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. I don't understand the argument about lacking moral authority to criticize Russia over Ukraine

If it were George W. Bush or Dick Cheney speaking out against it, yeah, they're pretty compromised about it- absent any admission of soul-searching or change of mind about what they did in Iraq. As for the country in general, a majority of people elected Barack Obama- an early opponent of the Iraq war- President twice, so most of us have moved on (hopefully, forever) from the Bush/Cheney insanity that we went through during the early 00's. There is no doubt that there is a lot of damage that has been done to our country's image because of Bush/Cheney but that shouldn't forever prevent us from speaking about other countries and their misdeeds- even if there's not always a lot we can do to prevent/eliminate them.

[bemildred]

18. No, I was more concerned that it was a moronic, destructive thing to do.

I long since stopped worring about legality, I live in the USA.

[Solly Mack]

38. Heh.

[bhikkhu]

19. I consider people more important than "sovereign territory"

and many arguments that begin with sovereign territory give it almost a "sacred" glow, as if the ownership of land and its borders is far more important than the people on it. In principle, everywhere, I'd be happier if people were allowed to chose who were, who they wanted to belong to, and if they wanted to belong to anyone.

If Crimea votes to join Russia, that's fine. If the majority doesn't want to then Ukraine has something to work with. Without a vote its a whole lot of ridiculous posturing.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

27. There were actually refererndums that were already scheduled as to full Crimean autonomy.

Referendums that were sanctioned by the Ukrainian government.

Except Russia saw fit to invade militarily, and schedule a "referendum" of its own that would occur while the area was under military occupation (concerning not independence, but annexation) and when journalists and other figures were being beaten. Thus throwing a huge delegitimizing wrench into the whole process.

[rdharma]

43. "Referendums that were sanctioned by the Ukrainian government" effectively went out the window......

.... as a result of the putsch. So your talk about a forthcoming referendum ...... makes no sense under the new interim government.

[Bandit]

66. I don't understand your point at all. President Obama, VP Biden, Sec of State Kerry

Sec of Defense and just about Every person in the Administration has condemned Russia's overreach both Publicly and to the Putin government. We are not going to war with Russia over this; so just what do you expect?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

72. To their credit, they indeed have condemned it.

But there is an argument that such condemnation means nothing because the US lacks "moral authority" over Iraq.

Even more, there seems to be a reluctance for some here to speak out against Russia's actions because they think the US lacks moral authority because of Iraq and that somehow would stop them from speaking out on their own accord, I guess?

[Bandit]

77. So your argument is with SOME people here at DU and not the USA?

I am one of those people that thinks the USA has lost any moral authority it ever had because of the Crimes of the Republicans not being prosecuted. That makes this Administration an accessory to the Crimes committed. However this is who we are and the world is becomming more aware of it every day. The days of America being a resepcted nation have been thrown under the bus. That being said though, the people we do have serving HAVE made their voices heard and we do still have allies even if their trust in us has slipped quite a bit. If Crimea does end up being sucked into Russia there will be some consequences. I believe it will be up to the Europeans though and not the USA. We will go along with them short of WAR, but we are not in the position of Leadership any longer.

[dipsydoodle]

28. Other than the fact

the US does lack all moral auhority on any such issues given its past history on related matters.

[geek tragedy]

35. So, France, Germany, China, and Russia all should have STFU when

Bush invaded Iraq?

[treestar]

51. Practically all European nations also lack moral authority then

for that matter, so does Russia.

UK cannot comment at all then, period. After all that empire, and causing so much trouble in the rest of the world, starting with Ireland and moving outward - the UK cannot talk, period.

[dipsydoodle]

83. I don't disagree with you but the subject of the OP is the US.

.

[Bluenorthwest]

90. The subject is the invasion of Iraq. UK had a bit to do with that.

nt

[LanternWaste]

108. is it incumbent upon every nation to remain silent regarding the aggression of any other country?

That seems to then beg the question-- what are the countries that may, with moral justification, condemn and/or criticize the aggressive actions of a different country? And on what objective measure is the list of countries predicated on?

Or, is it incumbent upon every nation to remain silent regarding the aggression of any other country?

[riqster]

40. Get thee hence to the greatest page.

Nice post.

[sibelian]

41. I await the reports of the use of white phosphorus in the Ukraine.

I await the Ukrainian corpse count, sidestepped in every major newspaper.

I await the news of black ops sites in Siberia holding abducted innocents and refusing to the release them on the grounds that they are "radicalised" as a result of their incarceration.

I await the video clips of Vladimir Putin peeking behind the curtain and giggling: "Nope! No far-right vigilantes here! Chortle, wink, wink!!"

I await the cover-ups of depleted uranium, I await the snuck-out footage of drones blowing apart weddings apart, I await the staged statue-topplings and naked Ukrainians piled in pyramids for the sniggering amusement of "heroes".

When the blood starts flowing, Tommy, when the red rivers start to wind their sickly, sticky paths through the history books, then I will see your point.

It might happen. But until it's happened, this doesn't really look like anything more than an opportunistic, desperately thrashing attempt to wash off the stink of Iraq.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

52. It might be as bad as what happened in Iraq.

It might even be worse. Much, much worse.

But as to the initial act of invasion, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[polly7]

105. Woot, there it is! +1000. nt.

[joshcryer]

144. So you were for Iraq?

I don't understand this.

[Phlem]

42. I F'ing sure as hell was.

-p

[treestar]

47. Yes, not buying that we cannot condemn Russia's invasion

because of Iraq. On DU we were against Bush and all of his shenanigans. We can have individual opinions.

[reddread]

50. Sophistry

todays word- sophistry

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistry

was brought to you by the letters "D" and "U"

[Tommy_Carcetti]

89. Whose sophistry? nt

[reformist2]

63. This is stupid. Crimea wants to be part of Russia - let it be part of Russia.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

70. As I mentioned before.....

....there was already a vote by Ukrainian authorites scheduled on whether Crimea wished to be independent?

So why did Russia seek to force the issue militarily?

[HereSince1628]

82. Multiple reasons...

all of which are intended to bring all or much of Ukraine into an economic network denominated in rubles and financialized (read controlled) by russian interests.

Protecting the Russian assets in Crimea is a wonderful cover, because the invasion did that.
Crimea is a nice-bite sized almost island well suited to a military blitz.
Crimeans of russian/soviet origin descent are likely to be receptive.
The annexation of Crimea destabilizes the Ukraine, making it likely that other pro-russian regions will break away and join Russia,
The involvement of the military dissuades Ukraine and other powers from meaningful intervention. Nuclear shadows have long reach.

[JVS]

143. There was already an election scheduled for who would govern Ukraine. Why was that abandoned?

[UTUSN]

64. R#8 for, solid points, articulately made. n/t

[Waiting For Everyman]

67. I agree with you, and would go further..,

To not speak out against this aggression would logically be taken for agreement with it.

Wrong is wrong, no matter what, and doesn't need any special moral permission to say so.

That is, aside from Bush, Cheney, and those who participated in planning Iraq etc. saying so, in which case they would be hypocrites, but then they never would say so. So this is all a non-issue as far as I can see.

In general, it's allowable for a person to be wrong, and then subsequently to be right. Sheesh. What controlling and dismissive people we have become.

[OnyxCollie]

74. "[H]e oversaw the withdraw of combat troops from Iraq."

Not willingly, mind you.

About that Iraq withdrawal
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/about_that_iraq_withdrawal/

Second, the Obama administration has been working for months to persuade, pressure and cajole Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain in that country beyond the deadline. The reason they’re being withdrawn isn’t because Obama insisted on this, but because he tried — but failed — to get out of this obligation. Again, listen to the White House itself:

The Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and Iraq expires at the end of the year. Officials had been discussing the possibility of maintaining several thousand U.S. troops to train Iraqi security forces, and the Iraqis wanted troops to stay but would not give them immunity, a key demand of the administration. . . .

“The Iraqis wanted additional troops to stay,” an administration official said. “We said here are the conditions, including immunities. But the Iraqis because of a variety of reasons wanted the troops and didn’t want to give immunity.”

The Obama administration — as it’s telling you itself — was willing to keep troops in Iraq after the 2011 deadline (indeed, they weren’t just willing, but eager). The only reason they aren’t is because the Iraqi Government refused to agree that U.S. soldiers would be immunized if they commit serious crimes, such as gunning down Iraqis without cause . As we know, the U.S. is not and must never be subject to the rule of law when operating on foreign soil (and its government and owners must never be subject to the rule of law in any context). So Obama was willing (even desirous) to keep troops there, but the Iraqis refused to meet his demands (more on that fact from Foreign Policy‘s Josh Rogin).

[Lasher]

147. Obama simply followed the George Fucking Bush timetable for getting out of Iraq

As mandated by the George Fucking Bush SOFA, as you have noted. Obama didn't get our soldiers out of Iraq one day sooner than GWB had already decided.

[quinnox]

76. Nope, it doesn't work that way. And "do as we say, not as we do", most people don't find that

to be a very convincing argument, with good reason. It would be very convenient to pretend the United States hasn't made any huge errors in recent history, and then we wouldn't sound so hypocritical and morally bankrupt when trying to lecture other countries. But it simply doesn't work that way, we don't have a free "get out of jail" card, sorry.

And that is ignoring all the huge differences between Iraq and what is going on in that other part of the world, like -

1.The people of that Crimea region are mostly Russian, have deep historical ties to Russia, and voted to join Russia
2. How can it be an "invasion", when Russia has had a base there in the region for years with troops stationed there
3. There is no fraudulent WMD excuse being given as the reason for the Russian action
4. No, we all can't recognize it as "wrong". I don't, and I don't see how it is any of the United States business.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

79. Russia had a military base at the very tip of Crimea.

It did not have control of the entire Crimean peninsula, and in fact had stated in treaties it signed in 1994 and 1997 that it would not lay claim to Crimea. Moreover, there are concerns that Russian troops may choose to "intervene" not just in Crimea but in other portions of the Ukrainian mainland....in other words, a possible precedent is being set by Russia.

By your first argument, you could claim that Southern Arizona ought to be part of Mexico on those same grounds. (With the exception of voting to join Russia--which hasn't happened yet, but now will probably happen while Russian troops are occupying the territory. And despite the fact there had already had been a referendum scheduled and recognized by Ukraine as to whether Crimea wished to become fully independent, and yet Russia chose to "intervene" and schedule its own referendum....for Russian annexation.)

True, there's no WMD excuse for Russia (since Ukraine voluntarily gave up those in an agreement that Russia wouldn't invade its territory.) Instead, Russia has claimed that the new government in Kyiv is "illegitimate" (a feeling also professed by a few at DU) and that it needed to go into Crimea to protect ethnic Russians and Russian speaking Ukrainians from "persecution." Even though there have been no reports of any significant violence targeting ethnic Russians and Russian speaking Ukrainians since Yanukovych fled from power. So it's BS, just another type of BS.

Illegal invasions are illegal invasions. It should be that simple.

[quinnox]

81. Let's say we agreed it is technically illegal, that still doesn't mean much

It makes me think of Israel and the U.N., Israel has done many technically illegal things when it comes to claiming territory, that it is ridiculous.
And yet the United States still stands firmly behind them as a close ally.

It just shows up more hypocrisy on the United States side. That is how I see it.

[Bluenorthwest]

87. Your point one is in need of context. 'Mostly Russian' because after WW2 Crimea's

indigenous majority, the Tatars, were ethnically cleansed, many were killed or died in what was one of the world's largest and swiftest mass relocations of a civilian population. Deep historical ties, sure, they moved in once Stalin had cleared the actual residents away to make room for them.
Point 2 would allow us to invade Cuba, France, just about anywhere you name, we have a base and troops.
The reasons given are not WMD but many do reek of hyperbole very similar to that used when they 'cleansed Crimea of the Tatars in the 40's.

Are you cool with elimination and relocation of indigenous populations to the point that 50 years later we pretend they never existed at all? It was like the Trail of Tears, only in 1945. 'Mostly Russian now!!!!'

[quinnox]

94. You obviously have a greater handle on the history there than I do

I acknowledge some of my arguments are not that solid, and you pointed out a few flaws. However, I stand by the feeling that it is none of "our" business, and the long historical connections that exists there seem to me to be something that can't be overlooked when thinking about what is happening over there.

[go west young man]

78. I remember crying

Last edited Mon Mar 10, 2014, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)

the day the tanks were crossing the desert and wrote this song. https://soundcloud.com/chris-via-vostok/heres-to-war It's a statement about the futility of killing people while implying your bringing them peace and freedom. The juxtaposition in the lyrics sums up my feelings at the time. I still wish for justice for the Iraqi people with Cheney, Bush, and all the neo cons being brought to trial for war crimes. Ironically it was announced on TV that MSNBC reporter David Bloom had died of a pulmonary embolism as I sat there penning the song and I had waited on his family at the Sea Island resort only a year or so prior.

[classof56]

98. I just listened to your song--twice.

Very moving, brought tears, and the melody is beautiful. Thank you.

I was against the war from the beginning, stood in silent protest on a street corner in the little town where I lived. In my heart of hearts I knew it was based on lies and would go horribly wrong. Little did I know just how wrong. I remain heartsick and long for justice for those who perpetrated it. Alas, that will never happen.

Keep writing your meaningful words and music. I've bookmarked your site for the future.

Blessings.

[polly7]

102. What a beautiful song!

Absolutely gorgeous .......... you are awesome!

[go west young man]

117. Thanks you guys.

I write mainly surreal material that portrays situations from an abstract viewpoint. The war just really disturbed me. Not long after writing the song I read a story of a young Iraqi teacher who's father had spent his entire life working to put through school. She was killed in the early days of the war when a US tank round came through their house and went through her while she was brushing her hair in the mirror with her sister by her side. What a horrible and sad end for her and so much pain for her family due to people like Dick Cheney and the rest of the lying murderers. That story still makes me incredibly sad..not just for her and her family but for America as well. Just one story in the many Iraqi lives lost.

[polly7]

121. You've got a real gift to put what so many of us were feeling and thinking

into such beautiful music. I was literally sick when I heard of the first bombs, praying that it would stop (I did actually pray back then) and then daily just becoming more horrified and sad seeking out what was happening .... finding the heartbreak and horrors written by people like the Riverbend Girl Blogger 'Baghdad Burning' and so many others, the horrors day after day after day from sources not shown here in the west. Yes, those personal stories broke my heart too, and many of the pictures I saw will never leave me.

[go west young man]

130. Cheers...

I honed my craft in Montreal by the way.(seeing your from Canada) Street musician for 3 years. Peace.

[randome]

80. One aspect of the Iraq insanity that is often overlooked is this:

A hell of a lot of other countries helped the invasion. A hell of a lot of blame exists and it is not solely at the feet of the U.S.

We can and should speak up about atrocities wherever and whenever they occur.

Telling the U.S. to keep its diplomatic mouth shut is like saying we should never weigh in on gay rights because there are some pockets in America that still discriminate.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Zorra]

84. Zorra Iraq site:democraticunderground.com (about 420,000 results in 0.48 seconds) nt

[Igel]

88. Yes.

But there is a wrinkle.

Opposition to the US invasion and pre-invasion posturing also morphed, for some, into defense of Saddam Hussein.

Tertium non datur is horribly twisted for many and extended to categories where it simply doesn't apply.

At the same time, in many cases not only is tertium non datur mis-applied, but given two intolerable situations the response is to shut down and insist on there being a "tertium", unidentified or unworkable, "datus" by somebody, somewhere.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

92. You're right. It's one thing if Kerry condemns them and another if Rumsfeld does it....

Especially if he's on acid.

http://server4.whiterosesociety.org/content/malloy/MalloyMemories/Rumsfeld_on_acid.mp3

[Demo_Chris]

99. So you are claiming that since Obama is ONLY mass slaughtering civilians with drones...

And participating in clearly illegal domestic and foreign spying, the world should simply forget our past illegal or unethical invasions and assume that Obama has only the welfare of humanity at heart. Or something.

Sorry, but no. That's absurd. Maybe when we manage to go a single year--just fucking ONE will do--without slaughtering trainloads pf innocent children or horrifying everyone everywhere with our blatant disregard for our own fucking laws, then MAYBE it will be time to make those assumptions about any US President.

[quinnox]

107. +1, fully agree!

[proudretiredvet]

103. I do not know what the angles are on some of these posts.

I was against the invasion of Iraq. Period.

[doc03]

106. I have a question, if our only warm water seaport was in Crimea what would we do? I don't think

we have the moral authority to call anyone out. I have lost track of how many different conflicts we have intervened in that was none of our fucking
business.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

116. Ahem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Sochi

[doc03]

146. Sochi can accommodate two cruise ships, they need a warm water port for their navy

and according to what I heard that is in Crimea. What if one the numerous countries we have naval facilities in shut us out? I would bet we would declare it an act of war. We are always preaching to other countries about aggression and international law but when it comes to our interest it doesn't count.

[fleabiscuit]

109. We, our, or us? Just who are you talking about?

It’s important to make the distinction. People are agents of morality, the State is an agent of power. It’s democracy 101 is it not? Feel free to debate all the morality of Russia and the US all you want, but the instant a State response is given it is an act of Power not Morality. Let's keep it in mind, there could be a reaction.

[RufusTFirefly]

110. Iraq? That's just across the border from Texas, right?

Although I don't condone military intervention, it is amazing the way that we travel thousands of miles to attack nations that are "threatening" us and yet we raise holy hell when a country mobilizes its military to respond to a perceived threat on its border.

[saidsimplesimon]

111. Mr. Carcetti, I didn't support the Iraq War.

I don't support US intervention in Ukraine. It's not a matter of silence vs loud voices. Why would the US want to support some feckless EU bureaucrats seeking to send the banksters into the Ukraine?

Professor Nina Khrushcheva argued your points with RT's Putin approved Oxana Boyko's interview. Professor Khrushcheva (USA) was diplomatic, intelligent and Ms. Boyko preferred deaf ears. We should not insult or enrage Tsar Putin. The US (we) have a habit of predicting winners based on a ego-centric, US exceptionalism propaganda model.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/02/27/283481587/crimea-a-gift-to-ukraine-becomes-a-political-flash-point

Crimea: A Gift To Ukraine Becomes A Political Flash Point

by Krishnadev Calamur
February 27, 2014

.....snip

Russians have a decidedly different view of the events.
On Feb. 19, 2009, Pravda ran a piece with the headline: "." Here's how the article described the events:


"Khrushchev informed his comrades of the decision to deliver Crimea to Ukraine incidentally, on the way to lunch. 'Yes, comrades, there is an opinion to deliver Crimea to Ukraine,' he said casually. No one dared to express any protests, because a word of the first face of the Communist Party was law.

"The agenda of the session of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which took place January 25, 1954, contained a question about the delivery of the Crimean region to the structure of the Ukrainian SSR [Soviet Socialist Republic]. The discussion of the question took only 15 minutes. The participants of the meeting approved the decree, and the region was given away to Ukraine for free."

As Siegelbaum, the MSU historian, notes in his essay: "A gift that was at the time essentially meaningless has acquired great historical importance."

[Tommy_Carcetti]

118. The problem is, people are conflating intervention and military intervention.

We need not--and should not--intervene militarily.

But we can, and we should, intervene in other non-military means, and we should not feel guilty for our past errors when we call out blatant aggression on the part of the Russians.

[Martin Eden]

112. The **Moral Authority** of the United States was greatly diminished by illegal invasion & torture.

And, like it or not, we have not fully regained whatever moral authority we may have had -- in the eyes of the world.

I'm not saying we should keep quiet about Putin's intervention in Ukraine or any other breach of international law.

What I'm saying is the art of diplomacy and effective leadership (and we ARE in a position of leadership despite W's crimes) requires a thorough understanding of the perceptions of the people and nations you're trying to persuade and to lead.

When Kerry recently criticized Putin for invading a country under false pretext the irony was downright painful to my ears, so I can imagine how it sounded outside this country. We have little chance to provide effective leadership in any situation if our nation's chief diplomat uses language guaranteed to be perceived as outrageous hypocrisy (whether those perceptions are justified or not).

BTW, I protested the Iraq war in my hometown of Chicago in Feb 2013, and also travelled to our nation's capital for the protest on March 15 -- 4 days before Shock & Awe was launched.

I also travelled to Cuyahoga County, Ohio to help get out the vote for John Kerry in Nov 2004, even though I didn't support him in the Dem primary (I refuse to support anyone who voted for the IWR in Oct 2002).

[reddread]

122. over 100 years ago. a proud tradition.

Its sad how a long history of incomprehensible cruel oppression can be discarded by historically shortsighted opponents.
There is no superior argument to be made by narrowing the focus to the actions undertaken by our previous boy emperor.
Dont sell our inhumanity short.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

pretending history never happened is no path towards reform.

[on point]

127. Sorry no. Besides lives, $3trllion, Bush also spent our moral authority

Built up over time, Bush squandered it one go on Iraq. Doesn't help that he is free and hasn't Benin prosecuted for war crimes or torture crimes. Only if that happens will be back on path to re-building moral authority

[Tommy_Carcetti]

128. Well, the only other real choice is to remain silent on the situation.

So you would rather us remain silent, even when it's a situation that should call for us to speak up?

[on point]

148. Us as a country are a laugh and counter productive. Us as world citizens is a different matter

[Damansarajaya]

129. I live in the US, not Russia.

What the US does is my personal responsibility, living as I do in a so-called participatory democracy.

Complaining about Russian hegemony is perfectly fine, but that and 5 dollars will get you a cup of coffee.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

134. Whatever (questionable) moral authority we ever had drowned in the Gulf of Tonkin.

And, that was under a Democratic president.