What's the Difference between Russia's Attack on Georgia and the U.S. Invasion of Ira

[JustChristian]

Russia was provoked by the invasion by Georgia of a breakaway province which wanted to re-ally itself with Russia.

Bush has condemned Russia's action as not being an acceptable act in the 21st century. How hypocritical can he get?

 

[Bible-boy]

Russia was provoked by the invasion by Georgia of a breakaway province which wanted to re-ally itself with Russia.

Bush has condemned Russia's action as not being an acceptable act in the 21st century. How hypocritical can he get?

Only one problem...

Russia did not have a cease-fire treaty signed in 1991 with the Georgian government, which in turn the Georgian government broke, so there is really nothing similar in the two cases. You have apples and oranges here.

 

[Revmitchell]

Only one problem...

Russia did not have a cease-fire treaty signed in 1991 with the Georgian government, which in turn the Georgian government broke, so there is really nothing similar in the two cases. You have apples and oranges here.

And there it is. The end of any reason for this thread.

 

[JustChristian]

Only one problem...

Russia did not have a cease-fire treaty signed in 1991 with the Georgian government, which in turn the Georgian government broke, so there is really nothing similar in the two cases. You have apples and oranges here.

You're saying that Iraq had a cease fire agreement with the U.S. in 1991. I can understand that since they lost that war in which GHW Bush went as far as he thought prudent. This is what I found about the peace agreement.

A peace conference was held in Iraqi territory occupied by the coalition. At the conference, Iraq won the approval of the use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border, ostensibly for government transit due to the damage done to civilian transportation. Soon after, these helicopters, and much of the Iraqi armed forces, were refocused toward fighting against a Shiite uprising in the south. The rebellions were encouraged on 2 February 1991 by a broadcast on CIA run radio station The Voice of Free Iraq broadcasting out of Saudi Arabia. The Arabic service of the Voice of America supported the uprising by stating that the rebellion was large and that they soon would be liberated from Hussein.[35]

In the North, Kurdish leaders took heart in American statements that they would support an uprising and began fighting, in the hopes of triggering a coup. However, when no American support was forthcoming, Iraqi generals remained loyal and brutally crushed the Kurdish troops. Millions of Kurds fled across the mountains to Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran. These incidents would later result in no-fly zones being established in both the North and the South of Iraq. In Kuwait, the Emir was restored and suspected Iraqi collaborators were repressed. Eventually, over 400,000 people were expelled from the country, including a large number of Palestinians (due to their support of and collaboration with Hussein).

There was some criticism of the Bush administration for its decision to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power, rather than pushing on to capture Baghdad and overthrowing his government. In their co-written 1998 book, A World Transformed, Bush and Brent Scowcroft argued that such a course would have fractured the alliance and would have had many unnecessary political and human costs associated with it.

So there was ongoing insurrection. OK. A cease fire is a temporary measure. They don't last for 10 years. However, peace treaties are intended to last. I haven't been able to find out much about this yet. I'll get back to it tomorrow.

BTW REVM you can check out of this thread but you can't shut it down.

 

[YOUTUBECANBESAVED]

Bush and McCain are making a lot of hypocritical statements

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmLrUjW4gEs&watch_response

Russia's message makes good reason ...Bush was disproportionate in his occupation of Iraq when clearly Iraq was not a threat what so ever to a Hyper-Power (United States)

The statements Bush and McCain are making are coming back to haunt them in the form of Iraq.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtdVS8646GI


Now Bush like a child is hitting back in pushing for missiles in Poland which will not work anyway and claims it is because of Iran which seems to fall down when he is putting those missiles when this just so happens to be going on in South Osettia.


bottom line Georgia with the training of U.S. troops attacked South Osettia killed peace keepers and civilians and now come the consequences, all because of Bush incompetent leadership who cared little about the details. but take notice Bush is trying to turn that on its ear with statements that just turn inward and his hypocrisy with disproportionate response in Iraq...it is classic pot calling the kettle black.

 

[dragonfly]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmLrUjW4gEs&watch_response

Couldn't have said it better myself. :thumbs:

 

[NiteShift]

Bush has condemned Russia's action as not being an acceptable act in the 21st century. How hypocritical can he get?

Also hypocritical are those who criticize Bush's actions as illegal & immoral, and then turn around and immediately justify Putin's invasion.

Now Bush like a child is hitting back in pushing for missiles in Poland which will not work anyway and claims it is because of Iran which seems to fall down when he is putting those missiles when this just so happens to be going on in South Osettia.

The Polish president is demanding missile defense now, after seeing what the Russians have been doing in Georgia. "Poland and the Poles do not want to be in alliances in which assistance comes at some point later — it is no good when assistance comes to dead people." he said.

 

[JustChristian]

Also hypocritical are those who criticize Bush's actions as illegal & immoral, and then turn around and immediately justify Putin's invasion.



The Polish president is demanding missile defense now, after seeing what the Russians have been doing in Georgia. "Poland and the Poles do not want to be in alliances in which assistance comes at some point later — it is no good when assistance comes to dead people." he said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4491738.ece

Russia's ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin said that what was happening in Georgia's breakaway region could only be seen as "ethic cleansing and genocide".

Moscow sent hundreds of troops and armed convoys across the border and threatened to bomb Georgian military bases after Georgia, a staunch American ally, launched an offensive on Friday to regain control of South Ossetia.

Russia, which has close ties to the province and posts peacekeepers there, has reacted firmly. Russian forces have fought against Georgian soldiers alongside separatists in South Ossetia and Russian jets have bombed military and civilian targets in Georgia, including attacks on the Georgian town of Gori.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters that the violence had already claimed the lives of 1,500 people. Witnesses said hundreds of civilians had probably been killed and that most of the capital Tskhinvali was in ruins. Saakashvili claimed 30 Georgians have died in the fighting.

Lavrov laid blame on the United States for supporting and training Georgian military forces.

I don't support Russia's attack on Georgia but it was in response to Georgia's attack on South Ossetia, a Georgia province that wanted to breakaway from Georgia and return to Russia. This matter should have been resolved in the U.N. Security Council. But since you and many others on this board don't support the U.N. what would have been your solution?

 

[Revmitchell]

It appears Russia has a much bigger agenda on its mind than Osetta. Part of the solution should be for Russia's military to stay out of it.

 

[just-want-peace]

Typical liberal blah!!!

USA bad!! Everybody else good!!


S-I-G-H

 

[righteousdude2]

Iraq Had Advance Warnings

Russia was provoked by the invasion by Georgia of a breakaway province which wanted to re-ally itself with Russia.

Bush has condemned Russia's action as not being an acceptable act in the 21st century. How hypocritical can he get?

We spent years warning Iraq that if they did not stop there attempts to secure WMD's and adhere to the 1991 agreement, we would be back, and this time it would be to bring down Saddam.

Russia made NO such warnings, and it did not have a UN resolution to allow it to blast its way into Georgia/

We exhausted all forms of diplomacy from 1991 through 2003, Russia wasted no time on diplomacy....they simply rolled into the break away republic, and did so to let the world know that they are back, and the block will once again be theirs.

Pastor Paul :tear:

 

[poncho]

We exhausted all forms of diplomacy from 1991 through 2003

Only if by exhausted you mean the neocons and mass media did everything in their power to bring diplomacy to an abrupt halt.

 

[NiteShift]

I don't support Russia's attack on Georgia but it was in response to Georgia's attack on South Ossetia, a Georgia province that wanted to breakaway from Georgia and return to Russia.

The problem with all that is that the Russians don't appear to be stopping with South Ossetia. They have continued to advance into non-disputed Georgian territory. They are insisting that president Saakashvili must go. They are now threatening Poland with nuclear attack.

This matter should have beenresolved in the U.N. Security Council.

How did the Russians manage to have themselves declared 'peacekeepers' in S. Ossetia to begin with? Put the fox in charge of the henhouse, didn't the UN.

And you do realize that Russia holds veto power in the UN Security Council. Any new resolution would have been to their advantage.

 

[Revmitchell]

This matter should have been resolved in the U.N. Security Council. But since you and many others on this board don't support the U.N. what would have been your solution?[/B]

Russia is on the security counsel and could veto anything brought up.

 

[JustChristian]

Typical liberal blah!!!

USA bad!! Everybody else good!!


S-I-G-H

Sometimes we do the right thing and sometimes we make mistakes. Do you honestly believe that the U.S. can do no wrong? Get your head out of the sand.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Typical Neo-CON blah!

USA good (and can do no wrong); Everyone else (when they do the same things we do) bad

S-I-G-H

 

[Bible-boy]

I would refer you all back to post number 2 of this thread in order to distinguish the difference between the situations between the U.S./Iraq and Russia/Georgia.

 

[Bible-boy]

You're saying that Iraq had a cease fire agreement with the U.S. in 1991. I can understand that since they lost that war in which GHW Bush went as far as he thought prudent. This is what I found about the peace agreement.

A peace conference was held in Iraqi territory occupied by the coalition. At the conference, Iraq won the approval of the use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border, ostensibly for government transit due to the damage done to civilian transportation. Soon after, these helicopters, and much of the Iraqi armed forces, were refocused toward fighting against a Shiite uprising in the south. The rebellions were encouraged on 2 February 1991 by a broadcast on CIA run radio station The Voice of Free Iraq broadcasting out of Saudi Arabia. The Arabic service of the Voice of America supported the uprising by stating that the rebellion was large and that they soon would be liberated from Hussein.[35]

In the North, Kurdish leaders took heart in American statements that they would support an uprising and began fighting, in the hopes of triggering a coup. However, when no American support was forthcoming, Iraqi generals remained loyal and brutally crushed the Kurdish troops. Millions of Kurds fled across the mountains to Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran. These incidents would later result in no-fly zones being established in both the North and the South of Iraq. In Kuwait, the Emir was restored and suspected Iraqi collaborators were repressed. Eventually, over 400,000 people were expelled from the country, including a large number of Palestinians (due to their support of and collaboration with Hussein).

There was some criticism of the Bush administration for its decision to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power, rather than pushing on to capture Baghdad and overthrowing his government. In their co-written 1998 book, A World Transformed, Bush and Brent Scowcroft argued that such a course would have fractured the alliance and would have had many unnecessary political and human costs associated with it.

So there was ongoing insurrection. OK. A cease fire is a temporary measure. They don't last for 10 years. However, peace treaties are intended to last. I haven't been able to find out much about this yet. I'll get back to it tomorrow.

BTW REVM you can check out of this thread but you can't shut it down.

Who says that cease-fire agreements are only temporary and do not last for 10 years? The bottom line is the fact that on March 3, 1991 - Iraq accepted the terms of a ceasefire between U.S. led coalition forces and the Iraqi government. The terms of this cease-fire were incorporated into the primary ceasefire resolution UNSCR 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq to end its weapons of mass destruction programs, recognize Kuwait, account for missing Kuwaitis, return Kuwaiti property and end support for international terrorism. Iraq was also required to end repression of its people. Source: http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/iraq_timeline.shtml

So there are two treaties or agreements in play here. The first between the U.S. and Iraq. The second between Iraq and the UN. Saddam's Iraq broke both of the treaties/agreements. Just because the Clinton Administration failed to enforce the terms of the original U.S./Iraqi treaty/agreement and a period of time elapsed does not mean that the original treaty/agreement is now invalid (or invalid as of March 2003). Take a close look at the time-line linked above and see all the ways that Saddam's government violated the terms of both of these (US & UN) treaties/agreements.

 

[Bible-boy]

Double posted. I don't know what happened.

 

[Bible-boy]

Here is an article about UN cease-fire agreement that ended the hostilities in the Korean War: http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=3324

Note: The presence of U.S. Troops in South Korea helps to enforce the terms of this cease-fire agreement to this day.

Here is an article about the cease-fire agreement that ended U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War: http://www.mishalov.com/Vietnam_peacepact.html

Would you say these cease-fire agreements are temporary? Haven't these cease-fire agreements lasted more than 10 years?