What would US do if its citizens were getting killed and injured in thousands? Nothing?

Georgia started killing Russian citizens - and most people in South Osetia ARE Russian citizens. Heard of Constitution?
What would US do if its citizens were getting killed and injured in thousands? Nothing?

Beeble, do you actually care about the ongoing conflict, or are you just using it to further advance your anti-Republican rants?

Blah blah blah.

Of course I care about the conflict. But my main perspective is from a US foreign policy point of view. And after years of disastrous and costly US occupation of Iraq, it's important to me who is rational and sane on the topic vs who is jonesing for more war.

Well, it's just that most of your posts in this thread seem to be of the 'Republicans are dumb 'variety.

In any case, with regard to U.S. foreign policy, I think the approach should be to let Russia know that it can't get away with shit like this all the time. Georgia itself is fairly inconsequential (sorry to be so crass, but it's true), but it could be Ukraine and Poland next.

I wish Russia's economy wasn't so dependent on oil and gas; if it had a more developed market economy it would think twice about upsetting the global economy like that.

The Bush administration policies have made rendered US ability to deliver that message to Russia a joke to the world. On what grounds can Bush or McCain POSSIBLY criticize another country for invasion of a sovereign country with any sort of credibility? Don't you think Putin of all people is aware of exactly what he can and cannot get away with?

They can - because the U.S. has the biggest economy and the biggest military in the world. Ignoring them, even if you're Russia, is less than smart, no matter what you may think of the Iraq invasion.

In a sense Georgia avoided a long bloody ground war with Russia (with a potential puppet regime installed there) because of the sabre-rattling done by Bush and McCain.

So as long as you are the biggest power in the world, you can say to the rest of the world, "We can invade whoever the hell we want, but if you try it, we'll bomb the shit out of you."

And do you seriously think at this point, with our resources stretched nearly to the breaking point, that the US could engage in ANY sort of war with Russia and accomplish anything meaningful?

If Georgia was against a bloody ground war, one has to wonder why they made the move they did against S. Ossetia. Did they expect no reaction from Russia? Or were they assured that the US would have their back if they did?

Not quite the same rhetoric, but that's how the world works, when you appoint yourself the world policeman. I'm not saying it's right, it's just how it is.

I don't think a war with Russia is on anyone's agenda, regardless of the U.S. capability to do so. There are other ways to "stick it" to Putin - you could, for instance, fast-track Ukraine's acceptance into NATO.

There is even a theory that Saakashvili wanted to shut up the nationalist forces in Georgia by showing them that he did all he could to retake South Ossetia and Abkhazia and couldn't.

Russia taught the world a lesson on how to win a war

Posted By PETER WORTHINGTON


Forget the alleged reasons for Russia's invasion of Georgia. Look at the results and learn a lesson.

While commentators and editorialists relish the spectre of an expanding war, or a return of the Cold War, or even a mini-world war if other countries get involved, the truth is that Russia's "invasion" of a couple of renegade Georgian provinces poses no threat to anyone except the guy who runs Georgia, namely President Mikhail Saakashvili.

The basic lesson to be learned by our side - and "our" side is still the U. S. and its allies, despite errors they commit and policies of which we may disapprove - is that if you go to war, win it. And win it quickly.

Former U. S. president Ronald Reagan knew that when he launched the 1983 invasion of Grenada without the presence of the media. By the time reporters rented small boats to go to

Grenada, the war was over. Little was made of the fact that half of the U. S. casualties (150) were caused by Americans shooting one another.

The same was true in 1989 when George W. Bush's dad was president and launched a 60,000-troop invasion of Panama to oust Manuel Noriega, who had lost an election but wouldn't leave. Despite 350 U. S. casualties (25 fatal), it was over quickly. No worries.

The first Gulf War was won quickly, with some arguing the U. S. quit too soon. And George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq was a stupendously quick victory - to the surprise of critics. But the foolish administration then thought the military could introduce democracy, which is not what fighting armies are designed to do. Hence the Iraq imbroglio that only now, six years later, is beginning to be straightened out.

As for Russia's invasion of South Ossetia and Abkhazia (nearly 20 per cent of Georgia's territory), those who blame Russian President Dmitry Medvedev should reconsider. Vladimir Putin still makes policy. He's not even behind the scenes.

Russia's claim that it invaded to protect Russian citizens is mindful of George W. Bush's dad justifying the Panama invasion by saying it was to protect American citizens there.

Yes, Russia's invasion alerts the West that Russia is back as an active power. But Putin is no Stalin, and today's Russia is not the Soviet Union. Putin and Russia want to be players on the world stage and to be taken seriously. But neither aspires to ideological and world domination. The subversion of friendly and hostile countries is not the goal of Russia, as it once was of the Soviet Union.

Unlike the quicksand of Chechnya, the reality is that Russia has won its war in Georgia, where Saakashvili miscalculated. He was lured by Russia into using his army in South Ossetia, and gave Russia the excuse to kick his butt.

The awkward diplomatic problem for the U. S. is that Georgia has been a staunch ally (one of the few places George W. Bush is revered, sort of) and had a couple of thousand troops in Iraq - now returned to defend Georgia, if necessary.

Putin is unlikely to risk a guerrilla-style war in Georgia, and will back off slightly, but enough to appease the west.

One hopes the lesson registers with our side: If you go to war, make sure it's a quick war and a winning war, and don't worry about the legality or righteousness of the war.

Can anyone think of a winning war that's been unpopular at home? I can't.

According to some sources Saakashvili prepares the new provocation - this time using the remains of Georgian soldiers (they say most of bodies were not buried) to make them look like civilians. So expect the new scares about Russian threat in your media. Show must go on.

There were over 2000 dead, for your info. Or may be you think Grads are used to minimize the deaths...? (and it was luck, that there was only 2000, as the plan was to rip them all). And you are just stupid if you base the number of people dead on the number of bodies in ruined hospital. Do you think they would put thousands of injured or getting bodies to a hospital that was destroyed and was being bombed? Man, you are really an idiot, not to mention diehard nationalist... I don't even want to argue with you - it's useless.

And you better shut the fuck up about unbiased media.

Russia has issued new, reduced casualty figures for the Georgian conflict, with 133 civilians now listed as dead in the disputed region of South Ossetia.

The figure is far lower than the 1,600 people Russia initially said had died.