Mon 11 Aug 2008
Can the current administration of the United States disapprove of Russia for declaring “regime change” in Georgia? Russia is using disputed territory as the official reason of regime change in Georgia — but instead of fighting in that territory, they have moved into Georgia.
Georgia had more troops in Iraq than any other country except the United States and England. Will the European nations still vote to allow Georgia into NATO if somehow Georgia manages to remain autonomous?
Tune in next time to “Moral Authority Lost”…
August 11th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Well, here’s one difference - we haven’t tried to cheat Iraq out of their oil profits, which are apparently accumulating at remarkable rates. The Russian action is a blatant power grab. They won’t stop until they cut off the oil pipeline through Georgia, because it threatens their monopoly on the export of Caspian oil.
What really disturbs me is that we are apparently quite willing to do nothing to support a democratic ally in a troubled region of the world. Regardless of the wisdom of Georgia’s actions in South Ossetia, Russia’s invasion beyond the borders of the disputed regions is clearly a violation of international law and would not require a Security Council resolution for US aid to Georgia to be legal. There are a lot more reasons for us to be in Georgia than in Iraq.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
It seems that international law is more of a loose guideline…a recommendation.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Except when it’s an obligation - such as defense of a NATO partner under Title 5 and action to prevent genocide under that convention.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:55 am
And then the games of semantics start.