No bullying allowed!

[Barry Digman]

Bwhahahahahhah.
Sorry, I couldn't help laughing out loud. Fortunately I didn't have a mouth full of coffee or I would have spewed it all over my lousy HP Pavilion.



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Friday chided Russia for Cold War-style behavior, saying, "Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/15/us.russia/index.html

[Bodo]

I'm afraid I fail to see the humor. Georgia is getting destroyed b/c Russia wants to flex it's muscle over the 'near abroad'.

This doesn't bode well for Eastern Europe.

[Ben Brewcat]

Wow. That's just amazing. And a little embarrassing.

[Barry Digman]

I'm afraid I fail to see the humor.




George Bush telling anyone that bullying is unacceptable is laughable.

[Sundance]

George Bush telling anyone that bullying is unacceptable is laughable.

And there in lies the humor. The coffee just barely missed my
laptop, a tad on the screen.;)

[Bodo]

George Bush telling anyone that bullying is unacceptable is laughable.

Oh, I see. But is he wrong in this case?

[Barry]

It may not be wrong in this case, but the egg is still on his face.

[Sundance]

He may not be wrong.......... but it's like Hitler
scolding Pol Pot for genocide.

[Barry Digman]

Oh, I see. But is he wrong in this case?

Well, it doesn't matter to many people in the US and around the world whether he's right or wrong in these matters anymore, which is rather the point. Had the United States not given up so much of our moral high ground in the last 8 years, people would have sat up and listened to what the President of the United States had to say on such matters. As it stands now, they're justified in telling us to remove the log from our own eye.

[George Fergusson]

It's the pot calling the kettle black!

Oops! Can I say that?

[knadai]

Had the United States not given up so much of our moral high ground in the last 8 years...

How? By fighting back against terrorism? What should he have done, given out hugs? Diplomacy? Tried to understand the terrorists?

Show me someone who isn't surprised we haven't been attacked on our soil since September 11th and I might consider your position. By keeping those animals on their side of the fence by taking the fight to them, W. was right on. And yes, the end does justify the means. Whoever we "lost the moral high ground with" probably wasn't on our side to start with.

With that said, I actually do see some parallels with Georgia & Iraq. Neither had directly been a threat to Russia/USA, but were funding and giving support to a threat. So, without knowing enough to have a learned opinion on Georgia, my first inclination may be to disagree with W. on this one.

[dragonfly]

Neither had directly been a threat to Russia/USA, but were funding and giving support to a threat. So, without knowing enough to have a learned opinion on Georgia, my first inclination may be to disagree with W. on this one.

So (asking in a sincere manner) what threat to Russia is Georgia giving support to? I've been trying for a week to understand the whys and wherefores of this one. I have a close friend who is from Russia, so talking to her about it is getting a one-sided view (which I value in and of itself), but from a more objective point of view, it looks to me like Russia trying to reclaim it's former territory. What's your take on it?

[alpha6]

To give you a little insight on that region of the world. Right now most of Eastern Europe and Western Europe are very concerned about what is happening. Eastern Europe because they know they could be next in Russias expansion plans and Western Europe because 30% of their oil comes from them and if they gain control of the BTC pipeline they will control even more once it comes into full production. It is about control of resources which in turn leads to control of other countries in the world if they are dependent upon you. Europe has called on the US to take a firm stance against Russia. They can't go to the UN because Russia is one of the security councils main members. Other then strong language there is little that we can do in that region. Though we have airbases in Turkey, military options are not on the table at this time, though we are currently providing relief into Georgia from these bases.

Additionally, Georgia is a key country in the global war against terrorism in that it is the only Christian nation in that region. Russia understands this also. It was not so long ago they were having and there have been a resurgence of sectarian violence in Chechnya. Chechnya has long standing relationships with numerous Arab nations and close relations with the Taliban. If anyone cares to research one of the worst terrorist attacks in Russian, the Belsan school attack in which in addition to Chechnyan terrorist there were numerous Arab terrorist that murdered 334 hostages, including 186 children.

Russia's collapse came about not because of its lack of natural resources, but because it didn't have any financial means to exploit them. Now with the advancement of capitalism, they are fat on cash and can develop those resources. Unfortunately may of these resources lie in former Soviet countries. Russia has stated in the past and Putin has allured to this that Russia will regain its status in the world as a world leader, much stronger then in the past. At this time, with ours and Europe's dependence on the world market for so many goods there is little that can be done to stop aggression without jeopardizing our own economies. Remember that the start of WW 1 began in Sarajevo, who would have thought this insignificant act would lead the nations of the world into a world war?

Lets not be so critical of our leaders unless we know the significance of what is exactly at stake. :rolleyes:

[Galaxy]

So (asking in a sincere manner) what threat to Russia is Georgia giving support to? None! it looks to me like Russia trying to reclaim it's former territory. What's your take on it?Georgia was never Russia's territory. They were occupying brutal colonialists. Russia's claims on Georgia have as much validity as England's claim on present day India.

[Galaxy]

Instead of criticizing your own country maybe people should better educate themselves as to what is going on in the world and know how things that may not seem to have an affect on their lives really can have a significant impact on it. :rolleyes:Very well stated alpha6, including the part I did not quote.

Some folks have a very strange sense of morality. According to some it is evidently OK for totalitarian regimes to brutalize their own citizens and their democratic neighbors. At the same time they yell bloody murder when a democracy like the USA, Israel or Georgia defends itself against terrorists.

There seems to me only two possible moral grounds for this attitude. One is pacifism, which is essentially a free-rider (parasitic) approach that depends on others for one's protection.

The other is isolationism, which is just not workable in today's world with current and future threats. I do not know about you folks, but I am not willing for the USA to wait until the folks in Farmington, NM or Devil's Lake, ND see the white of the enemies' eyes before the USA responds vigorously.

[Barry Digman]

Lets not be so critical of our leaders unless we know the significance of what is exactly at stake.

Moral relativism. It's ok for the United States to use whatever means they deem appropriate to expand their empire and "defend liberty", but it's not ok for other countries in the world to do the same in order to advance or protect their national interests, regardless of whether we find them morally acceptable? Nonsense. If it's acceptable for the US to to use military force to invade and occupy a foreign country half a world away in order to satisfy the whims of a particular administration, then it's acceptable for any other country to do the same.


It's not a matter of whether or not Russia's actions are legitimate. The issue here is that George Bush long ago lost whatever moral authority he had to call another nation onto the carpet for military interference into someone else's affairs. And by doing what he's done, he has cost our country the ablility to call other countries and leaders to account.

Some folks believe that no matter what the US does, it's justifiable because we're the US and we're never wrong. Many of us no longer believe that way, and a whole lot of the world doesn't. We believe that a nation as magnificent as the US has an even greater responsibility than places like Russia to act responsibly and behave in a manner that exemplifies the tenets of our country and her Constitution. Face it, this country and the ideals upon which it was founded are remarkable. We need to be that shining city on the hill, not the thug in the back alley.

[Barry Digman]

At the same time they yell bloody murder when a democracy like the USA, Israel or Georgia defends itself against terrorists.




The war in Iraq is not a defensive war against terrorism, which pretty much makes the rest of the argument moot.

[Bodo]

The war in Iraq is not a defensive war against terrorism, which pretty much makes the rest of the argument moot.

Opinion stated as fact. Seems like many in Congress thought that Saddam was helping terrorists. Who's to say he wasn't/didn't?

[alpha6]

Barry writes "If it's acceptable for the US to to use military force to invade and occupy a foreign country half a world away in order to satisfy the whims of a particular administration..."

Maybe you should review your history. I believe it was Congress who passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, a joint resolution (i.e. a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.

If you are going to try and justify an argument you should be clear of the facts. Congress authorized the war and subsequently paid for it every year. Without them there would have never been a war. Your lack of understanding of how our government works and foreign policies is shocking. :eek:

[Bizzybee]

Yaw must be referring to all that moral high ground that was gained in the previous 8 years??

BAHAHAHAHAHAH

Hate it when coffee blows out yer nose!!! :D

[Bodo]

Maybe you should review your history. I believe it was Congress who passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, a joint resolution (i.e. a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.


I've tried this line of argument here before. It's all Bush's fault, no matter what.

[Barry Digman]

If you are going to try and justify an argument you should be clear of the facts. Congress authorized the war and subsequently paid for it every year. Without them there would have never been a war. Your lack of understanding of how our government works and foreign policies is shocking. :eek:


Go read the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq dated October 2, 2002. Let us know who ASKED FOR THE AUTHORIZATION since Congress can't do that on their own. I'm not shocked at the general publics lack of understanding of who asks for that authorization and why under the War Powers Act.

To imply that Congress authorized the war on their own is completly wrong of course, but I suppose it serves to divert attention from the statement at issue.

[Bodo]

To imply that Bush authorized the war on his own is completly wrong of course, but I suppose it serves to divert attention from the statement at issue.

Works both ways ;-)

[Barry Digman]

To imply that Bush authorized the war on his own is completly wrong of course, but I suppose it serves to divert attention from the statement at issue.

Works both ways ;-)


Suits me. They're both culpable. Now, which one stated that bullying was unacceptable when discussing the invasion in Georgia, which is the point of the thread?

[alpha6]

Who passes laws? Who runs the purse strings of the country? Are you saying that Congress did not pass legislation for Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243? Are you saying that they did not fund the war every year since then, including the last two years under Democratic leadership?

I am not the one who made allegations that this was was the administrations doing. I only pointed out the fact that it could not have been done at all had Congress not agreed to it and then subsequently fund it..again and again and again.

"Truth is generally the best vindication against slander." - Abraham Lincoln

[sqkcrk]

"Truth is generally the best vindication against slander." - Abraham Lincoln

Truth is the first casualty of war. Isn't that how that quote goes? I can't sight the author.

[Barry Digman]

Who passes laws? Who runs the purse strings of the country?

Who made the following statement? That's the issue.

"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."

The irony of GW making that statement is absolutely delectable. The true believers in GW simply can't stand the suggestion that GW has behaved like a bully and has no standing to make such a claim, and I understand that. We'll be rid of him soon and that enough for me.

[Bodo]

You're also assuming that the US is guilty of bullying and intimidation. It's an interesting opinion.

When W is gone, who will all the blame be placed on? He's a convenient scapegoat, but after he's gone people will have to look at what's really going on in a logical way.

[alpha6]

"In war, truth is the first casualty." - Aeschylus

[Barry Digman]

You're also assuming that the US is guilty of bullying and intimidation. It's an interesting opinion.



Countless people in other nations would agree, explaining why so many direct their anger not at extremist groups who commit acts of violence against the innocent, but against the United States and its “War on Terrorism.” South Korean anti-Americanism demonstrates that this apparent disconnect results from the worldwide perception that the United States is a global bully. http://hnn.us/articles/3740.html

This is a case where the answer doesn't matter, because it is the wrong question. The United States isn't offering to be the world's cop; U.S. officials are acting as the world's bully. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1118-03.htm

The Pew Global Attitudes Project has just released its most extensive survey of world opinion since 2002 — 45,000 people in 47 nations. The results are a dismal vote against Bush’s America. Not to mention a disturbing, contrasting confidence vote in Vladimir Putin. http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/07/cn062807.htm

Even in the early Reagan years, Israel was berated and threatened on a regular basis, owing to its invasion of Lebanon and its rejection of yet another American-imposed "peace" plan in 1982 and in 1988. The Reagan Administration also openly consorted with the PLO, at the time still an unrepentant, anti-Jewish terrorist organization.

Yet, throughout these very public and advertent humiliations, the USA remained Israel's main backer. Friendship and bullying appeared to be two inalienable facet of the same coin of American-Israeli relations.http://www.globalpolitician.com/24514-israel


If you only read one, try this one.



In recent times, civilized nations have tended to cut other nations in general, and the United States in particular, a great deal of slack on the bullying front, as we tend to bully others in the name of peace, freedom and democracy and those we bully for the most part are cowardly tyrants themselves. It could be argued, however, that since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the only visible threat to U.S. military and technological supremacy, the U.S. presidency has become an international “bully pulpit” of proportions not envisioned by the founding fathers. http://geofbloom.com/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=85



The point here is that if one searchs for articles, speeches, essays, etc. on the US as a global bully it doesn't take long to find them. And the authors are much more articulate than I in making the case that we're behaving badly and have squanded our hard-earned legacy which was once the envy of the world.

[Ben Brewcat]

OK I know I shouldn't, but I have to ask. I'm a political moderate. I readily criticize hypocrisy where I see it writ large, whether it be Clinton, Reagan, Bush (one two or III), Obama or Carter. Anyone. They have all earned it in varying degrees. Why does this Bush dynasty inspire so many people who wouldn't blink an eye no matter what outrageous acts he engaged in? I have talked to and know many people (we all know them) who will support some politicians no matter what. In spite of overwhelming evidence, they can clap hands over their ears and repeat their sound bites from whichever news outlet they are comforted by and are absolutely sure of their convictions. Have the courage to re-examine previously-held beliefs, even to admit a mistake. Have the courage to be unsure, to endure uncertainty. Take some responsibility America!

The question is, what will it take for that small portion of folks to consider that "their guy" might not walk on water? Just once? Any leader/party, though the one we're under right now is the most imminent issue?

Until we become a nation willing to look critically at our leader's behavior regardless of party affiliation, we will continue to slide into being a nation of chumps and shills. We're most of the way there. Quit giving our president a free pass because we voted for him or we like his party or he killed people you hate. I am willing to openly discuss the shortcomings of ALL the guys I voted for. I do it every chance I get (though not on Tailgater, for the reasons that sparked this rant). Surely we're grown-up enough, surely we have the responsibility as Americans, to all entertain that "our guy" might be kind of a jerk after all?

If we truly are a red-or-blue nation of people, no room for revising our positions, worried most about the liberals or the neocons, we're lost. Hand the keys over to the Taliban, they've won. If the only person you can "learn" from is Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore, our great experiment is over.

Come on folks, act like Americans. Get angry when someone is openly a hypocrite in our name on our dime. Where's the indignant cries of "Flip-Flop" when our noses are being rubbed in it?

Flame away. I'll be at a festival all weekend drinking mead and beer, listening to music, and talking with as many people as I can arrange, fellow Americans all. And I'll be occasionally asking myself "what if I'm wrong?" and actually thinking about it. I do this pretty often. It's quite literally the least we can do for our country except for being deliberately unable to learn.

Knew I shoulda stayed out of Tailgater.

[Sundance]

Knew I shoulda stayed out of Tailgater.


LOL:) My sentiments as well.

Kinda crazy that we think that anyone who changes their mind
suffers from a weakness. Most often it is a strength. If facts
on the ground lead you to different conclusions than you had
previously.......... You'd be a fool not to "flip flop".

[Barry Digman]

I'll be at a festival all weekend drinking mead and beer, listening to music, and talking with as many people as I can arrange, fellow Americans all.


Drink a toast to the good that is in all of us.

[Galaxy]

Folks, I don't know about you. But , to my way of thinking the last thing that a "moderator" of a forum should do is to instigate and get involved in a highly controversial topic on the very forum that he or she is charged with moderating.

It is the moral equivalent of the referee of a footall game tackling the running back of the out-of-state team. IMO it, is morally worse that what Woody Hayes did. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Hayes#The_Punch

Who can trust the impartiality of such a moderator?

[Galaxy]

Come on folks, act like Americans. Get angry when someone is openly a hypocrite in our name on our dime. Where's the indignant cries of "Flip-Flop" There is no flip flop. Think about it in a deeper moral sense. Who holds the moral high ground?

Democracies or totalitarian states?

A military that follows the Geneva Conventions or terrorists that target civilians?

The USA, France and the rest of the EU or an imperialist Russia that is lead by a resurgent KGB?

Market economies or authoritarian fascist/socialist economies?

I could list more, but anyone who is not morally challenged could do so also.

[tecumseh]

yep ben I do think you hit a home run with that one #31.

I especially liked this paragraph....
"Until we become a nation willing to look critically at our leader's behavior regardless of party affiliation, we will continue to slide into being a nation of chumps and shills. We're most of the way there. Quit giving our president a free pass because we voted for him or we like his party or he killed people you hate. I am willing to openly discuss the shortcomings of ALL the guys I voted for. I do it every chance I get (though not on Tailgater, for the reasons that sparked this rant). Surely we're grown-up enough, surely we have the responsibility as Americans, to all entertain that "our guy" might be kind of a jerk after all?"

I couldn't agree more...

mr bush's words do sound like the best living example of HYPOCRITE that I have seen (well at least since the last time he opened his mouth).

[Bodo]

Contrary to what many of you believe, morality and ethics ARE relative. Every situation is different. What the US did in Iraq and what Russia is doing in Georgia are two very different situations.
If seeing them as the same thing helps you sleep at night and bolsters your hatred of Bush, so be it.

[Sundance]

Folks, I don't know about you. But , to my way of thinking the last thing that a "moderator" of a forum should do is to instigate and get involved in a highly controversial topic on the very forum that he or she is charged with moderating.

It is the moral equivalent of the referee of a footall game tackling the running back of the out-of-state team. IMO it, is morally worse that what Woody Hayes did. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Hayes#The_Punch

Who can trust the impartiality of such a moderator?

Your point would be valid if:

1. There were no other moderators in this section
(there are 2 others)

2. That each and every person can't report a post they
feel is inappropriate. They can, just tap the explanation mark.

Tailgater (in my opinion) is simply a "coffee table", a
BS station. Not a scholarly blog (far from it).

This is after all a "Bee Keeping" web site, and not a
political blog. That said, tailgater can be a riot as
long as you don't take it seriously.

[sqkcrk]

Who made the following statement? That's the issue.

"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."


President Bush, Ms. Rice and Senator McCain, if not in the same words, in similar staements.

Maybe the 21st century didn't start until 2005?

[sqkcrk]

"In war, truth is the first casualty." - Aeschylus

Thanks. Gotta love those Greeks, don't ya?

[sqkcrk]

If seeing them as the same thing helps you sleep at night and bolsters your hatred of Bush, so be it.

They are not the same things. But they are similar in regards to a larger, more powerful nation invading a smaller, less powerful nations for Imperial reasons.

So, for the leader of one nation to tell the leader of another nation to behave himself (?), well it's sorta like, "You first.".

[JPK1NH]

President Bush, Ms. Rice and Senator McCain, if not in the same words, in similar staements.

Maybe the 21st century didn't start until 2005?

Actually if you were to look at Bush's response to the Russian Invasion and McCain's you would see two very different responses.

Not to mention Barrack Hussien "Kuhm Bah Yah" Obama's worthless approach....lets not forget that the reason that the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred was a direct result of JFK's extremely weak response to the Soviets

The Soviets felt they could push around the inexperienced US President because of his weak response in a prior face to face between JFK and Nikita Khrushchev.

If you don't stand up to the Russians/Soviets they WILL push harder.

McCain understands this, Bush less so and Barrack "I wanna be a euro rockstar" Obama has not a clue.

[Galaxy]

But they are similar in regards to a larger, more powerful nation invading a smaller, less powerful nations for Imperial reasons.
No one who really understands the traditional meaning of the word "Imperialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism)" would accuse the USA of imperialism in it's Iraq action. Not even the most skilled, fact-twisting, silver-tongued lawyer could convince an impartial jury that the USA is engaged in imperialism.

[sqkcrk]

No one who really understands the traditional meaning of the word "Imperialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism)" would accuse the USA of imperialism in it's Iraq action. Not even the most skilled, fact-twisting, silver-tongued lawyer could convince an impartial jury that the USA is engaged in imperialism.

Andrew J. Bacevich would disagree. But you don't have to worry about me being anything like the lawyer you described.

[sqkcrk]

Under the word Imperialism, sighted on Wikipedia, it says "expansion of a nations authority by territorial conquest" and "imperialistic attitude of superiority, subordination and dominion over forgein people".

How is that not what we were about in Viet Nam, Niceragua, etc., etc., Iraq and Afganistan?

[JPK1NH]

Under the word Imperialism, sighted on Wikipedia, it says "expansion of a nations authority by territorial conquest" and "imperialistic attitude of superiority, subordination and dominion over forgein people".

How is that not what we were about in Viet Nam, Niceragua, etc., etc., Iraq and Afganistan?

If we had gone into Iraq or Afghanistan and not implemented popular elections to allow them self rule I would be inclined to agree with you but thats not the case.....not to mention the fact that we will indeed leave someday.

[knadai]

So (asking in a sincere manner) what threat to Russia is Georgia giving support to? I've been trying for a week to understand the whys and wherefores of this one. I have a close friend who is from Russia, so talking to her about it is getting a one-sided view (which I value in and of itself), but from a more objective point of view, it looks to me like Russia trying to reclaim it's former territory. What's your take on it?

1) I was referring to Russia's claim that they needed to invade Georgia because Georgia was providing support to the insurgents (rebels, freedom fighters, terrorists, whatever) in South Ossetia.

I'm not backing that claim as I do not know the truth and haven't studied the matter. My point was that such claim is similar to one of the many reasons given for our invasion of Iraq; while Iraq never directly attacked the USA, it's clear they were aiding, funding, and sheltering the terrorists that did.

2) I say Bush isn't a bully, but not for the reason most people think. Bullies usually just cry to their mommy when hit back. While the administration did cry to the UN for over a year, we eventually did hit back and invaded the place ourselves. (Okay, we did it along with a lot of allies. But we clearly led the effort)

Bush waited for the UN's blessing first. Then the blessing of congress. Then we didn't hit Iraq until almost 18 months after September 11th. I always laugh when someone calls the Iraq War a "rush" to judgement...

3) Tailgater rules.

In sum:

1) The reason for Russia's invasion is similar to one of the reasons the US cited to invade Iraq.

2) Bush isn't a bully.

3) Tailgater rules.