Constructive gadfly
South Ossetia Doesn’t Want To Be Georgian
Published on August 21, 2008 By stevendedalus In Politics

Though the Russian overreaction with tanks reminiscent of old Soviet tactics should be condemned we must keep in mind that overreaction by the US serves no purpose, especially in light of Georgia initiating the attack on Tskhinvali. Bush’s condemnation that invasion of territorial rights is not acceptable in the 21st Century is laughable. McCain’s bluster shows he’s still a cold front warrior in a time when our resources are spread too thin. Secretary of State Rice has no business in Poland for a missile agreement and antagonizing the Georgian situation. Missiles in Poland is hardly any different from missiles in Cuba, and only a Democratic President can set a new mindset in diplomacy to rid the US of its perennial "tough talk" particularly when in reality we are now reduced to a paper tiger. Even with our military at full strength, Kennedy was shrewd enough to remove missiles from Turkey.

As usual, MSN offers little information—as in the run-up to Iraq—in sizing up the full story in Georgia and particularly its president Saaskashvili who seems eager to provoke Moscow—give an inch and take a mile—particularly in his wanting to become a part of NATO; further, he is not exactly the darling of democracy to his own constituents and adamant when it comes to South Ossetia’s desire to join the North making them part of the Russian Federation.

We should take a deep breath and consider unexpected consequences: we have already bitten off more than we can chew. Even Biden—and he’s on Obama’s short list for veep!—is ludicrous in wanting to send $billions to Georgia for reconstruction in face of our own debts and deteriorating infrastructure. And just how far does NATO want to expand before it becomes pointless? It appears it won’t be content till its extension reaches China—why, they might even want Iran to join.

 

 

Copyright © 2008 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: Aug 21,  2008.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

http://www.lulu.com/rrkfinn


Comments (Page 4)
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4 
on Sep 07, 2008

maudlin27
Must be a nice fantasy world you're living in there! Having listened to fox news broadcasts+ones by the BBC on the same issue a few times the chasm in reporting standards was so huge it was more funny than shocking.

Nobody can really claim the BBC and FOXNews are in the same league. Even taking a look at FOX's sister-channel SkyNews shows a huge gulf between FOX and itself. The simple answer is that FOX doesn't try to formalise its news to the extent of most channels, while it also doesn't seem to hide it's bias unlike just about every other news channel. The BBC isn't as biased as FOXNews when reporting on issues, but how about when it ignores news? Britain is sending a fleet with America in the vacinity of Israel/Syria etc. Yet this hasn't been reported on the BBC whatsoever from what i've seen of it, whereas SkyNews and FOXNews have both mentioned this. Isn't that slightly more news-worthy than 'Skin Deep: The Human Body as Canvas'?

maudlin27
As for their stance on ethical/moral/religious issues they're more clearly biased+politically correct, but that has little impact on the vast majority of news items, and is usually only apparent in the non-news programs they do, hence not having a bearing on the issue at hand. Using the daily mail as a reference doesn't do your point (or the reliability of the information) any credit though.

 

Have you ever watched BBC News? Because judging by your comments you haven't.

There is nothing wrong with quoting the Daily Mail when what the Daily Mail is doing is quoting leaked minutes. Or would you like to speculate that they lied about the minutes and that it never happened?

If you really want a major news source, here you go:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/10/27/do2701.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/10/27/ixopinion.html

What? no BBC news? Well of course not, when a story criticising the BBC comes out, the BBC never covers it objectively.

 

maudlin27
You must have been very selective in what articles/programmes you viewed then. The BBC has reported on the success of the surge numerous times,

Okay, 10/09/2007 - BBC reports over 70% of Iraqis believe the surge hasn't worked

However, 10/09/2007 - ABC Australia runs an article on the PM of Iraq declaring that the surge has worked

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6987305.stm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/10/2029195.htm?section=justin

 

The BBC ran an article on what citizens who haven't got knowledge on the exact happenings in the country saying they would rather go back to Hussain's time, as opposed to what is clearly a more news-worthy article of the Iraqi PM, who knows the situation in the country (it's his job, after all) who portrays an entirely inverted image.

 

Yes, that's just one article. Yes, you can construe this as me being 'selective' with my articles, but then i'm hardly going to waste half an hour trudging through twenty BBC articles just to prove you wrong. So I will leave it there.

 

maudlin27
Meanwhile there have also been plenty of articles on afghanistan throughout the war, so I don't see how they're ignoring that - no doubt if they were making it front page news all the time whenever there were fatalities they'd be accused of being biased against it anyway though!

 

The BBC doesn't have pages

The Afghan operations have scarcely been covered to the extent of Iraq. Because Iraq is a controversial point, they are covering it more. Again, short of trudging through tens of articles this cannot be proven either way, so I will agree to differ with you on this point.

on Sep 08, 2008

Must be a nice fantasy world you're living in there! Having listened to fox news broadcasts+ones by the BBC on the same issue a few times the chasm in reporting standards was so huge it was more funny than shocking.

No, if you are a liberal (american definition), then you would swallow the koolaid you are serving.  If you look at the reporting objectively, there is no fantasy.  Unless you are a closet (or open) anti-semite.

on Sep 13, 2008

If you really want a major news source, here you go:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/10/27/do2701.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/10/27/ixopinion.html

Relying on opinion pieces as news sources is not reliable at all - these are the parts of the paper designed to be more provocative, and will often arise from the editor/whoevers in charge of them going 'write an [argumentative/persuasive] piece in [favour of/against] X', or simply a person being invited to give their personal opinion/take on various issues. By all means use them as a starting point, but due to their nature you have to make sure to check most things contained in them and look at them in context before you can rely on what is said. For comparison it would be a bit like me pointing to the BBC blogs as a valuable news source, since those are opinion pieces too. In some cases they can contain useful information (e.g. Northern Rock/Robert Peston), but you will have bias with them due to their nature.

The BBC ran an article on what citizens who haven't got knowledge on the exact happenings in the country saying they would rather go back to Hussain's time, as opposed to what is clearly a more news-worthy article of the Iraqi PM, who knows the situation in the country (it's his job, after all) who portrays an entirely inverted image.

Yes, that's just one article. Yes, you can construe this as me being 'selective' with my articles, but then i'm hardly going to waste half an hour trudging through twenty BBC articles just to prove you wrong

Quite - picking one article selectively and using that to claim bias while ignoring all the others doesn't prove anything. Here's a series the bbc did on the surge itself, every week (go part-way down the link to access the previous reports):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6993516.stm

What is given pride of place? The casualty figures. What is noted specifically? That they are falling, along with a mention of Patraeus's comments about how objectives are largely being met. Now that's just a quick example, there are others as well - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7036331.stm gives you various figures on Iraq deaths (civilian+military) over a much greater timescale. Both shining examples of the BBC's bias and shameful reporting

on Sep 14, 2008

C'mon, fellas, get over it and watch Katie Couric--she needs the ratings.

on Sep 14, 2008

she needs the ratings

Pam anderson is prettier and as intelligent.

on Sep 15, 2008

We were faced with an attack on our soil and Iraq providing help to the attackers, add to that the fact that there were tons of unaccounted for WMD in Iraq and the choice was simple. Invade or wait till we get attacked again. The right choice was to invade
How can you say this when you know this was not the case. As for the case that the Gulf War was more or less a truce and the coalition was technically at war. I uysed this precise argument in the beginning but that doesn't change the fact that it was not strong enough probable cause to send grunts while we had the nofly zone under control.

on Sep 15, 2008

How can you say this when you know this was not the case.

Are you suggesting that we were not attacked on 9/11?

Are you suggesting the AP reports of wounded as well as healthy terrorists showing up in Iraq after we invaded Afghanistan was untrue?

Are you suggesting that the Bush Doctrine of attacking any nation that supports, harbors, or aids the terrorists of 9/11 is not valid in the case of Iraq?

Are you suggesting that the tons of WMD that the UN said was unaccounted for was accounted for prior to the war?

As the leader of a nation that was just attacked, seeing the leader of Iraq cheering the terrorists the next day is something that would tend to upset a person. When the president announced the Bush Doctrine it became the policy of our nation unless outlawed by the Congress and supported by the Supreme Court. Senator Daschel wrote a law to back up the doctrine and the President signed it into law.

I will restate, when you have AQ receiving protection from Iraq that was justification to attack. When Iraq failed to account for the WMD he said he had that was not destroyed, we had justification to invade. There is more but this alone was reason enough to invade and eliminate the leader of Iraq.

on Sep 17, 2008

Are you suggesting that we were not attacked on 9/11?
Wise ass question! Answer, no, but not by Iraq.

I will restate, when you have AQ receiving protection from Iraq that was justification to attack. When Iraq failed to account for the WMD he said he had that was not destroyed, we had justification to invade. There is more but this alone was reason enough to invade and eliminate the leader of Iraq.
Perhaps but not by grunts; rather, continuation of air attacks on Hussein's headquarters and any suspected WMD sites.

 

on Sep 17, 2008

Perhaps but not by grunts; rather, continuation of air attacks on Hussein's headquarters and any suspected WMD sites.

Please tell me you are not serious! We had lost track of his WMD’s bombing was not accomplishing anything other than providing innocent dead people to be paraded in front of the cameras. The threat was he would give some of his weapons to the AQ types in his country, which had a means of delivering them to the US. The only choice we had was to invade.

on Sep 23, 2008

The threat was he would give some of his weapons to the AQ types in his country, which had a means of delivering them to the US. The only choice we had was to invade.
Don't you ever tire of beating a dead horse? Especially when it is nbot factual.

on Sep 23, 2008

Don't you ever tire of beating a dead horse? Especially when it is nbot factual.

Tell me just how you know this is not factual? You may choose not to believe it but that does not change the fact that it was a fear we had to face.

on Sep 23, 2008

fear we had to face
I'll cry uncle if you stop this nonsense. Remember FDR: the only thing you have to  fear is fear itself.

on Sep 23, 2008

I'll cry uncle if you stop this nonsense. Remember FDR: the only thing you have to fear is fear itself.

 

What nonsense? You have yet to explain what you mean. Try it and maybe you will see what I am talking about.

4 PagesFirst 2 3 4