A smaller, weaker nation's territorial soverignty is compromised by a larger, more powerful country. The latter thumbs its nose at international law and global opinion and won't leave when it wears out its welcome. Where does Russia get such nutty ideas?

Of course w/o a trace of self-awareness nor a sense of irony, the CHENEY-bush people are outraged and trying to expel Russia's troops from Georgia when they should be expelling our guys from Iraq! W went as far to say that all bets are off if Russia advances on Turner Field.

Five more months. Why can't we have the election and inauguration tomorrow? At this point, when the White House phone rings at 3AM or whenever, wouldn't we all settle for someone who talks into the right end?

but you're the problem. you see that the american constitution allows stupid and/or evil people to come into command of sac and the marine corps, and use them.

your response is not: change the constitution so dimwits and nutters don't make world wrecking decisions. no, it's can we shake the dice quicker. that's like playing russian roulette and asking to pull the trigger more often.

there are alternatives, generally called 'democracy'. you ain't got it, and seem to prefer being a serf while a political aristocracy loots the nation and mires it in war.

There may have been an awful lot of opposition to America's actions regarding Iraq, but that does not mean that the Russia's intervention in Georgia is in any way comparable. America ousted a sociopathic dictator who had no qualms about quashing any dissent in the most brutal of fashions, and after removing him, quickly allowed for the organisation of elections which the UN recognised as both free and fair.

In terms of this being against global opinion, American troops were supported in Iraq by those from Spain, the UK, Japan, Italy, Poland, Georgia and several more countries. This represents a sizeable alliance of democratic nations, and cannot therefore be described a unilateral invasion.

As for the wearing out of its welcome in Iraq, the democratically elcted leaders of that country have repeatedly made it clear that they support the American presence in their country. Indeed, American troops are involved in training the Iraqi army, and providing support when neccessary. I'm not quite sure how this qualifies as their presence being in contravention of the will of the Iraqi people. Nobody however wants a permanent US military presence in that country, and al Maliki has made this clear in recent weeks. Interestingly, the Bush administration has also made the same declaration in in the past month.

I'm not quite sure therefore how a comparison can be drawn between America's intervention in Iraq, and that of the Russians in Georgia, apart maybe from the fact that they were both military orations.

Here we go again. What is the matter with you people? Pay attention now.

WE DID NOT INVADE IRAQ TO THROW OUT AN EVIL DICTATOR!!!!!!!

Everyone knows that, except, seemingly, the defenders of the realm. Or at least by now everyone should know that.

As for the brave "coalition of the willing", well, thanks for the help.

Russian motives for this current action may not be above board, but after our own unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation who are we to protest? This will be Bush's legacy.

dantesfurlough:

WE DID NOT INVADE IRAQ TO THROW OUT AN EVIL DICTATOR!!!!!!!

Regardless of the motivation, that is what we did. Not just an evil dictator, but one that was deliberately giving us the impression that he was becoming increasingly dangerous.

We didn't get an increased oil supply out of the war. We didn't get a permanent military base in the Middle East. We didn't reduce the threat of terrorism. We didn't destroy weapons of mass destruction. We did throw out an evil dictator, which had been part of our policy for a long time.

Russia, on the other hand, invaded a distinctly harmless neighbor, one whose government was going through dramatic improvements, while simultaneously professing respect for its sovereignty.

It doesn't really matter to me, frankly, if Russia's invasion was really morally equivalent to our invasion of Iraq; that would be bad enough. But as a matter of simple realpolitik, the only countries that should feel threatened by our invasion of Iraq are North Korea and Iran. All of Russia's neighbors, save China, should feel threatened by its invasion of Georgia. Said neighbors include NATO members.

Russia didn't invade NATO members, but its invasion of Georgia threatens them. Therefore, it threatens us.

Sorry, did I miss an invasion?

OR, are Americans misssing the news?

People killed in South Ossetia were Russian,
more than a thousand. There were ordinary
Americans (just a few) on the ground there
feeling threatened as the Georgian military
attacked on the 8th of August

Not a matter of a 2nd opinion, it is
a matter of the other side of the story
needs to be heard. I'm American.
I have seen Americans talking about
the attack on YOU Tube. Indeed, one
of the clips was from a FOX news affiliate
in San Francisco. A 12-year-old girl
had escaped through Russia to
get back to the States

"Russian motives for this current action may not be above board, but ... "

OR maybe they are; maybe the Georgia military is the aggressor

An authoritarian state invading a free democracy as Russia did is nothing comparable to a free democracy removing the world's worst dicator as the US did.