Sadly the US has lost all moral standing when it comes to foreign invasions. Our U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, was quoted as saying: “The days of overthrowing leaders by military means in Europe — those days are gone.” The clear implication of this statement is that overthrowing leaders by military means in other places, Iraq for example, is just fine.

Hitchens, a big Iraq war supporter from day one and still a defender of this debacle, is careful to draw comaprisons to Kosovo while leaving out Iraq but Hitchens, like the Bush adminstration, has lost the ability to criticize others for things that we ourselves are guilty of.

Last time I checked the current fight is happening in Asia.

"Sadly the US has lost all moral standing when it comes to foreign invasions."

This has become one of the most tired and melodramatic left wing talking points to date. I'm honestly curious how far you'd let a nation like Russia or China drive their tanks into one of their neighbors before it would occur to you to take a stand against it?

Along these lines--are you arguing that Obama was wrong to condemn the Russian invasion of Georgia?

Av8r:

"Sadly the US has lost all moral standing when it comes to foreign invasions."

This has become one of the most tired and melodramatic left wing talking points to date. I'm honestly curious how far you'd let a nation like Russia or China drive their tanks into one of their neighbors before it would occur to you to take a stand against it?

Along these lines--are you arguing that Obama was wrong to condemn the Russian invasion of Georgia?

Should the US object? Absolutely, but it's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.

As for Obama condemning the invasion? He was against the Iraq war since before it began so he's not exactly on shaky moral ground like Bush or McCain, is he?

It seems like a huge reach to say the U.S. has lost "all moral standing" with foreign invasions. But it isn't a reach to say that the U.S. has lost much of it's credibility to react to events like the Russian invasion of Georgia because our military is tied down in a war we didn't need to fight. Would Russia have been as bold if the U.S. was only in Afghanistan and had not alienated so many of it's allies with a war based on hunch, falsified papers and bungled intelligence?

Alternativly, one could argue that Obama is on shaky moral ground, as he was willing to tolerate the abuses of a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein but unwilling to tolerate the abuses of a dictator like Putin. (spin? maybe.)

But I do agree with the above poster, that having invaded Iraq makes arguing against the Russian incusion more difficult. If the Russians keep their word and pull back, the argument would be unnecessary.

Av8r:

Alternativly, one could argue that Obama is on shaky moral ground, as he was willing to tolerate the abuses of a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein but unwilling to tolerate the abuses of a dictator like Putin. (spin? maybe.)

But I do agree with the above poster, that having invaded Iraq makes arguing against the Russian incusion more difficult. If the Russians keep their word and pull back, the argument would be unnecessary.

You seem to be under the same delsion as Bush and McCain that the only solution to a problem is the use of military force. Did Obama ever state that everything Saddam was doing was okay? I don't think so.

The fact of the matter is that inspectors were in Iraq and didn't find any WMDs prior to the war because as we now know there weren't any to be found. Iraq was contained and military action was unnecessary and has made reacting militarily to Russia's incursion not just "more difficult" but infact impossible without withdrawing a good chunk of our troops from Iraq immediately so the Russians knew there was no threat of US retaliation.

Saddam's human rights violations were only used as an excuse for the invasion of Iraq after the fact when it became apparent to all that Saddam didn't have WMDs, had no ties to 9/11 and posed no threat to the US or neighboring states.

Let's not forget that the first gulf war began only after Iraq invaded Kuwait just like Russia just invaded Georgia. The second gulf war began when George Jr. went into Iraq without provocation.

Comparing Putin to Saddam is absurd, seeing as Putin was never on a US payroll for starters. Meanwhile, aren't we all forgetting that the US has gone back on a promise made by Reagan to Gorbachev after the fall of the Berlin Wall? That NATO would not expan any further to the east?

Since then, 6 more Warsaw states have been introduced to NATO, we are pointing missiles at Russia, and Putin is the tyrant? I guess that makes JFK a tyrant over hsi stand off with the Soviets over the Cuban missile crisis?

progressivebulldog:

Let's not forget that the first gulf war began only after Iraq invaded Kuwait just like Russia just invaded Georgia. The second gulf war began when George Jr. went into Iraq without provocation.

This isn't entirely accurate--Iraq was only "contained" because of the continued presence of US forces throughout the Gulf, most notable Saudi Arabia. The US maintained an active presence in Iraq through aerial occupation of the northern and souther thirds of the country. Provocation came on a regular basis, whether it was shooting at patrolling aircraft, defying UN mandates, or atrocities against Iraqi civilians. (I do not dispute that the latter was only emphasized after the invasion) Bush the first got us into this situation be stopping short during the first Gulf War and thereby leaving an open-ended commitment to keeping a sitting dictator in check.

I'm not sure how much better the situation in Iraq woudl have panned out if we had maintained a military presence in Saudi Arabia until Hussein either died or was overthrown, but I'm not convinced that things would have turned out much better.

But getting back to Georgia--the "moral authority" to question Russia's invasion is moot. Even if the Iraq invasion had never happened, Russia would be making inroads into its former possessions, similar to its actions Chechnia. Our objective is to support the Democratically elected government of Georgia, and to do what we can to oppose Russia's aggression short of starting World War III.

Let's not forget that the first gulf war began only after Iraq invaded Kuwait just like Russia just invaded Georgia. The second gulf war began when George Jr. went into Iraq without provocation.

Actually the more accurate comparison would have been comparing Russia's response to Georgia as being triggered by Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia. Saddam promised to retake Kuwait just as Sakashvilli promised to retake South Ossetia.

Our objective is to support the Democratically elected government of Georgia, and to do what we can to oppose Russia's aggression short of starting World War III.

Except that this suport for so called "democracies" should and color coded revolutions authored in Washington, should not include guarantees of war to these faux democracies. Shakasvilli apprently had the idea that either a) Russia would do nothign or b) the US had his back in the event that Russia did respond.