about what is going on in Russo-Georgian conflict, here is an objective look, not the official West/East point of view.

Open the <link>

yeah, saw it.

Awesome .

Every time the official GOP propaganda network is exposed as the utter hypocrites they are so obviously and openly it feels my heart with great joy

How is this objective Neo?

Many of the Ossetians are pro-Russia (which is the fuel for this conflict in the first place) and this woman and her daugter are obviouosly two pro-Russians. They are the propoganda here. Your standard for the "truth" is shockingly low.

It amuses me how quickly you antiwar folks are to take sides! Just proves the one of very few actual truths, nobody is truly antiwar and everyone ends up picking a side. Your side is any side that is not the US or a friend of the US. As with all conflicts, it is unlikely that there is a true "aggressor" and "victim" here, just a dispute over territory and a bunch of people who picked one side or the other.

So tell me Split-S, what was Fox's motivation for pushing out the pro Russian propaganda? Call what you will, but this contradicts all the crap we have been fed by the US media, and it's pretty obvious that the presenter was doing his best to make sure to silence their accounts.

You make an intereting obervation about the anti war crowd, but you miss the point, We are taling about the BS we are constantly being fed. First there was the littany of lies about Iraq. Then there has been the BS about Somalia, Iran and now Georgia. Not one news outlet has broken ranks with Washington's talking points, though every now and again, cracks appear in the offical narrative.

This connflict was over in 72 hours, so while it was very unfortunate, it is thankfulyl now over.

Neo-

I am not suggesting that Fox news is an objective news source (I watch the Lehrer News hour for that). I was just pointing out that calling that news segment truth is spurious.

Sure Fox has motives, and so did that woman and her daughter. Propaganda and counter propaganda.

I disagree with your assessment of BS. I watched Colin Powell at the UN and countless other UN feeds in the lead up to Iraq and I don't recall any BS. It turned out that some of the intelligence end up being incorrect (WMDs), however, I only saw that as one of a whole litany of reasons to invade Iraq. And let’s be frank here, who exactly was lied to? You and the rest the antiwar crowd never saw those reasons as legitimate reasons to invade Iraq. I and others in favor of the invasion did. I think that we should take every treat seriously and respect the ability of our adversaries to hurt us. It isn’t about lies, or BS, it is a disagreement. You and I disagree on whether Iraq was a threat. And that is fine, I just find it increasingly hard to take the antiwar crowd seriously when they are so predictable in which side they will take, invariably they side with any nation other than the US or a US ally. This action in Georgia is a perfect example of this. I’ve read a lot of your posts over the years, and I like reading them even though I almost always disagree with you it is fun to hear the other side (what fun would it be if we all agreed and just sat here typing in robotic agreement? That is also why I am an avid listener to Democracy Now). However (and I could be wrong), I don’t think I have ever read one of your posts (or any of Amy Goodman's reports on Democracy Now) supporting any US foreign policy or any moves by the US or US allies whether it be Iraq, Israel, Georgia etc, am I to believe that the US is pure evil! Or is it just Capitalism that is pure evil?

How can you cite Colin Powell's presentation to the UN, which has since been proven to be 100% inaccurate, and not call it BS. Did you watch the presentations that followed Powell's, from Al Baradei and Hans Blx (both of which contradicted him) also?

It isn’t about lies, or BS, it is a disagreement.

On the contrary, a threat is either real or it isn't. The threat that you refer to was based on the assumption that Saddam a) intended to attack us (false) and that b) he had the weapons and means to do so (also false). T he argument you seem to be making is that waging war as opposed to not waging war is as simple as better to be safe than sorry. Like so many others who support the war, the costs and repersussions are of no consequence.

As for the other lies (ie. Al Qaeda and Saddam) do you even want to go there? If Robert Suskin's allegations are true (as they appear to be), are you proud of the fact that our giovernment is forging documents to make a case for war?

In the case of Russia's reposnse to Georgia, I was alarmed over the incident and I would obviously have preferred it not have takne place. What infuriates me however, is the nausating hypocrisy here when I hear people like Bush and McCain condem others for invading other countriea and not be made to answer for their cynicism.

Another reason why I am critcial of the US in this regard is that predictably, this has Washington's finger prints all over it. US miltary "advisors" in Georgia. US arms being sold to Georgia. We have a fundamental inabilty to see ourselves as the world sees us. We invade and occupy Iraq, while haveing the gall to lecture to Iran and Syria about staying out of Iraq. We conduct ourselves as though we own the world.

You are right. I don't support US foreign policy, because I believe it's entirely based on militarism and subjugation of other countries. I don't believe that our interests are served by these policies. What are we doing with 700 or more military bases in 130 countries?

What are we doing installing missile bases in Eastern Europe and aiming them at Russia? Are you forgetting the crisis that ensued when Russia tried to pul the same stunt in Cuba? So why shoudl Russia's repsonse be any different to ours?

Our priorities are just absurd. We left the victims fo Katrina destiture for weeks, yet we have no problem finding the means to airlift "humanitarian aid" to Georgia in a matter of days.

In terns of Georgia, Russia has no interest in whether they are a democracy or otherwise. But try and turn the tables here. If Russia, or China or Iran were propping up Mexico and arming them, and then encouraging them to invade other states in Central America, would we be so sanguine?

You are using a hindsight is 20/20 approach here. You are acting as if Russia, France and Germany had some supernatural clairvoyance that allowed them to know beyond a doubt that Iraq was not a threat (also I believe that saying that Iraq was not a threat is disingenuous, how would we know? If we invaded Germany in 1936 they wouldn’t have look like much of a threat either, but it would have been the best thing in the long run). Everyone’s intelligence said the same thing, they were all equally flawed. The disagreement wasn’t about whether Saddam was a threat or not, it was about what to do about it. Russia, France and Germany when against us not because of right and wrong, they did it for several reasons: 1. these three nations are vying for global power and to disrupt our goals was an easy way to check our power in a very consequence free manner. 2. they were benefiting financially from Saddam’s current Iraq. They were acting in their own self interests not because they were gazing into some crystal ball.

As for the other lies (ie. Al Qaeda and Saddam) do you even want to go there?

You guys always bring this up, I never remember anybody saying that Saddam had anything to do with 911. The truth is they had a common enemy, the West and in particular the US. So were they friends officially, no but the fact that they both wanted to see the US burn makes them allies in a practical sense. I would say that Japan an Germany were no more true allies than OBL and Saddam. I know I know, Hitler declared war on the US after PH but it was only because he wanted an excuse to send U boats to the East coast to further cut off supplies to the UK. Germany and Japan cooperated during WWII no more than Saddam and OBL did.

We invade and occupy Iraq, while haveing the gall to lecture to Iran and Syria about staying out of Iraq. We conduct ourselves as though we own the world.

What would you have us do? Like or not the US is an empire, like the UK was and Rome was, and while these empires may do things that are a bit immoral, and strut around like they own the joint they often are responsible for more good than bad. Look what happened when Rome fell, the dark ages. Would you rather live during the Roman empire or the dark ages? When the UKs power was in decline and the great depression leveled the playing field ambitious dictators sprung up everywhere WWII occurred. As annoying as superpowers may be they keep the world in relative peace. As empires go you would be hard pressed to find one that is more generous and benevolent than the United States. Not to say we are without flaws, but really the things you are complaining about are pretty minor when compared to every other empire in history

I don't believe that our interests are served by these policies.

What do you think our interests are, because I see these actions as doing just that, and in so doing preventing another large scale war a la WWII.

Fun fact: I live in Iowa City, Iowa and during the floods this summer we deployed more sand bags than were deployed during all of Katrina and set a National record, mostly all of it was from volunteers it was an amazing thing to see. This is off topic but I believe that there is a culture of victimhood that certain news agencies, politicians and political movements fuel that contributes more to tragedies like Katrina than did George Bush.

Let's get real here. Don;t fall for the lie that "everyone knew Iraq had WMD". That has long been debunked and many times over. If if Russia, France and Germany thought Iraq was a threat, they would have acknowledged it by voting to attack Iraq.

You're wrong. Everyone’s intelligence did not say the same thing. Wll you heard was what we were saying.

And even they were benefiting financially from Saddam’s current Iraq, then that debunks your claim that they cionsidered him a threat. No one trades with someone they fear is abotu to attack them.

I never remember anybody saying that Saddam had anything to do with 911.

Let me remind you. Dick Cheney on meet the press in November of 2002. He said that by attacking Iraq, we were striking at the the geographic heart of those that attacked us on 911.

And please, stop pretending that Bush did not use 911 every step of the way to link Saddam to the attacks. Are you forgetting the supopsed links to Attah and Iraq intelligence agencies?

The truth is they had a common enemy, the West and in particular the US.

That reveals a gross misunderstanding as thought he West is the only player in town. Iraq and AQ were enemies of each other.

I am gald you are at least prepared to admit that the US is an empire, ot at least, behaving like. Of course, as we saw with the Roman and British example, Empires are brutal, ruthless and self serving. They are greedy and viracious in their appetite for power and control. Sadly, empires all fail and we are seeing that today.

As for your valiant efforts in Iowa, I applaud you guys. In fact, it represents a very good example of how we need to take back this country and reassert our own responsibility. It wasn't the Fed's that came to your rescue, it was your own community. It is you that decides your livelyhood and your future, so why leave the descisions as to who is your enemy to them?

You're wrong. Everyone’s intelligence did not say the same thing. Wll you heard was what we were saying.

Where is your evidence? I remember watching the UN deliberations and I remember the argument being over what to do about Saddam, not whether he was dangerous.

Let me remind you. Dick Cheney on meet the press in November of 2002. He said that by attacking Iraq, we were striking at the the geographic heart of those that attacked us on 911.

That is not entirely untrue, Iraq is the geographic heart of those who attacked us. Iraq is smack-dab in the middle of the ME in between Saudi Arabia an Afghanistan. What he said was correct, how others (the news) misinterpret his statement is not his fault. Also, there were many cases for war that I thought more compelling than AQ or democracy, I think that the violations of UN resolutions such as building ballistic missiles that were over the limits set by the UN was reason enough. The Nazis and the Japanese did the same thing, in the 1930s building ships that were over the limits by the treaty of Versailles, nobody did anything. Resolutions are useless if not strictly enforced.

Iraq and AQ were enemies of each other.

Please, I’ve heard this over and over, but the only evidence is that they claimed to have hated each other. What wars have they fought against each other? AQ was not affected one bit by Saddam. If Saddam hated AQ so much why didn’t Iraq ask to join us in Afghanistan to take them out? Look, groups that hate each other often band together against a common enemy. Examples: USSR helping UK and USA against the Nazis; Nazis (hated other races and Catholics) allied with Catholic Italy and non-white Japan in WWII. Whether someone says the “hate” someone is of no consequence when a more hated common enemy exists.

Empires are brutal, ruthless and self serving. They are greedy and viracious in their appetite for power and control. Sadly, empires all fail and we are seeing that today.

Well, everything has a lifespan empire or not. I have no problem with being an empire. You focus on all that is bad about an empire but ignore the enormous good. Look how much aid our “evil” empire spreads around the world. I am an immunologist and I would hate to think about what would be going on in Africa now in terms of AIDS if there was no “evil” USA around and it was left up to everyone else. Our empire does enormous good, as I said you would be hard pressed to find a more benevolent empire. Sure, we are far from perfect and I am not suggesting we are flawless by any means, but if the US were to not exist tomorrow, the world gets a lot more “brutal, ruthless and self serving”. Like I said, Rome was pretty ruthless, but when it fell the dark ages insured, backwards, ruthless, brutal and disgusting. I chose Rome any day over that.

As for your valiant efforts in Iowa, I applaud you guys. In fact, it represents a very good example of how we need to take back this country and reassert our own responsibility. It wasn't the Fed's that came to your rescue, it was your own community.

Thanks friend! Well, we do agree on something, how about that!

It is you that decides your livelyhood and your future…

Especially this part.

I don’t let the Fed tell me who my enemies are, I can accept that I may be wrong but I do think for myself as I am sure you do (I could turn it around and say don’t let Amy Goodman and college professors tell you who your enemies are either, but I trust you come to your own conclusions).

I remember watching the UN deliberations and I remember the argument being over what to do about Saddam, not whether he was dangerous.

Did you watch the testimony by Al Baradei and and Hans Blix that contradicted everything Powell said?

That is not entirely untrue, Iraq is the geographic heart of those who attacked us. Iraq is smack-dab in the middle of the ME in between Saudi Arabia an Afghanistan.

He said that sticking at the geographic center of Iraq, we were striking at the heart of the people that attacked us. To this day, Cheney still refutes there is no link between Iraq and the 911 attacks.

If Saddam hated AQ so much why didn’t Iraq ask to join us in Afghanistan to take them out?

Cuba offered to help out aftered Katrina and we rejected the offer. After the 911 attacks, 1 milllion Iranians took to the streets in sympathy, yet we still regard them as ouyr number one enemy.

Whether someone says the “hate” someone is of no consequence when a more hated common enemy exists.

But that is not the case. Bin Laden's greatest enemy is not the US, but governments in the ME he regards as tyrants. According to CIA counter terrorism specialist who was head of the Bin Laden unit, he attacked the US not becasue we are his greatest enemy, but because we support his enemies.

In the case of Saddam however, he made no threats towards the US and posed no threat.

I would hate to think about what would be going on in Africa now in terms of AIDS if there was no “evil” USA around and it was left up to everyone else.

What the US provides the world has nothign to do with whether or not it is an empire.

As for the AID's case,. the nett benefit is in serous doubt. US drug companies have threatened to sue governments in teh US who were trying to duplicate drugs made by US pharmaceutical companies that African countries could not afford. Also, there is the case of Bayer and how they deliberately sold AIDS infected blood products to Europe and Asia, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds.

Did you watch the testimony by Al Baradei and and Hans Blix that contradicted everything Powell said?

This doesn't sound to contradictory, Blix in an interview with Ray Surez of PBS Lerher News hour.

HANS BLIX: Oh, yes. They give a good deal of information about the... especially the missile program, which is permissible up to missiles of a range of 150 kilometers. And there are various questions that arise in this context. But the more disturbing, I think, is that on the chemical weapons program and the biological weapons program, we have not received the assurance -- above all not the evidence -- to allow us to rule out that they still keep weapons of this kind.

HANS BLIX: That's right. And they have not changed their position. They say there was nothing left, and they still continue to say that. So it's not surprising that there is no new... nothing new on that score. However, what we need is evidence. The U.S. and the U.K. say that they have evidence that the Iraqis retain weapons of this kind. We do not have such evidence here, but at the same time, we do not have the evidence from Iraq that they have finished it. And hence, our conclusion is that one cannot have the confidence that the weapons are gone.

RAY SUAREZ: So the burden of proof is on Iraq. It's not just a question of merely opening gates and doors to your men and women, but doing something more?

HANS BLIX: Yes. The burden of proof is on them, if they want to create confidence that they do not have any weapons of mass destruction left; the burden of proof is not on us to run around in every house in Iraq to search for it. We do go around and we check into industries, chemical industries, for instance, or pharmaceutical industries, into military installations. And so we can check a good deal. But you cannot check in every nook and corner of a large country. Above all, there's difficulty of course in finding things underground or anything that is mobile.

Cheney still refutes there is no link between Iraq and the 911 attacks.

Well hell, maybe he is right, I mean there is no evidence that there was a link but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Bin Laden's greatest enemy is not the US, but governments in the ME he regards as tyrants. According to CIA counter terrorism specialist who was head of the Bin Laden unit, he attacked the US not becasue we are his greatest enemy, but because we support his enemies.

Come on, you actually believe this!!? I like you Neo but this is impossible to believe, why not cut out the middle man and attack those ME govenments that he hates? Why not fly five 757s into a few Saudi Palaces? Again it is all talk, no action. The only action has been against us.

What the US provides the world has nothign to do with whether or not it is an empire.

That wansn't my point. we both agree the US is an empire or at least a sort of quasi-empire. I was pointing out that we do an enormous amount of good around the world, where as you only focus on our suppossed tyranny.

Reagardless of what you say, the US and in particular the Bush administration has done wonders for AIDS in Africa and at home. I suggest you read some of Tony Fauci work (he was studying AIDS before we knew it was caused by HIV and is the leading expert in the field) He gave a great talk here U of Iowa last year, here is a quote from a recent talk. He does research at the NIH which is a government entity (Bayer is not) and is funded by our "evil" empire.

Fauci pointed to the success of programs like the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in delivering AIDS drugs to Africa. “The conventional thinking was that it cost too much and they could never have them delivered in rural settings to people who need them,” he said.

You focus on a private company and not the activities of our actual government which no one can deny has been making huge strides in HIV/AIDS. Even Obama acknoledged the great work by GWB in fighting AIDS in an interview I saw just a few days ago. Obama started it by "I typically don't have a lot of praise for our president, but..." It was actually quite touching and it is nice that someone acknowledges the commitment GWB made to fight HIV/AIDS

Come on, you actually believe this!!? I like you Neo but this is impossible to believe, why not cut out the middle man and attack those ME govenments that he hates?

This is according to Michael Sheur, head of the Bin Laden unit at the CIA for over a decade. He has attacked the governments he hates.

You focus on a private company and not the activities of our actual government which no one can deny has been making huge strides in HIV/AIDS.

That's fair enough, but I go back to my point that being an empire in itself is not what enables the US to produce products and innovations that help others. And given the US government's disturbing and unhealthy relationship with these private companies, you can't merely seperate one from the other.

Getting back to the Bayer case, not one employess from Bayer in the US has been investigated or faced any legal consequences, while 5 managers/CEO's in Europe were imprisoned.

He has attacked the governments he hates.

Who? The only thing I remember are some weak and small scale attacks on the Saudis that failed. All the big ones have been against the US and Western Democracies. Likewise, I don't see a lot of help from these suppossed enemies of AQ, with the exception of the NA in Afganistan. The Saudis only when they were the target.

That's fair enough, but I go back to my point that being an empire in itself is not what enables the US to produce products and innovations that help others.

This is where I completely disagree with you. Most of the general research that results in finding that make antiviral drugs and vaccines are funded by the NIH (tax money) and private institutes (private companies and donations). This is directly related to being a world superpower. But, more importantly, our ablitity to distribute drug and implement treatments is related to our being an empire. This fact has become so obvious that when any world health crisis occurrs it is expected that we are the first ones there (many times, the only ones there) and it is expected that we solve the problem. What I was trying to get across to you, is this: what if the US stopped being an empire, we stopped meddling in everyones affairs but we remained a rich and powerful country, but in ceasing our meddling we also stopped providing aid to others that suffer disasters (AIDS in Africa, Tsunamis in Indonesia, genocides in Kosovo) would that world be better in your eyes? You may say that we can stop meddling but still provide aid, well yes but then we are esentailly acting as wellfare for the rest of the world with no benifit to our own. By being an empire or the leading superpower we are able (and expected) to help the rest of the world with its probelms, while also dealing with our own. I would argue that the time since WWII has been relatively peaceful, maybe even the most peaceful in history. Sure there have been many small conflicts but not huge devistating ones. Veitam was the worst but not even that was even close to as bad as WWI, WWII, Nepoleonic Wars, Crusades, 100 years war, the devistation that the Mongols unleashed on Asia and Europe, the list goes on and on. Human history has been just one bloody fight after another, and it is only relatively peaceful when a large and powerful superpower or empire exists. When there is parity is when things get particularly bloody.

Sorry, that was a little long winded. You bring up some good points Neo, I don't want you to think I disregard everything you write here, and I want to say I enjoy reading your responses, I appreciate that while we disagree on many things we can have a civil conversation.