I certanly agree with Hitchens that South Ossetia isn't Kosovo -- I spent some time there, too -- but in all honesty we have to admit that the Serbs have a theoretical point: de jure, Kosovo was an autonomous province within the Socialist Republic of Serbia.

Whether Ossetia is Kozovo or not is beside the point. This will never suffice as a yardstick in determining the legitimacy of claims for cessation and independence.

What is the point is that this crisis is just the latest example of the hypocrisy, inconsistency, and cynicism of US foreign policy - not to mention it's indifferent to democray and human rights.

What hypocrisy and inconsistency?

The US consistently helps those that are proven friends and allies and fights those who are not (not always militarily). You are getting hung up on words like "democracy". Sure Democracies tend to be friendlier but it is not a prerequisite for friend status. The USSR was our friend against the Nazis, then they were our enemies. Was that inconsistent, hypocritical? Of course not. You are getting hung up some weird sense of global morality. There is no Good and Evil like in Star Wars, just shades of gray. We are all bad, some are just worse than others. Georgia may be bad, but Russia is worse it is that simple. USA is bad, but Imperial Japan was worse. USSR was bad, but Nazi Germany was a tiny bit worse and so on.

What hypocrisy and inconsistency?

This is not about morality, much as we like to pretend it is. It's about the fact that our government routinely shifts the goal posts and it's policies whenever it suits.

I agree things are not that simple, but the simplistic notion that Georgia may be bad, but Russia is worse, is purely based on the fact that Georgia is our ally and Russia is not. Georgia attacked, Russia responded. Simple. Yet our media and our government is trying to make out that we have plucky little Georgia taking on the big bully, Russia, so it's all Russia's fault.

Had Georgia not invaded SO and killed Russian peace keepers, there would have been no conflict. Simple.

Your yardsticks are arbitrary and flawed.

What yardsticks???

You said it yourself.

"...Georgia may be bad, but Russia is worse, is purely based on the fact that Georgia is our ally and Russia is not."

That is good enough for me and it was good enough during WWII as well. It makes absolutlely no sense to support an enemy and condemn a proven ally. Besides, plucky little Georgia is taking on big bully Russia. SO is still Georgian territory regardless of whether some of its people are Russian sympathizers. How sure are you that this ploy by Russia isn't simmilar to what the Nazis pulled in sudetenland?

"In the summer of 1938, the Nazis had an experienced political and paramilitary organization set up to ferment pro-Nazi dissent and smash their opposition. Nazi sympathizers, Czech and German, began to enter Czechoslovakia and the Sudatenland to fight with Communists, Social Democrats, and Socialists, their traditional enemies, and to focus attention on the supposed plight of the ethnic Germans."

<link>)

But I really don’t care whose fault it is (talk about arbitrary!), I care who our friends are. No one is innocent here, like I said before, you are looking for fault and no fault and good versus evil, victim and aggressor and these terms are largely phantoms. Who is “good” and “evil” is always a matter of perspective.

So what you are saying is that your perception of good and bad is purely based on us and them. In other words, by definition, anything we do is acceptable and anything they do is not which contradicts your position that we are all good and bad.

You are falling prey to the right wing black and white world where our enemies are incapable of doing anything right and we cannot fail. Don't you see the problem with this? Do you think Germany thought there was anything wrong with their position in 1940? How are we to resolve any conflict with this childish position? Haven't we moved past that?

SO is Georgian territory the same way that Kosovo was part of Serbia. That is beside the point. They don't want to be and given the precendet set down by western support for Kosovo's cessation, SO is just as entitled to it's independence.

How sure are you that this ploy by Russia isn't simmilar to what the Nazis pulled in sudetenland?

Are you suggesting that Russians set this up and had Russian secret agents kill Russian peace keepers? It's possible sure, just like it is possible our own government carried out 911, but what evidence do you have?

But I really don’t care whose fault it is (talk about arbitrary!), I care who our friends are.

So in essence what you are admitting, is that you don't care what the facts are and that you are not interested in learning from our mistakes. Fair enough, but don't complain when your logic falls apart.

"So what you are saying is that your perception of good and bad is purely based on us and them."

Exactly! Hasn't it always been us versus them, really. Rome vs. Carthage. Persia vs Greece. Japan vs China. Rome vs the Huns. Israel vs. Palastine. Earth vs Mars. It is always us versus them.

"You are falling prey to the right wing black and whiteworld where our enemies are incapable of doing anything right and we cannot fail."

I'm not saying that at all. I could turn it around and say that you are doing the same thing, "the US and its allies can do nothing right and will always fail" Still black and white but left wing black and white. My poiunt is that there rarely is black and white, good and evil but when it comes to human conflict everyone picks a side and that always is black and white. Our conversation here proves that.

Don't you see the problem with this? Do you think Germany thought there was anything wrong with their position in 1940? How are we to resolve any conflict with this childish position? Haven't we moved past that?"

Sure, that is my point too. There is a huge problem with this but that is the way it is. Was Japan's position much worse than ours in the 1930s? We both wanted power over the Pacific. The killed many in China in other places, we firebombed Tokyo relentlessly and dropped two nukes. We were bad, they were worse.

"Are you suggesting that Russians set this up and had Russian secret agents kill Russian peace keepers? It's possible sure, just like it is possible our own government carried out 911, but what evidence do you have?"

Well, I have no evidence of course but it has president ie. Sudetenland and you would have to admit it is much more feasible (not to mention much more practical) than staging 911.

So in essence what you are admitting, is that you don't care what the facts are and that you are not interested in learning from our mistakes.

Hardly! I am always interested in learning from our mistakes. The facts that I am looking at is that Georgia has help us in Iraq where as Russia has done just the opposite. Russia is obviously trying to expand ther power in the region and Georgia (and Ukraine) would be good allies to have up against their border a la West Germany. Georgia is not going to challenge the US as a superpower, Russia has and will. As in WWII, USSR was dangerous but Germany was more dangerous therefore USSR was an ally based on a common enemy and their geographic location, it mattered not that they were also nasty guys. Would you argue that our alliance with Stalin was a mistake? Our allies do not need to be Saints, it is better that they share common goals, enemies and are loyal.

Exactly! Hasn't it always been us versus them, really.

Does it have to be? As far as I'm concerned, this staus quo is like religion. A means to contro the masses. After all, it was us vs them with Japan and Germany, so why is it not now? Does the fadct that we are now close allies with these countries not highlight the futility of this reptilian mindset?

As for Iraq, it could be argued that Russia was doing us a favor. After all, should you follow your friend into a minefield or suggest they take a different approach. Had we listened to Russia, 4000 Americans would still be alive and we'd have 3 trillion less to pay back.

I don't believe Russia is trying to "expand" their power in the region as opposed to halting what they consider provocation and a threat to their interests. Do you agree or do you not agree that Russia, as a military and economic power, has legitimate interests as to what takes place along it's borders? Why is it that the US can assert it's right to protect it's interests on the other side of the world, yet Russia is accused of a power grab when stands it's ground?

As far as Russia being an enemy is concerned, this to is just politics. In case you forgot, Russia was our darling while Yeltsin was in power, because we had our way with them. Even Putin was OK in our books right up until the moment he put an end to his country being looted, then overnight, it was the cold war all over again. The same thing with Venezuela. Chavez is a pussycat compared to Saakasvilli, yet he's considered a dictator while Saakasvilli is the beacon of democracy in the Caucuses.

Surely you can see the pattern here?

Surely you are not that blind.

Well, I am referring to the royal, the editorial “us” and “them”. It doesn’t just mean the US and someone else. But yes it does have to be that way, no amount of intellectualism will change that, it is human nature, there are only friends and enemies. Let me put it to you this way, are their any current members of the Bush administration that you see as “friends”? Would you support any of them? Your politics are as black and white as anyones. As for Germany and Japan, yeah they are good friends now because their system of government is vastly different than it was when we were enemies, they may as well be different countries now, if they still had those old governments in place we would not be friends. Are you trying to say that reptiles are intelligent or that I am dumb? Reptiles have survived on this earth longer than we have (they’ll definitely out last us too) so I’ll take it as a complement. With Iraq Russia, France and Germany most certainly did not do us a favor. If we had their full support the invasion may not have been necessary and if we did invade extra troops from three powerful nations would have undoubtedly reduced casualties, and ended this war much sooner. As with Russia and SO, the problem is that their interests you speak of are located in another nation and of course they are expanding their power (that is what protecting their interests is), are you that blind. I don’t know why you think that we should have a “once our enemy, always our enemy” mindset. Russia is just a piece of land, it the actions of their people and government that makes them friend or foe. Yeltsin represented a change in Russia that we wanted to see, a Russia that was friendlier with the West. Chavez has publicly stated that he is an enemy of the US and I think that we should take him seriously, no matter what a pussycat he may seem. Chavez is also a filthy communist (anyone who would advocate that oppressive and broken system of government deserves to be a default enemy). (that last line was just a bit of fun, so don’t get too upset… Communism does suck though).

I don't let other people, nor our government decide who should or shold not be my enemy.

It's true that I don't agree with the policies of the members of the Bush administration, but that's not so say I personally despise them. In fact, I think Condi is charming and a real asset politically. There are a number of Republicans who I agree with and respect.

So you see, there are many grey areas.

My reference to reptilian way of thinking was no blight on your intelligence, but of our most basic and primitive instincts that respond to fear stilumulus. We all have it, but I believe that with a little self awareness, we can overcome it.

How can you possibly suggest that the invasion of Iraq could have been averted, when the Bush administration had very clear goals. Regime change. The installaiton fo miltayr bases. Control of Iraq's oil. None of these could have been achived otherwise.

Expanding power and neutralising threats are not synonimous, unless of course, you accept that Israel simply wants to bomb Iran to expand it;'s power. Surely you can see the difference?

Sadly you are right. Yeltsin did represent what we like to see in other countries. He was drunk 100% of the time and while he was in that state, the country fell to it's knees and was looted of it's wealth. It's interesting that when leaders are popular with their own people, they are usually unpopular internationally and visa versa. Putin has a popularity rating that Bush has never enjoyed, while Yeltsin was despised back home but loved by us.

Think about it. Bush liked Putin (after looking into his eyes) until the moment Putin clamped down on the Oligarchs , captured Khordokovsky and re nationalised Russia's energy reserves. Overnight, the narrative shifted to demiocracy in Russia being under threat and Putin becomming Stalin incarnate.

In Venezuela. Chavez nationalised the oil assets and we started labelling him a dictator. Chavez has never said he was an enemy fo the US. In fact, he has offered cheap heating oil to Americans who could not afford it. Mind you, you could hardly blame him for having a grudge over the fact that ouor government sponsored the failed miltary coup against him in 2003. Putin is supposed to get over the fact that we have missiles pointed at him and Chavez should get over the fact we tried to remoive him from power - their inability to get over it is proof they are our enemies.

How childish and basic is that?

In Iran (1953) Mossadegh went from ally to enemy when he naitonalised Iran's oil assets and we got rid of him.

Yet, we loved the Shah. We loved Yelstsin. Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

How is Chavz a communist, when Venezuela is a recognised democracy? Don't tell me, Hitler was democratiutcally elected too right? And while ourr country stands tha the point of economic disaster, it's pretty rich to be pointing fingers at other states for their failures.

Seriously, I know it's hard for many of us here in the US to appreciate how far to the right this country has moved, unless you travel a lot, but the fact remains that we are the most militaristic country in the world. We have invaded and meddled with other countries on over 70 occasions since WWII. In other words, this country has effectively been in a permanent state of war.

The most distrubing part of it is our lack of self awareness. Condi get's away with saying (in reference to Russia's reposnse to Georgia) "That's not the way to deal in the 21st century" McCain and Bush say the same thing and half this country doesn't even get the irony.

I like Condi too. I was hoping for a Condi vs Hillary GE in 2009. Condi vs Obama wouold have been cool too.

Bush administration had very clear goals. Regime change. The installaiton fo miltayr bases. Control of Iraq's oil. None of these could have been achived otherwise.

All of these were clear goals? I remember that the goals brought to the UN was to get Saddam to comply with UN resolutions. Nevertheless, if we had French, Russian and German troops and the full endorsement of the invasion and most importantly, the post invasion would have been better, a real "surge" when we most needed it.

Chavez nationalised the oil assets and we started labelling him a dictator. Chavez has never said he was an enemy fo the US. In fact, he has offered cheap heating oil to Americans who could not afford it.

Come on, seriously. The heating oil thing was an obvious PR move, and he knew that we would never take him up on it. I have to admit, it was a genious move by him though.

How is Chavz a communist, when Venezuela is a recognised democracy?

That is hilarious! Maybe you heard of the Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004? Jimmy Carter was involved in that mess too (suprize). Jimmy Carter is a Communist too. To me it looked like he lost 58 to 42 but he is still in power.

In other words, this country has effectively been in a permanent state of war.

The world is always in a perminant state of war, and always will be regardless of whether the US is in power.

The most distrubing part of it is our lack of self awareness.

We all get the irony, but Americans LOVE irony!

By the way, you commentened on the how much the country has gone to the right, and I diasgree. I know you probably think I'm a conservative loon but I'm not all that conservative. I'm a scientist that can't stand religion of any kind, I'm pro gay rights, pro choice etc. So I bet that we agree on more than you think. I live near and work on a college campus so everyone is a lefty, and let me tell you, sadly there is no place on Earth were fewer people think for themselves than on college campuses in the US. No wonder they want young people to vote more. Anyways, because everyone is a lefty I instictively start leaning a little more right, when I'm back home in northern Califoria (the foothills were there are still a lot of rightys) I lean more left. That being said, my main loves are Capitalism and Nationalism so that is where I am coming from in most of these posts. Also, you leftys dominate Slate and the Fray too, and with the exception of Greenwich and a few others (I disregard the crazy ones, I'll give it to your side, you definately have less crazies...I blame religion) there are few to oppose here. Just doing my part :)

I remember that the goals brought to the UN was to get Saddam to comply with UN resolutions.

We both know that talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. The first thing that the US did when they invaded Iraq was secure the oil ministry. The first construction projects (and the only ones that are being finished) have been the massive ambassy and the military base. The same year that Bush 41 helped draft the UN resolutions, he stated that even if Saddam complied, the sanctions would remain as long as he was in power.

None of these actions or policies were mentioned in the UN resolutions.

Maybe you heard of the Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004?

The referendum related to the expanding his constitutional powers. It wasn't a general election. He accepted the outcome.

The world is always in a perminant state of war, and always will be regardless of whether the US is in power.

That's ridiculous. The US has been involved in 70 wars, interventions (military and otherwise), government overthrows and other clandestine activities in 35 countries since WWII. No other country, including the Soviet Union comes close. Not by a long shot.

We all get the irony, but Americans LOVE irony!

Sorry. I cal tell you from experience, that no one west of NY get;s irony.

I don't think you're a conservative loon but I'm not all that conservative. But when someone like Joe Lieberman, who is pro war at every turn, is regarded as a moderate, that speaks volumes.

The first thing that the US did when they invaded Iraq was secure the oil ministry. The first construction projects (and the only ones that are being finished) have been the massive ambassy and the military base.

Those actions just make sense, regardless of the rationale to invade. Bases and embassies are needed to prvide stability and relations and oil is Iraqs number one asset. If we were to do none of these things and para millitary groups or forgien fighters would have devistated Iraq's capacity for oil, I sure you would be the first to point out the incompetence of our actions, leaving Iraq's main resource unprotected. Those actions do not prove the rationale for war.

The referendum related to the expanding his constitutional powers. It wasn't a general election. He accepted the outcome.

Hell, he accepted the outcome because the outcome was in his favor! However, there are many cases for fraud and that is why I made the comment that he is still in power. Would he of accepted the outcome if he had lost? Of course not, neither would have Lenin.

“Other critics, including economists Ricardo Hausmann of Harvard and Roberto Rigobon of MIT, called the results fraudulent, alleging there were "very clear trails of fraud in the statistical record" and alleged electronic voting machines had been reconfigured to allow results to be altered remotely "Massive fraud" was alleged.”

Sorry. I cal tell you from experience, that no one west of NY get;s irony.

New Yorkers are the only one's that have the mental capacity to appreciate irony huh? OK. I though it was only the Canadians who don't understand irony. Well, have it your way, but I'll tell you from experience, there are some very bright people out here in the Mid West. I'm from California and when I move out here I though simmilarly to you, I was dead wrong.

Those actions do not prove the rationale for war.

Yes you can present the actions to support both arguments I agree, so let's cut to the document that lays it all out. the Project for New American Century, which argues that the US has to seize this moment in history as to assert it's dominance and prevent any other rival from challenging that status.

Iraq was the first stage of many to seize control of the world's resources and geopolitical key locations.

Hell, he accepted the outcome because the outcome was in his favor!

AS you pointed out, he lost the referendum, so how could it have been in his favor? So he lost the vote on that referendum and he accepted it.

There were many cases for fraud in our 2000 and 2004 generla elections. Does that make our governmenent illegitimate or a tyraany?

Remember that in 2003, during the military coup that we suported against him, it was the people of Venezuela who came out and demended he be returned to power. Sine when has that ever happened to a dicatator?

And speaking of fraud with electronic voting machines, do you really want to go there?

I don't dispute that there are some very bright people out there in the Mid Westm and I include you as one of them. I'm from California also.

Sorry Neo, I was incorrect in one of my responses regarding the Chavez Referendum. I had commented that he lost 58 to 42 or something like that. I read the article wrong, the referendum was in his favor, and opposition leaders claimed these numbers fraudulent. I apologized for the mistake.

There were many cases for fraud in our 2000 and 2004 generla elections. Does that make our governmenent illegitimate or a tyraany?

Agreed. Good point. But… I’ll say that I trust Hugo’s government about as much as you trust ours!

Remember that in 2003, during the military coup that we suported against him, it was the people of Venezuela who came out and demended he be returned to power. Sine when has that ever happened to a dicatator?

This one is funny. I admit that I don’t know my history of failed coups but I’d imagine that if the same thing happened to Hitler in 1936 that the German people would have also demanded that he be placed back in power. Not all dictators are hated at first, usually they are pretty well loved in the beginning.