Geoffrey Wheatcroft: Why are we pretending we would fight for Georgia?

Messrs Miliband and Cameron want Georgia to join Nato. Such thinking is
muddled, dangerous and defies the lessons of history

Sunday, 17 August 2008

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/geoffrey-wheatcroft-why-are-we-pretending-we-would-fight-for-georgia-899618.html
http://tinyurl.com/5fmn3z

Hard on the heels of Nicolas Sarkozy and Condoleezza Rice, and keen to share
their limelight, David Cameron arrived in Tbilisi yesterday. His visit is a
reward to the Leader of the Opposition for having expressed even more
bellicose views on the Georgian crisis than the Americans, which should
sound loud alarm bells for those of us who may quite soon be living under a
Tory government.

In the official view of Washington, the expansion of Nato up to the borders
of Russia was a benevolent spreading of democracy. "It is the right of the
Georgian people and Georgian government to determine their own security
orientation," says Kurt Volker, principal deputy assistant secretary of
state, and Matthew Bryza, the American special envoy, adds that Russia
would not have attacked Georgia if she had already belonged to Nato.

While Gordon Brown and David Miliband merely mouthed empty platitudes about
the crisis (although Miliband has been sympathetic to Georgia's Nato
aspirations in the past), Cameron went startlingly further when he said
that its membership of Nato should be accelerated. His words so excited the
Georgians that they asked him to meet their ambassador in London on
Wednesday, and then fly out for his Caucasian photo-op.

No doubt this crisis has illustrated Russian ruthlessness and brutality, but
then, as the Chechens might say, we knew that already. It has also exposed
the severe limits of US power. Although George Bush, Dick Cheney and
sabre-rattling pundits have screeched defiance at Russia, they are bereft
of any practical response. Removing the Winter Olympics from Sochi doesn't
sound like the ultimate deterrent.

But above all, the crisis has highlighted the incoherence of Western policy
since the Cold War ended – and belatedly raised the question of just what
purpose Nato now serves. This is something an intelligent opposition should
be discussing.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was created in 1949 as a "one for all
and all for one" mutual defence alliance between west European countries,
of which Great Britain was then militarily much the most important, and the
United States, guarding Europe against Soviet aggression. By the terms of
the treaty, "an armed attack on any member in Europe or North America shall
be considered an attack against them all and ... if such an armed attack
occurs, each of them ... will assist the party or parties so attacked by
taking forthwith... such action as it deems necessary, including the use of
armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic
area."

That object met with total success. Forty years later, the Berlin Wall fell,
Soviet Russia began to implode, and its empire soon fell apart. This left
Nato without an obvious role, and it might logically have been wound up.
Instead, it evolved, almost without anyone's noticing, into an arm of US
policy – and an outlet for Tony Blair's zealous "humanitarian
interventionism".

In the spring of 1999, he mawkishly extolled Nato's bombing of Serbia: "No
one in the West who has seen what is happening in Kosovo can doubt that
Nato's military action is justified... [You need only ask] anyone who has
seen the tear-stained faces of the hundreds of thousands of refugees
streaming across the border, heard their heart-rending tales of cruelty."

But even if Blair had been correct to say that misrule in distant countries
justified armed intervention – an alarmingly open-ended principle which has
since helped take us into the Iraq disaster – what had it to do with Nato?
How did those tear-stained faces become "an armed attack on any member"?
And by what geographical conjuring trick did Afghanistan, more recently,
become part of "the North Atlantic area" to require a Nato operation there?

Before then the acutely dangerous policy of enlarging Nato had already
begun, partly for the most frivolous of reasons. Bill Clinton
ingratiatingly promised a Polish-American audience in Chicago that Poland
would join, yet another example of the baleful influence of "hyphenated"
American domestic politics on foreign policy.

And so, in this heedless way, Nato was expanded to include not only the
former Warsaw Pact countries Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria, but the Baltic
states that were part of the Soviet Union only 20 years ago. One didn't
have to be a Russian nationalist to see this as deliberate provocation of
an angry and wounded country. With all its brutality, Russia has legitimate
security concerns and national interests. When Georgian membership of Nato
is flaunted, one wonders what the US reaction would have been if Leonid
Brezhnev had invited Mexico to join the Warsaw Pact. Russian policy may
sometimes have a paranoid tinge but, as the saying goes, paranoiacs have
enemies, too.

No one stopped to point out that, if the fundamental Nato principle applied,
an irredentist border dispute between Latvia and Russia should have become
an armed conflict fought by Nato, which was plainly absurd. Bryza's claim
that Russia would have been deterred if Georgia had already belonged to
Nato is mercifully theoretical but highly questionable. And does Cameron
really want what's left of our depleted army sent to the Caucasus to fight
Russia?

It remained for a former Tory foreign secretary to dash a little cold water
of sanity on these overheated effusions. On Friday Sir Malcolm Rifkind
chided the folly of making threats about the use of force when these are
obviously not going to be carried out. And the day before he had said, "I
think people in both the United States and in the United Kingdom and
elsewhere in western Europe will have to ask very clearly how important is
Georgia to them.

"There was a lot of talk about how Georgia should join Nato and if only
Georgia was a member of Nato this wouldn't have happened, and so forth. I
think that is frankly totally unconvincing." The truth is surely as Sir
Malcolm says: "The United States, Britain, France and Germany are not going
to go to war with Russia over South Ossetia, however sympathetic to the
people of Georgia we are.

"We are sympathetic to Tibet, we are sympathetic to Zimbabwe, but we don't
contemplate military solutions to these problems. So Nato membership is not
the answer." Is it too late for our politicians to learn again that kind of
plain speaking and common sense?

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

Robin T Cox  wrote in
news:pzSpk.43866$E41.1608@text.news.virginmedia.com: 

[2 posts snipped and merged]
>> Russia has called our bluff over countries we can't defend
>> 
>>     * Neal Ascherson
>>     * The Observer,
>>     * Sunday August 17 2008
>> 
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/17/georgia.russia

> Geoffrey Wheatcroft: Why are we pretending we would fight for Georgia?
> 
> Sunday, 17 August 2008
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/5fmn3z 

Thanks for posting these two pieces, Robin.  They are the first sensible 
things I have heard said on the the subject in the mainstream media.

Such a shame that none of our politicians seem remotely capable of thinking 
so clearly.  

All the best,

John.

"Robin T Cox"  wrote in message 
news:pzSpk.43866$E41.1608@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> Geoffrey Wheatcroft: Why are we pretending we would fight for Georgia?
>
> Messrs Miliband and Cameron want Georgia to join Nato. Such thinking is
> muddled, dangerous and defies the lessons of history
>
> Sunday, 17 August 2008
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/geoffrey-wheatcroft-why-are-we-pretending-we-would-fight-for-georgia-899618.html
> http://tinyurl.com/5fmn3z
>
> Hard on the heels of Nicolas Sarkozy and Condoleezza Rice, and keen to 
> share
> their limelight, David Cameron arrived in Tbilisi yesterday. His visit is 
> a
> reward to the Leader of the Opposition for having expressed even more
> bellicose views on the Georgian crisis than the Americans, which should
> sound loud alarm bells for those of us who may quite soon be living under 
> a
> Tory government.
>
> In the official view of Washington, the expansion of Nato up to the 
> borders
> of Russia was a benevolent spreading of democracy. "It is the right of the
> Georgian people and Georgian government to determine their own security
> orientation," says Kurt Volker, principal deputy assistant secretary of
> state, and Matthew Bryza, the American special envoy, adds that Russia
> would not have attacked Georgia if she had already belonged to Nato.
>
> While Gordon Brown and David Miliband merely mouthed empty platitudes 
> about
> the crisis (although Miliband has been sympathetic to Georgia's Nato
> aspirations in the past), Cameron went startlingly further when he said
> that its membership of Nato should be accelerated. His words so excited 
> the
> Georgians that they asked him to meet their ambassador in London on
> Wednesday, and then fly out for his Caucasian photo-op.
>
> No doubt this crisis has illustrated Russian ruthlessness and brutality, 
> but
> then, as the Chechens might say, we knew that already. It has also exposed
> the severe limits of US power. Although George Bush, Dick Cheney and
> sabre-rattling pundits have screeched defiance at Russia, they are bereft
> of any practical response. Removing the Winter Olympics from Sochi doesn't
> sound like the ultimate deterrent.
>
> But above all, the crisis has highlighted the incoherence of Western 
> policy
> since the Cold War ended - and belatedly raised the question of just what
> purpose Nato now serves. This is something an intelligent opposition 
> should
> be discussing.
>
> The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was created in 1949 as a "one for 
> all
> and all for one" mutual defence alliance between west European countries,
> of which Great Britain was then militarily much the most important, and 
> the
> United States, guarding Europe against Soviet aggression. By the terms of
> the treaty, "an armed attack on any member in Europe or North America 
> shall
> be considered an attack against them all and ... if such an armed attack
> occurs, each of them ... will assist the party or parties so attacked by
> taking forthwith... such action as it deems necessary, including the use 
> of
> armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic
> area."
>
> That object met with total success. Forty years later, the Berlin Wall 
> fell,
> Soviet Russia began to implode, and its empire soon fell apart. This left
> Nato without an obvious role, and it might logically have been wound up.
> Instead, it evolved, almost without anyone's noticing, into an arm of US
> policy - and an outlet for Tony Blair's zealous "humanitarian
> interventionism".
>
> In the spring of 1999, he mawkishly extolled Nato's bombing of Serbia: "No
> one in the West who has seen what is happening in Kosovo can doubt that
> Nato's military action is justified... [You need only ask] anyone who has
> seen the tear-stained faces of the hundreds of thousands of refugees
> streaming across the border, heard their heart-rending tales of cruelty."
>
> But even if Blair had been correct to say that misrule in distant 
> countries
> justified armed intervention - an alarmingly open-ended principle which 
> has
> since helped take us into the Iraq disaster - what had it to do with Nato?
> How did those tear-stained faces become "an armed attack on any member"?
> And by what geographical conjuring trick did Afghanistan, more recently,
> become part of "the North Atlantic area" to require a Nato operation 
> there?
>
> Before then the acutely dangerous policy of enlarging Nato had already
> begun, partly for the most frivolous of reasons. Bill Clinton
> ingratiatingly promised a Polish-American audience in Chicago that Poland
> would join, yet another example of the baleful influence of "hyphenated"
> American domestic politics on foreign policy.
>
> And so, in this heedless way, Nato was expanded to include not only the
> former Warsaw Pact countries Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria, but the Baltic
> states that were part of the Soviet Union only 20 years ago. One didn't
> have to be a Russian nationalist to see this as deliberate provocation of
> an angry and wounded country. With all its brutality, Russia has 
> legitimate
> security concerns and national interests. When Georgian membership of Nato
> is flaunted, one wonders what the US reaction would have been if Leonid
> Brezhnev had invited Mexico to join the Warsaw Pact. Russian policy may
> sometimes have a paranoid tinge but, as the saying goes, paranoiacs have
> enemies, too.
>
> No one stopped to point out that, if the fundamental Nato principle 
> applied,
> an irredentist border dispute between Latvia and Russia should have become
> an armed conflict fought by Nato, which was plainly absurd. Bryza's claim
> that Russia would have been deterred if Georgia had already belonged to
> Nato is mercifully theoretical but highly questionable. And does Cameron
> really want what's left of our depleted army sent to the Caucasus to fight
> Russia?
>
> It remained for a former Tory foreign secretary to dash a little cold 
> water
> of sanity on these overheated effusions. On Friday Sir Malcolm Rifkind
> chided the folly of making threats about the use of force when these are
> obviously not going to be carried out. And the day before he had said, "I
> think people in both the United States and in the United Kingdom and
> elsewhere in western Europe will have to ask very clearly how important is
> Georgia to them.
>
> "There was a lot of talk about how Georgia should join Nato and if only
> Georgia was a member of Nato this wouldn't have happened, and so forth. I
> think that is frankly totally unconvincing." The truth is surely as Sir
> Malcolm says: "The United States, Britain, France and Germany are not 
> going
> to go to war with Russia over South Ossetia, however sympathetic to the
> people of Georgia we are.
>
> "We are sympathetic to Tibet, we are sympathetic to Zimbabwe, but we don't
> contemplate military solutions to these problems. So Nato membership is 
> not
> the answer." Is it too late for our politicians to learn again that kind 
> of
> plain speaking and common sense?
>
> -- 
> Facts are sacred ... but comment is free



The US might not fight Russia for Georgia, but would Russia get into a fight 
with the US for Georgia?  Russia has an edge in these staring competitions 
because we know how crazy we are, but we can' be sure how crazy they are!  I 
think though that Russia isn't looking forward to WWIII any more than we 
are.

The way of thinking that we would or should bow out of any conflict 
involving small scale Russian expansionisnm seems pretty spineless really, 
and perhaps quite dangerous.  It would seem to me to be inviting multiple 
confrontations in the future where Russia might roll the dice to see what it 
can get away with, any one of which might get out of hand or expand 
unpredictably.  It's kind of like giving in to a kidnapper and paying the 
ransom.... pretty soon you'll just have another kidnapping to deal with. 
Hopefully we won't be put in that situation in the future.

If a confrontation with Russia once it went over agreed borders was 
guaranteed it might lead to a more stable border with Russia overall (with 
the exception of states trying to draw us into a conflict on their side by 
attacking Russia!).

TWP
MAD

"TWP"  wrote ...

[snip]

> The US might not fight Russia for Georgia, but would Russia get into a
fight
> with the US for Georgia?  Russia has an edge in these staring competitions
> because we know how crazy we are, but we can' be sure how crazy they are!
I
> think though that Russia isn't looking forward to WWIII any more than we
> are.
>
> The way of thinking that we would or should bow out of any conflict
> involving small scale Russian expansionisnm seems pretty spineless really,

The word you're looking for is "pragmatic".

What is the point of fighting a war you're going to lose or escalating a
conflict which would only make things worse ?


> and perhaps quite dangerous.

As is setting in progress action which could lead to full-scale
international law.

What does it matter who claims ownership of a terrirtory if that brings
peace and stability and the people in that region are happy with the
situation ? Whose opinions are most important - the people who live there or
those who don't who are miffed at what they've decided ?


> It would seem to me to be inviting multiple
> confrontations in the future where Russia might roll the dice to see what
it
> can get away with, any one of which might get out of hand or expand
> unpredictably.

You mean like the US does ?


>It's kind of like giving in to a kidnapper and paying the
> ransom.... pretty soon you'll just have another kidnapping to deal with.
> Hopefully we won't be put in that situation in the future.

Sure we will. In which ever nation the US takes exception with ext.


> If a confrontation with Russia once it went over agreed borders was
> guaranteed it might lead to a more stable border with Russia overall (with
> the exception of states trying to draw us into a conflict on their side by
> attacking Russia!).
>
> TWP
> MAD

Maybe if confrontation with the US was guaranteed when it ventured outside
its borders, invaded foreign lands, occupied soverign countries or deposed
their leaders we might have a more stable world. Why so much focus on Russia
? The real threat is the world's number one rogue nation, the US of A.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote ...

> As is setting in progress action which could lead to full-scale
> international law.

s/law/war/

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:8L%pk.44142$E41.17554@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote ...
>
>> As is setting in progress action which could lead to full-scale
>> international law.
>
> s/law/war/
>
>



Damn, I was hoping to point that one out! :-)

The US, as bad as it may be sometimes, isn't Russia.  It may have forcefully 
projected it's influence around the world sometimes, but it hasn't rolled 
tanks into states and taken their liberty for decades.  The citizens of 
those states haven't been walled in and guard towers and minefields 
constructed so that people who desired to leave could be killed more easily 
in the US's name.  I don't see why Russia doesn't have to live down it's 
past.

If there are no limits to what any superpower or great power like Russia can 
do there'll be no limits on what they will do.  I'm not specifically talking 
about the Georgia situation either, befure you start accusing me of being 
suckered by propaganda... that by all appearances was brought on by 
themselves, I'm talking about the theory that seems to be put forward in 
that article that any 'minor states' can be sacrificed to Russia if that's 
the price to not start a war.  God, I'm glad whoever thinks like that isn't 
looking after my life savings.... "Here, Mr Bank-robber, take it - it only 
belongs to TWP anyway - who gives a shit about him, right?  Just try not to 
shoot anyone on the way out.  Tell you what, I'll hold the door open for you 
since you have your hands full of TWP's money."

This is where International War.... I mean Law (! :-) ) should be respected 
and enforced.  I don't like this world that seems in the offing where anyone 
can do what they like as long as the prevailing superpower is happy about 
it.  That's turning the world into the schoolyard.

TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
> news:8L%pk.44142$E41.17554@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >
> > "The Happy Hippy"  wrote ...
> >
> >> As is setting in progress action which could lead to full-scale
> >> international law.
> >
> > s/law/war/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Damn, I was hoping to point that one out! :-)
>
> The US, as bad as it may be sometimes, isn't Russia.  It may have
forcefully
> projected it's influence around the world sometimes, but it hasn't rolled
> tanks into states and taken their liberty for decades.

Guess you missed the invasion of Iraq then. Guess you're missing all those
threats against Iran, Syria, and Russia.


> The citizens of
> those states haven't been walled in and guard towers and minefields
> constructed so that people who desired to leave could be killed more
easily
> in the US's name.  I don't see why Russia doesn't have to live down it's
> past.

If you're going to start from "they were walled in so they could be killed
more easily" you're going to miss what the real issues were.


> If there are no limits to what any superpower or great power like Russia

Or America, or China.

> can do there'll be no limits on what they will do.

Absolutely true. So how does one impose limits o any of theose three
countries who don't give a fuck for anyone else because they all believe
they are more powerful than evryone else and believe they don't need no
permission slip to do whatever they want ? Got a problem with that; bring it
on.


> I'm not specifically talking
> about the Georgia situation either, befure you start accusing me of being
> suckered by propaganda... that by all appearances was brought on by
> themselves, I'm talking about the theory that seems to be put forward in
> that article that any 'minor states' can be sacrificed to Russia if that's
> the price to not start a war.  God, I'm glad whoever thinks like that
isn't
> looking after my life savings.... "Here, Mr Bank-robber, take it - it only
> belongs to TWP anyway - who gives a shit about him, right?  Just try not
to
> shoot anyone on the way out.  Tell you what, I'll hold the door open for
you
> since you have your hands full of TWP's money."
>
> This is where International War.... I mean Law (! :-) ) should be
respected
> and enforced.  I don't like this world that seems in the offing where
anyone
> can do what they like as long as the prevailing superpower is happy about
> it.  That's turning the world into the schoolyard.

Well it's a darn good job Russia or China haven't taken it upon themselves
to act as world policemen with respect to American invasions or there
wouldn't be a lot left. Does this "keeping Russia under control" also extend
to keeping the US, UK and others under control ? Aren't we ripe for a good
shit-kicking given what we've done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and
elsewhere ? If their excuses to protect others don't wash then nor do ours.

We have two choices; might is right and last one standing wins all and we'll
be stuck in a bloodbath and chaos while we work towards whoever's
victorious, or we can all try and get on together trading what we each have
so we are all dependant upon one another. We've tried two world wars in
fairly recent years, do we really need another ?

The trouble is that there's always some arsehole who wants to be top dog and
since WW2 that's been America and Russia was happy to play the game as was
China.

It's a fact of life, if country X decides it wants the world then we either
let them have it, fight over it, or negotiate some settlement.

Why has Europe had a period relative calm in the last seventy years ? Quite
simply because we're all become dependant on others for resources. That's
both a weakness and an advantage and it balances out as 'perfect harmony',
or as best as it can be. It's only when someone rocks the boat does
something go wrong, trouble flares up.

Now look at the world and see who rocks the boat the most. It's not Russia.
It's not China.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:l53qk.44243$E41.6872@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>> news:8L%pk.44142$E41.17554@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> >
>> > "The Happy Hippy"  wrote ...
>> >
>> >> As is setting in progress action which could lead to full-scale
>> >> international law.
>> >
>> > s/law/war/
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Damn, I was hoping to point that one out! :-)
>>
>> The US, as bad as it may be sometimes, isn't Russia.  It may have
> forcefully
>> projected it's influence around the world sometimes, but it hasn't rolled
>> tanks into states and taken their liberty for decades.
>
> Guess you missed the invasion of Iraq then. Guess you're missing all those
> threats against Iran, Syria, and Russia.

The US hasn't annexed any of them.  It may have pressured them, but that's 
not really the same thing.



>
>
>> The citizens of
>> those states haven't been walled in and guard towers and minefields
>> constructed so that people who desired to leave could be killed more
> easily
>> in the US's name.  I don't see why Russia doesn't have to live down it's
>> past.
>
> If you're going to start from "they were walled in so they could be killed
> more easily" you're going to miss what the real issues were.
>


I don't apologise for any harsh words regarding a border that has a "Death 
Zone" for it's own citizens to die in if they try to cross it.  There's a 
monument around somewhere where the wall used to be to all those who were 
killed trying to cross.  Very likely none of them really cared about the 
subtleties and historical complexities of why it was built, they just knew 
they were captives behind it.  I didn't say what you've put in quotes by the 
way.  The wall was the obstacle, the watch towers and minefield where put 
there to aid the killing of would-be departing citizens.



>
>> If there are no limits to what any superpower or great power like Russia
>
> Or America, or China.

I did say "like Russia"!  The danger to the concept of international law is 
always going to come from those best placed to enforce it though, isn't it?


>
>> can do there'll be no limits on what they will do.
>
> Absolutely true. So how does one impose limits o any of theose three
> countries who don't give a fuck for anyone else because they all believe
> they are more powerful than evryone else and believe they don't need no
> permission slip to do whatever they want ? Got a problem with that; bring 
> it
> on.
>
>
>> I'm not specifically talking
>> about the Georgia situation either, befure you start accusing me of being
>> suckered by propaganda... that by all appearances was brought on by
>> themselves, I'm talking about the theory that seems to be put forward in
>> that article that any 'minor states' can be sacrificed to Russia if 
>> that's
>> the price to not start a war.  God, I'm glad whoever thinks like that
> isn't
>> looking after my life savings.... "Here, Mr Bank-robber, take it - it 
>> only
>> belongs to TWP anyway - who gives a shit about him, right?  Just try not
> to
>> shoot anyone on the way out.  Tell you what, I'll hold the door open for
> you
>> since you have your hands full of TWP's money."
>>
>> This is where International War.... I mean Law (! :-) ) should be
> respected
>> and enforced.  I don't like this world that seems in the offing where
> anyone
>> can do what they like as long as the prevailing superpower is happy about
>> it.  That's turning the world into the schoolyard.
>
> Well it's a darn good job Russia or China haven't taken it upon themselves
> to act as world policemen with respect to American invasions or there
> wouldn't be a lot left.

It would have ensured that the concept of international law was more likely 
to amount to real protection for people instead of just words on a piece of 
paper.  That being said, Iraq invasion or not, Saddam should have been 
carted off for war crimes by one of these great powers able to enforce 
international law and not just left in power.

Does this "keeping Russia under control" also extend
> to keeping the US, UK and others under control ?

Yes.  If the rules drawn up for the protection of everyone are to be 
effective they have to apply to and be honoured by everyone.  That doesn't 
mean all the criminals in leadership positions should be safe though.  If 
you're a leader and you commit a war crime, sovereignty should mean no more 
to the international community than being locked in your own home matters to 
the police at home if you've killed someone.  We won't get this while the UN 
veto exists though.


Aren't we ripe for a good
> shit-kicking given what we've done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and
> elsewhere ? If their excuses to protect others don't wash then nor do 
> ours.
>

I wasn't referring to the Georgia situation if that's what you're getting 
at, and I said so at the outset.



> We have two choices; might is right and last one standing wins all and 
> we'll
> be stuck in a bloodbath and chaos while we work towards whoever's
> victorious, or we can all try and get on together trading what we each 
> have
> so we are all dependant upon one another. We've tried two world wars in
> fairly recent years, do we really need another ?
>
> The trouble is that there's always some arsehole who wants to be top dog 
> and
> since WW2 that's been America and Russia was happy to play the game as was
> China.
>
> It's a fact of life, if country X decides it wants the world then we 
> either
> let them have it, fight over it, or negotiate some settlement.
>
> Why has Europe had a period relative calm in the last seventy years ? 
> Quite
> simply because we're all become dependant on others for resources. That's
> both a weakness and an advantage and it balances out as 'perfect harmony',
> or as best as it can be. It's only when someone rocks the boat does
> something go wrong, trouble flares up.

That's only one part of the reason.  Changes in the balance of power along 
with the risk of nuclear war is another reason, as is the fact that 
countries can dominate financially rather than militarily, and dominating 
with cash is a lot safer and more rewarding than sorching earth.

>
> Now look at the world and see who rocks the boat the most. It's not 
> Russia.
> It's not China.


At the moment that's true, but, at least in Russia's case, they've rocked 
the boat quite a bit.  As for China, well that one is probably only a matter 
of time.

TWP

"TWP"  wrote in message 
news:NOudnfmqwudZSDXVRVnytQA@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:l53qk.44243$E41.6872@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>>> news:8L%pk.44142$E41.17554@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> >
>>> > "The Happy Hippy"  wrote ...
>>> >
>>> >> As is setting in progress action which could lead to full-scale
>>> >> international law.
>>> >
>>> > s/law/war/
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Damn, I was hoping to point that one out! :-)
>>>
>>> The US, as bad as it may be sometimes, isn't Russia.  It may have
>> forcefully
>>> projected it's influence around the world sometimes, but it hasn't 
>>> rolled
>>> tanks into states and taken their liberty for decades.
>>
>> Guess you missed the invasion of Iraq then. Guess you're missing all 
>> those
>> threats against Iran, Syria, and Russia.
>
> The US hasn't annexed any of them.  It may have pressured them, but that's 
> not really the same thing.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> The citizens of
>>> those states haven't been walled in and guard towers and minefields
>>> constructed so that people who desired to leave could be killed more
>> easily
>>> in the US's name.  I don't see why Russia doesn't have to live down it's
>>> past.
>>
>> If you're going to start from "they were walled in so they could be 
>> killed
>> more easily" you're going to miss what the real issues were.
>>
>
>
> I don't apologise for any harsh words regarding a border that has a "Death 
> Zone" for it's own citizens to die in if they try to cross it.  There's a 
> monument around somewhere where the wall used to be to all those who were 
> killed trying to cross.  Very likely none of them really cared about the 
> subtleties and historical complexities of why it was built, they just knew 
> they were captives behind it.  I didn't say what you've put in quotes by 
> the way.  The wall was the obstacle, the watch towers and minefield where 
> put there to aid the killing of would-be departing citizens.
>
>
>
>>
>>> If there are no limits to what any superpower or great power like Russia
>>
>> Or America, or China.
>
> I did say "like Russia"!  The danger to the concept of international law 
> is always going to come from those best placed to enforce it though, isn't 
> it?
>
>
>>
>>> can do there'll be no limits on what they will do.
>>
>> Absolutely true. So how does one impose limits o any of theose three
>> countries who don't give a fuck for anyone else because they all believe
>> they are more powerful than evryone else and believe they don't need no
>> permission slip to do whatever they want ? Got a problem with that; bring 
>> it
>> on.
>>
>>
>>> I'm not specifically talking
>>> about the Georgia situation either, befure you start accusing me of 
>>> being
>>> suckered by propaganda... that by all appearances was brought on by
>>> themselves, I'm talking about the theory that seems to be put forward in
>>> that article that any 'minor states' can be sacrificed to Russia if 
>>> that's
>>> the price to not start a war.  God, I'm glad whoever thinks like that
>> isn't
>>> looking after my life savings.... "Here, Mr Bank-robber, take it - it 
>>> only
>>> belongs to TWP anyway - who gives a shit about him, right?  Just try not
>> to
>>> shoot anyone on the way out.  Tell you what, I'll hold the door open for
>> you
>>> since you have your hands full of TWP's money."
>>>
>>> This is where International War.... I mean Law (! :-) ) should be
>> respected
>>> and enforced.  I don't like this world that seems in the offing where
>> anyone
>>> can do what they like as long as the prevailing superpower is happy 
>>> about
>>> it.  That's turning the world into the schoolyard.
>>
>> Well it's a darn good job Russia or China haven't taken it upon 
>> themselves
>> to act as world policemen with respect to American invasions or there
>> wouldn't be a lot left.
>
> It would have ensured that the concept of international law was more 
> likely to amount to real protection for people instead of just words on a 
> piece of paper.  That being said, Iraq invasion or not, Saddam should have 
> been carted off for war crimes by one of these great powers able to 
> enforce international law and not just left in power.
>
> Does this "keeping Russia under control" also extend
>> to keeping the US, UK and others under control ?
>
> Yes.  If the rules drawn up for the protection of everyone are to be 
> effective they have to apply to and be honoured by everyone.  That doesn't 
> mean all the criminals in leadership positions should be safe though.  If 
> you're a leader and you commit a war crime, sovereignty should mean no 
> more to the international community than being locked in your own home 
> matters to the police at home if you've killed someone.  We won't get this 
> while the UN veto exists though.
>
>
> Aren't we ripe for a good
>> shit-kicking given what we've done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and
>> elsewhere ? If their excuses to protect others don't wash then nor do 
>> ours.
>>
>
> I wasn't referring to the Georgia situation if that's what you're getting 
> at, and I said so at the outset.
>
>
>
>> We have two choices; might is right and last one standing wins all and 
>> we'll
>> be stuck in a bloodbath and chaos while we work towards whoever's
>> victorious, or we can all try and get on together trading what we each 
>> have
>> so we are all dependant upon one another. We've tried two world wars in
>> fairly recent years, do we really need another ?
>>
>> The trouble is that there's always some arsehole who wants to be top dog 
>> and
>> since WW2 that's been America and Russia was happy to play the game as 
>> was
>> China.
>>
>> It's a fact of life, if country X decides it wants the world then we 
>> either
>> let them have it, fight over it, or negotiate some settlement.
>>
>> Why has Europe had a period relative calm in the last seventy years ? 
>> Quite
>> simply because we're all become dependant on others for resources. That's
>> both a weakness and an advantage and it balances out as 'perfect 
>> harmony',
>> or as best as it can be. It's only when someone rocks the boat does
>> something go wrong, trouble flares up.
>
> That's only one part of the reason.  Changes in the balance of power along 
> with the risk of nuclear war is another reason, as is the fact that 
> countries can dominate financially rather than militarily, and dominating 
> with cash is a lot safer and more rewarding than sorching earth.
>
>>
>> Now look at the world and see who rocks the boat the most. It's not 
>> Russia.
>> It's not China.
>
>



> At the moment that's true, but, at least in Russia's case, they've rocked 
> the boat quite a bit.

I didn't complete my thought.  I meant to say they'd "rocked the boat quite 
a bit in the not so distant past."

Sorry, I was watching something about the effects of a uranium gun being 
detonated in Washington on Fox while I was typing!  I'm not good at 
multi-tasking...


TWP

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:sE%pk.44140$E41.16833@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
> [snip]
>
>> The US might not fight Russia for Georgia, but would Russia get into a
> fight
>> with the US for Georgia?  Russia has an edge in these staring 
>> competitions
>> because we know how crazy we are, but we can' be sure how crazy they are!
> I
>> think though that Russia isn't looking forward to WWIII any more than we
>> are.
>>
>> The way of thinking that we would or should bow out of any conflict
>> involving small scale Russian expansionisnm seems pretty spineless 
>> really,
>
> The word you're looking for is "pragmatic".
>
> What is the point of fighting a war you're going to lose or escalating a
> conflict which would only make things worse ?
>
>
>> and perhaps quite dangerous.
>
> As is setting in progress action which could lead to full-scale
> international law.

"Full-scale international law"?  Isn't that largely what the UN does?


> What does it matter who claims ownership of a terrirtory if that brings
> peace and stability and the people in that region are happy with the
> situation ? Whose opinions are most important - the people who live there 
> or
> those who don't who are miffed at what they've decided ?
>

So you are saying that if a group of Pakistanis move to the UK, and enough 
of them agree, they can declare their homesand villages to be a part of 
Pakistan?

> Maybe if confrontation with the US was guaranteed when it ventured outside
> its borders, invaded foreign lands, occupied soverign countries or deposed
> their leaders we might have a more stable world. Why so much focus on 
> Russia
> ? The real threat is the world's number one rogue nation, the US of A.

I love the way Hippyboy turns a thread into a rant about the U.S. instead of 
about the people it is actually about.  You just have to admire that in a 
bloke.

George

"George"  wrote in message 
news:XK4qk.12476$De7.7865@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:sE%pk.44140$E41.16833@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> The US might not fight Russia for Georgia, but would Russia get into a
>> fight
>>> with the US for Georgia?  Russia has an edge in these staring 
>>> competitions
>>> because we know how crazy we are, but we can' be sure how crazy they 
>>> are!
>> I
>>> think though that Russia isn't looking forward to WWIII any more than we
>>> are.
>>>
>>> The way of thinking that we would or should bow out of any conflict
>>> involving small scale Russian expansionisnm seems pretty spineless 
>>> really,
>>
>> The word you're looking for is "pragmatic".
>>
>> What is the point of fighting a war you're going to lose or escalating a
>> conflict which would only make things worse ?
>>
>>
>>> and perhaps quite dangerous.
>>
>> As is setting in progress action which could lead to full-scale
>> international law.
>
> "Full-scale international law"?  Isn't that largely what the UN does?
>
>
>> What does it matter who claims ownership of a terrirtory if that brings
>> peace and stability and the people in that region are happy with the
>> situation ? Whose opinions are most important - the people who live there 
>> or
>> those who don't who are miffed at what they've decided ?
>>
>
> So you are saying that if a group of Pakistanis move to the UK, and enough 
> of them agree, they can declare their homesand villages to be a part of 
> Pakistan?
>
>> Maybe if confrontation with the US was guaranteed when it ventured 
>> outside
>> its borders, invaded foreign lands, occupied soverign countries or 
>> deposed
>> their leaders we might have a more stable world. Why so much focus on 
>> Russia
>> ? The real threat is the world's number one rogue nation, the US of A.
>
> I love the way Hippyboy turns a thread into a rant about the U.S. instead 
> of about the people it is actually about.  You just have to admire that in 
> a bloke.
>
> George
>

I think HH was trying to get me to say that the rules should apply to people 
I consider good guys as well as people I consider bad guys, and the point 
isn't contested.  I don't think it's right though to have so many rules on 
not rocking anyone's boat that you end up only able to send letters of stern 
rebuke to leaders responsible for massacres because you've bricked yourself 
into cast-iron observance of sovereignty or because a permaent UNSC member 
has a sweet arms deal going on with the bad country in question and won't 
spoil it by voting for armed enforcement.

No-one was in a desperate hurry to collar Saddam.  How come we can pat 
ourselves on the head for getting Radovan Karadzic who at best is 
[allegedly] responsible for a few thousand deaths, yet feel it better to 
leave Saddam in power even though he killed at minimum 100 to 200 times more 
(I don't want to trawl for exact numbers, you get the point) either by his 
orders or as a result of his wars, rather than violate Iraqi sovereignty? 
There was always something wrong with that picture.

International law in the end - if it exists at all - shouldn't be there to 
protect natons it should be there to protect the people.of those nations. 
They're the ones who get tortured and executed and killed in wars.  Someone 
does have to get their hands dirty enforcing those laws though.  A good 
talking to won't always do the job.

TWP

"TWP"  wrote in message 
news:Y-Cdndezt9FMdjXVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> "George"  wrote in message 
> news:XK4qk.12476$De7.7865@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
>> news:sE%pk.44140$E41.16833@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>
>>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> The US might not fight Russia for Georgia, but would Russia get into a
>>> fight
>>>> with the US for Georgia?  Russia has an edge in these staring 
>>>> competitions
>>>> because we know how crazy we are, but we can' be sure how crazy they 
>>>> are!
>>> I
>>>> think though that Russia isn't looking forward to WWIII any more than 
>>>> we
>>>> are.
>>>>
>>>> The way of thinking that we would or should bow out of any conflict
>>>> involving small scale Russian expansionisnm seems pretty spineless 
>>>> really,
>>>
>>> The word you're looking for is "pragmatic".
>>>
>>> What is the point of fighting a war you're going to lose or escalating a
>>> conflict which would only make things worse ?
>>>
>>>
>>>> and perhaps quite dangerous.
>>>
>>> As is setting in progress action which could lead to full-scale
>>> international law.
>>
>> "Full-scale international law"?  Isn't that largely what the UN does?
>>
>>
>>> What does it matter who claims ownership of a terrirtory if that brings
>>> peace and stability and the people in that region are happy with the
>>> situation ? Whose opinions are most important - the people who live 
>>> there or
>>> those who don't who are miffed at what they've decided ?
>>>
>>
>> So you are saying that if a group of Pakistanis move to the UK, and 
>> enough of them agree, they can declare their homesand villages to be a 
>> part of Pakistan?
>>
>>> Maybe if confrontation with the US was guaranteed when it ventured 
>>> outside
>>> its borders, invaded foreign lands, occupied soverign countries or 
>>> deposed
>>> their leaders we might have a more stable world. Why so much focus on 
>>> Russia
>>> ? The real threat is the world's number one rogue nation, the US of A.
>>
>> I love the way Hippyboy turns a thread into a rant about the U.S. instead 
>> of about the people it is actually about.  You just have to admire that 
>> in a bloke.
>>
>> George
>>
>
> I think HH was trying to get me to say that the rules should apply to 
> people I consider good guys as well as people I consider bad guys, and the 
> point isn't contested.  I don't think it's right though to have so many 
> rules on not rocking anyone's boat that you end up only able to send 
> letters of stern rebuke to leaders responsible for massacres because 
> you've bricked yourself into cast-iron observance of sovereignty or 
> because a permaent UNSC member has a sweet arms deal going on with the bad 
> country in question and won't spoil it by voting for armed enforcement.
>
> No-one was in a desperate hurry to collar Saddam.  How come we can pat 
> ourselves on the head for getting Radovan Karadzic who at best is 
> [allegedly] responsible for a few thousand deaths, yet feel it better to 
> leave Saddam in power even though he killed at minimum 100 to 200 times 
> more (I don't want to trawl for exact numbers, you get the point) either 
> by his orders or as a result of his wars, rather than violate Iraqi 
> sovereignty? There was always something wrong with that picture.
>
> International law in the end - if it exists at all - shouldn't be there to 
> protect natons it should be there to protect the people.of those nations. 
> They're the ones who get tortured and executed and killed in wars. 
> Someone does have to get their hands dirty enforcing those laws though.  A 
> good talking to won't always do the job.
>
> TWP

I don't disagree with what you've said, but that doesn't justify hippyboy 
from ranting about the U.S. in every single post, does it?  It's like he 
can't post anything unless he can put an Anti-U.S. spin on it. Obviously, he 
is either obsessed with the U.S., or he has penis envy (or both).

George

In message , TWP 
 writes
>
>"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>news:8L%pk.44142$E41.17554@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote ...
>>
>>> As is setting in progress action which could lead to full-scale
>>> international law.
>>
>> s/law/war/
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Damn, I was hoping to point that one out! :-)
>
>The US, as bad as it may be sometimes, isn't Russia.  It may have forcefully
>projected it's influence around the world sometimes, but it hasn't rolled
>tanks into states and taken their liberty for decades.


Other than Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada etc

> The citizens of
>those states haven't been walled in and guard towers and minefields
>constructed so that people who desired to leave could be killed more easily
>in the US's name.

Gitmo, Bagram, Abu grab

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"TWP"  wrote in message 
news:q-KdnZf_QbKwMjXVnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:8L%pk.44142$E41.17554@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote ...
>>
>>> As is setting in progress action which could lead to full-scale
>>> international law.
>>
>> s/law/war/
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Damn, I was hoping to point that one out! :-)
>
> The US, as bad as it may be sometimes, isn't Russia.  It may have 
> forcefully projected it's influence around the world sometimes, but it 
> hasn't rolled tanks into states and taken their liberty for decades.

Where have you been for the last 30 years? Or is it only tanks that upset 
you? B52s and Cruise missiles are okay, or what?


>The citizens of those states haven't been walled in and guard towers and 
>minefields constructed so that people who desired to leave could be killed 
>more easily in the US's name.

Wall? Ehmm... that would be Israel then?


 >I don't see why Russia doesn't have to live down it's  past.

Did you mean the Soviet Union? I rather think that Russia is all together 
new and squeaky clean.

You should make yourself a list of which countries have invaded, disrupted, 
and generally raped their way around the world before worrying too much 
about Russia. America, for instance, could do with a serious dose of 
Gorbachev. Maybe Obama can do it, although personally I doubt it.



> If there are no limits to what any superpower or great power like Russia 
> can do there'll be no limits on what they will do.  I'm not specifically 
> talking about the Georgia situation either, befure you start accusing me 
> of being suckered by propaganda... that by all appearances was brought on 
> by themselves, I'm talking about the theory that seems to be put forward 
> in that article that any 'minor states' can be sacrificed to Russia if 
> that's the price to not start a war.  God, I'm glad whoever thinks like 
> that isn't looking after my life savings.... "Here, Mr Bank-robber, take 
> it - it only belongs to TWP anyway - who gives a shit about him, right? 
> Just try not to shoot anyone on the way out.  Tell you what, I'll hold the 
> door open for you since you have your hands full of TWP's money."
>
> This is where International War.... I mean Law (! :-) ) should be 
> respected and enforced.  I don't like this world that seems in the offing 
> where anyone can do what they like as long as the prevailing superpower is 
> happy about it.  That's turning the world into the schoolyard.
>
> TWP
>
>
>

"TWP"  wrote in message 
news:o-mdnVvTfMo0RTXVnZ2dnUVZ8vednZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> "TWP"  wrote in message 
> news:NOudnfmqwudZSDXVRVnytQA@eclipse.net.uk...
>>
snip

>
> I didn't complete my thought.  I meant to say they'd "rocked the boat 
> quite a bit in the not so distant past."
>
> Sorry, I was watching something about the effects of a uranium gun being 
> detonated in Washington on Fox while I was typing!  I'm not good at 
> multi-tasking...
>
>
> TWP
>

And what was the conclusion about the uranium gun?  A general improvement I 
suppose?

"TWP"  wrote ...

> International law in the end - if it exists at all - shouldn't be there to
> protect natons it should be there to protect the people.of those nations.
> They're the ones who get tortured and executed and killed in wars.
Someone
> does have to get their hands dirty enforcing those laws though.  A good
> talking to won't always do the job.

International law only exists so far as any country is prepared to abide by
it or others are prepared to enforce it.  Once one breaks the law and goes
unpunished everyone else knows they can. So how are you ever going to force
the US, Russia, China and everyone else to abide by a universal law ? It
hasn't worked with the US and they are alleged to be the good guys.

Let's imagine that the super-powers do agree to police the world,
zero-tolerace. America bombs Iran say, so what does Russia and China do,
attack America ? What if America says "tough shit, we don't need no
permission slip to do whatever they please"; declare the world to be at war
with America ?

I's that getting into a war to prevent war, "fucking for viginity" as the
satire goes ?

The $64,000 question is how to deal with nations who hold no respect for
international law without havingto do what the international law is meant to
prevent. Until you solve that it is going to be a free-for-all.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:N1gqk.44456$E41.2133@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> International law in the end - if it exists at all - shouldn't be there 
>> to
>> protect natons it should be there to protect the people.of those nations.
>> They're the ones who get tortured and executed and killed in wars.
> Someone
>> does have to get their hands dirty enforcing those laws though.  A good
>> talking to won't always do the job.
>
> International law only exists so far as any country is prepared to abide 
> by
> it or others are prepared to enforce it.  Once one breaks the law and goes
> unpunished everyone else knows they can. So how are you ever going to 
> force
> the US, Russia, China and everyone else to abide by a universal law ? It
> hasn't worked with the US and they are alleged to be the good guys.
>
> Let's imagine that the super-powers do agree to police the world,
> zero-tolerace. America bombs Iran say, so what does Russia and China do,
> attack America ? What if America says "tough shit, we don't need no
> permission slip to do whatever they please"; declare the world to be at 
> war
> with America ?
>
> I's that getting into a war to prevent war, "fucking for viginity" as the
> satire goes ?
>
> The $64,000 question is how to deal with nations who hold no respect for
> international law without havingto do what the international law is meant 
> to
> prevent. Until you solve that it is going to be a free-for-all.
>
>

I think the way nations who break the law, especially violently, should 
parallel how an individual citizen of most parts of the world would be 
treated if they broke the law with violence.  I think you have to be 
prepared to fight to enforce international law.  I know I sound like a 
drooling war-monger, but I don't see how it can work any other way, just 
like some criminals have to be shot by police because they don't leave any 
other option.  Force involves the maximum expense and unpopularity for the 
beligerant nation.  Obviously you'd try other persuasion first, as a bank 
robber would get a chance to give up peacefully, but I do think you have to 
be prepared to act with force - otherwise we may as well stop screwing 
around with this international law crap and just admit that everyone can do 
what they want.

NATO has the all-for-one rule, where if a nation attacks one member they've 
attacked them all.  Well, maybe something like that is required, with no 
single nation being expected or even allowed to be world policeman by 
themselves.

As for nuclear war breaking out.... well, we've all got the toys to play 
THAT game.  If there really is a leader out there that sees a scrap of land 
worth ending the world for it only goes to prove how urgent the need for 
reigning in the power of individual leaders really is.


TWP

"Bill Again"  wrote in message 
news:g8blkg$ofg$00$1@news.t-online.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote in message 
> news:q-KdnZf_QbKwMjXVnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>>
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
>> news:8L%pk.44142$E41.17554@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>
>>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote ...
>>>
>>>> As is setting in progress action which could lead to full-scale
>>>> international law.
>>>
>>> s/law/war/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Damn, I was hoping to point that one out! :-)
>>
>> The US, as bad as it may be sometimes, isn't Russia.  It may have 
>> forcefully projected it's influence around the world sometimes, but it 
>> hasn't rolled tanks into states and taken their liberty for decades.
>
> Where have you been for the last 30 years? Or is it only tanks that upset 
> you? B52s and Cruise missiles are okay, or what?

Tanks are the beginning of occupation - I mean real occupation, like the 
Nazis taking France, except they stick around for 30 or 40 years, not the 
Iraq type of occupation that pisses people off today.  I think you know what 
I'm talking about really.  A B52 dropping bombs on you isn't the makings of 
a great day for anyone, but it doesn't automatically mean the owners of the 
B52s will win.  Quite a few flew over Vietnam.


>
>
>>The citizens of those states haven't been walled in and guard towers and 
>>minefields constructed so that people who desired to leave could be killed 
>>more easily in the US's name.
>
> Wall? Ehmm... that would be Israel then?

That's a bit disingenuous isn't it?  Israel's wall is there to control 
access into Israel not to the outside world.  It's not pleasant, but it 
isn't there to keep people prisoner in the way that the Berlin Wall was.  If 
the two sides had ever found a way to co-exist - at least to the point that 
random violence wasn't used by each side on the other - the wall wouldn't be 
there.




>
>
> >I don't see why Russia doesn't have to live down it's  past.
>
> Did you mean the Soviet Union? I rather think that Russia is all together 
> new and squeaky clean.
>

Just a new brand name!  A lot of the old people will still be around. 
Starburst are still Opal Fruits, they're just wrapped in paper with 
something different printed on them.



> You should make yourself a list of which countries have invaded, 
> disrupted, and generally raped their way around the world before worrying 
> too much about Russia. America, for instance, could do with a serious dose 
> of Gorbachev. Maybe Obama can do it, although personally I doubt it.

I agree - I see things going wrong with the US, especially since the 11 Sept 
attacks.  I think the US always has been a lot weaker on human rights than 
it admitted to itself.... however, it hasn't occupied and ruled East 
Germany, Poland or Hungary etc for decades.  Russia (or the USSR if you 
prefer) had more than just strong influence and a few military bases in 
those countries.  I know I have a strong bias in this, but the fact remains 
that people weren't shot trying to leave the US, and I doubt they'll be shot 
trying to leave Iraq or Hawai'i.


TWP

"TWP"  wrote in message 
news:TfmdnV6MGbgZNDTVnZ2dnUVZ8hidnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> "Bill Again"  wrote in message 
> news:g8blkg$ofg$00$1@news.t-online.com...
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote in message 
>> news:q-KdnZf_QbKwMjXVnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>>>
>>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
>>> news:8L%pk.44142$E41.17554@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>
>>>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote ...
>>>>
>>>>> As is setting in progress action which could lead to full-scale
>>>>> international law.
>>>>
>>>> s/law/war/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Damn, I was hoping to point that one out! :-)
>>>
>>> The US, as bad as it may be sometimes, isn't Russia.  It may have 
>>> forcefully projected it's influence around the world sometimes, but it 
>>> hasn't rolled tanks into states and taken their liberty for decades.
>>
>> Where have you been for the last 30 years? Or is it only tanks that upset 
>> you? B52s and Cruise missiles are okay, or what?
>
> Tanks are the beginning of occupation - I mean real occupation, like the 
> Nazis taking France, except they stick around for 30 or 40 years, not the 
> Iraq type of occupation that pisses people off today.  I think you know 
> what I'm talking about really.  A B52 dropping bombs on you isn't the 
> makings of a great day for anyone, but it doesn't automatically mean the 
> owners of the B52s will win.  Quite a few flew over Vietnam.

Yes, I know what you mean. The British and the Americans invaded Nazi 
Germany (possibly with tanks) and have stuck around for more than 63 years. 
So your thesis is that it is the tanks that are responsible for this 
extended residence. Could be...


>>The citizens of those states haven't been walled in and guard towers and
>>>minefields constructed so that people who desired to leave could be 
>>>killed more easily in the US's name.
>>
>> Wall? Ehmm... that would be Israel then?
>
> That's a bit disingenuous isn't it?  Israel's wall is there to control 
> access into Israel not to the outside world.  It's not pleasant, but it 
> isn't there to keep people prisoner in the way that the Berlin Wall was. 
> If the two sides had ever found a way to co-exist - at least to the point 
> that random violence wasn't used by each side on the other - the wall 
> wouldn't be there.

Actually I think that it is there to prevent tha Palestinians from leaving.



>> >I don't see why Russia doesn't have to live down it's  past.
>>
>> Did you mean the Soviet Union? I rather think that Russia is all together 
>> new and squeaky clean.
>>
>
> Just a new brand name!  A lot of the old people will still be around. 
> Starburst are still Opal Fruits, they're just wrapped in paper with 
> something different printed on them.

Starburst?? Try another example. Starburst must be something local.



>> You should make yourself a list of which countries have invaded, 
>> disrupted, and generally raped their way around the world before worrying 
>> too much about Russia. America, for instance, could do with a serious 
>> dose of Gorbachev. Maybe Obama can do it, although personally I doubt it.
>
> I agree - I see things going wrong with the US, especially since the 11 
> Sept attacks.  I think the US always has been a lot weaker on human rights 
> than it admitted to itself.... however, it hasn't occupied and ruled East 
> Germany, Poland or Hungary etc for decades.  Russia (or the USSR if you 
> prefer) had more than just strong influence and a few military bases in 
> those countries.  I know I have a strong bias in this, but the fact 
> remains that people weren't shot trying to leave the US, and I doubt 
> they'll be shot trying to leave Iraq or Hawai'i.
>
>
> TWP


Right, they are not, as far as I know, shot trying to leave Iraq. Instead 
they are shot for driving around *in* Iraq. And what is the current 
situation with the fence on the US/Mexican border? Are the US vigilantes 
still allowed to shoot the Mexicans? Fences are tricky things and it wasn't 
only the East Germans who used them.

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
> news:N1gqk.44456$E41.2133@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >
> > "TWP"  wrote ...
> >
> >> International law in the end - if it exists at all - shouldn't be there
> >> to
> >> protect natons it should be there to protect the people.of those
nations.
> >> They're the ones who get tortured and executed and killed in wars.
> > Someone
> >> does have to get their hands dirty enforcing those laws though.  A good
> >> talking to won't always do the job.
> >
> > International law only exists so far as any country is prepared to abide
> > by
> > it or others are prepared to enforce it.  Once one breaks the law and
goes
> > unpunished everyone else knows they can. So how are you ever going to
> > force
> > the US, Russia, China and everyone else to abide by a universal law ? It
> > hasn't worked with the US and they are alleged to be the good guys.
> >
> > Let's imagine that the super-powers do agree to police the world,
> > zero-tolerace. America bombs Iran say, so what does Russia and China do,
> > attack America ? What if America says "tough shit, we don't need no
> > permission slip to do whatever they please"; declare the world to be at
> > war
> > with America ?
> >
> > I's that getting into a war to prevent war, "fucking for viginity" as
the
> > satire goes ?
> >
> > The $64,000 question is how to deal with nations who hold no respect for
> > international law without havingto do what the international law is
meant
> > to
> > prevent. Until you solve that it is going to be a free-for-all.
> >
> >
>
> I think the way nations who break the law, especially violently, should
> parallel how an individual citizen of most parts of the world would be
> treated if they broke the law with violence.  I think you have to be
> prepared to fight to enforce international law.  I know I sound like a
> drooling war-monger, but I don't see how it can work any other way, just
> like some criminals have to be shot by police because they don't leave any
> other option.  Force involves the maximum expense and unpopularity for the
> beligerant nation.  Obviously you'd try other persuasion first, as a bank
> robber would get a chance to give up peacefully, but I do think you have
to
> be prepared to act with force - otherwise we may as well stop screwing
> around with this international law crap and just admit that everyone can
do
> what they want.
>
> NATO has the all-for-one rule, where if a nation attacks one member
they've
> attacked them all.  Well, maybe something like that is required, with no
> single nation being expected or even allowed to be world policeman by
> themselves.
>
> As for nuclear war breaking out.... well, we've all got the toys to play
> THAT game.  If there really is a leader out there that sees a scrap of
land
> worth ending the world for it only goes to prove how urgent the need for
> reigning in the power of individual leaders really is.

In a perfect world you're right but I don't see that as a realistic
possibility any time soon. As it stands, any attempt to enforce such an
international law can potentially lead to Armageddon.

Then you've got the problem of defining what the international law is ( let
alone getting nations to agree to it ) or you cannot define right and wrong.
If Wales declares itself an independant nation and erects borders and
refuses to pay tax to the government, are they allowed to do that if it's
their citizens' will or can the UK go in and regain it by force ?

Is taking the land a crime or is not letting them have it a crime ?

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:Wjiqk.44528$E41.32965@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>




> Then you've got the problem of defining what the international law is ( 
> let
> alone getting nations to agree to it ) or you cannot define right and 
> wrong.
> If Wales declares itself an independant nation and erects borders and
> refuses to pay tax to the government, are they allowed to do that if it's
> their citizens' will or can the UK go in and regain it by force ?
>
> Is taking the land a crime or is not letting them have it a crime ?
>
>

The law would have to be interpreted as well as enforced by international 
jury - probably the UN.  There couldn't a a veto involved either.

Really the only reason international law dosn't really exist (except for the 
losers and the weak to obey) is that the strong nations don't want to be 
limited.  Really the UN probably does well just to get the powerful nations 
in through the door most of the time, let alone holding their feet to the 
fire.  If we are going to have rules though, they're going to have to be 
enforced against everyone or we're just thinking of rules for other people 
to obey so they don't get in our way.

Maybe we're heading back to a split world again between the US and Russia 
simply because they're the nations that can do what they want.

TWP

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> "TWP"  wrote ...
> 
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>> news:N1gqk.44456$E41.2133@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>>
>>>> International law in the end - if it exists at all - shouldn't be there
>>>> to
>>>> protect natons it should be there to protect the people.of those
> nations.
>>>> They're the ones who get tortured and executed and killed in wars.
>>> Someone
>>>> does have to get their hands dirty enforcing those laws though.  A good
>>>> talking to won't always do the job.
>>> International law only exists so far as any country is prepared to abide
>>> by
>>> it or others are prepared to enforce it.  Once one breaks the law and
> goes
>>> unpunished everyone else knows they can. So how are you ever going to
>>> force
>>> the US, Russia, China and everyone else to abide by a universal law ? It
>>> hasn't worked with the US and they are alleged to be the good guys.
>>>
>>> Let's imagine that the super-powers do agree to police the world,
>>> zero-tolerace. America bombs Iran say, so what does Russia and China do,
>>> attack America ? What if America says "tough shit, we don't need no
>>> permission slip to do whatever they please"; declare the world to be at
>>> war
>>> with America ?
>>>
>>> I's that getting into a war to prevent war, "fucking for viginity" as
> the
>>> satire goes ?
>>>
>>> The $64,000 question is how to deal with nations who hold no respect for
>>> international law without havingto do what the international law is
> meant
>>> to
>>> prevent. Until you solve that it is going to be a free-for-all.
>>>
>>>
>> I think the way nations who break the law, especially violently, should
>> parallel how an individual citizen of most parts of the world would be
>> treated if they broke the law with violence.  I think you have to be
>> prepared to fight to enforce international law.  I know I sound like a
>> drooling war-monger, but I don't see how it can work any other way, just
>> like some criminals have to be shot by police because they don't leave any
>> other option.  Force involves the maximum expense and unpopularity for the
>> beligerant nation.  Obviously you'd try other persuasion first, as a bank
>> robber would get a chance to give up peacefully, but I do think you have
> to
>> be prepared to act with force - otherwise we may as well stop screwing
>> around with this international law crap and just admit that everyone can
> do
>> what they want.
>>
>> NATO has the all-for-one rule, where if a nation attacks one member
> they've
>> attacked them all.  Well, maybe something like that is required, with no
>> single nation being expected or even allowed to be world policeman by
>> themselves.
>>
>> As for nuclear war breaking out.... well, we've all got the toys to play
>> THAT game.  If there really is a leader out there that sees a scrap of
> land
>> worth ending the world for it only goes to prove how urgent the need for
>> reigning in the power of individual leaders really is.
> 
> In a perfect world you're right but I don't see that as a realistic
> possibility any time soon. As it stands, any attempt to enforce such an
> international law can potentially lead to Armageddon.

While we can't stop China or Russia being bad, we can have a go 
elsewhere and hope they join in. Take, say, Serbia. A bit at a time, we 
can drag everyone up. Maybe.

It's pretty unlikely that Germany would do anything too naughty these 
days, and that's presumably not because they think Luxembourg would 
invade. In part it is because someone has told them not to, but mostly 
it is because they are enmeshed in a complex system which ties them up 
with everyone else.

Even in the dodgiest places, people now take the trouble to rig 
elections before parking their tanks on the lawn. In the past they'd 
start with the tanks.

> Then you've got the problem of defining what the international law is ( let
> alone getting nations to agree to it ) or you cannot define right and wrong.
> If Wales declares itself an independant nation and erects borders and
> refuses to pay tax to the government, are they allowed to do that if it's
> their citizens' will or can the UK go in and regain it by force ?

Or help build a new dyke :)

> Is taking the land a crime or is not letting them have it a crime ?


-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

"TWP"  wrote in message 
news:R4-dnfUXpcu5PzTVnZ2dnUVZ8tvinZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:N1gqk.44456$E41.2133@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>>> International law in the end - if it exists at all - shouldn't be there 
>>> to
>>> protect natons it should be there to protect the people.of those 
>>> nations.
>>> They're the ones who get tortured and executed and killed in wars.
>> Someone
>>> does have to get their hands dirty enforcing those laws though.  A good
>>> talking to won't always do the job.
>>
>> International law only exists so far as any country is prepared to abide 
>> by
>> it or others are prepared to enforce it.  Once one breaks the law and 
>> goes
>> unpunished everyone else knows they can. So how are you ever going to 
>> force
>> the US, Russia, China and everyone else to abide by a universal law ? It
>> hasn't worked with the US and they are alleged to be the good guys.
>>
>> Let's imagine that the super-powers do agree to police the world,
>> zero-tolerace. America bombs Iran say, so what does Russia and China do,
>> attack America ? What if America says "tough shit, we don't need no
>> permission slip to do whatever they please"; declare the world to be at 
>> war
>> with America ?
>>
>> I's that getting into a war to prevent war, "fucking for viginity" as the
>> satire goes ?
>>
>> The $64,000 question is how to deal with nations who hold no respect for
>> international law without havingto do what the international law is meant 
>> to
>> prevent. Until you solve that it is going to be a free-for-all.
>>
>>
>
> I think the way nations who break the law, especially violently, should 
> parallel how an individual citizen of most parts of the world would be 
> treated if they broke the law with violence.  I think you have to be 
> prepared to fight to enforce international law.  I know I sound like a 
> drooling war-monger, but I don't see how it can work any other way, just 
> like some criminals have to be shot by police because they don't leave any 
> other option.  Force involves the maximum expense and unpopularity for the 
> beligerant nation.  Obviously you'd try other persuasion first, as a bank 
> robber would get a chance to give up peacefully, but I do think you have 
> to be prepared to act with force - otherwise we may as well stop screwing 
> around with this international law crap and just admit that everyone can 
> do what they want.
>
> NATO has the all-for-one rule, where if a nation attacks one member 
> they've attacked them all.  Well, maybe something like that is required, 
> with no single nation being expected or even allowed to be world policeman 
> by themselves.
>
> As for nuclear war breaking out.... well, we've all got the toys to play 
> THAT game.  If there really is a leader out there that sees a scrap of 
> land worth ending the world for it only goes to prove how urgent the need 
> for reigning in the power of individual leaders really is.
>
>
> TWP

Some of that looks good on paper (or a flat screen monitor), but in the 
atomic age and with nuclear proliferation being a big issue, I don't see how 
that will work.  Being prepared to fight to enforce international law is one 
thing, but it is critically important to know exactly when to push away from 
the table and call it a day.  I think Georgia is one of those.

George

"TWP"  wrote in message 
news:28idnR3ZmfO6WjTVnZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:Wjiqk.44528$E41.32965@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>
>
>
>
>> Then you've got the problem of defining what the international law is ( 
>> let
>> alone getting nations to agree to it ) or you cannot define right and 
>> wrong.
>> If Wales declares itself an independant nation and erects borders and
>> refuses to pay tax to the government, are they allowed to do that if it's
>> their citizens' will or can the UK go in and regain it by force ?
>>
>> Is taking the land a crime or is not letting them have it a crime ?
>>
>>
>
> The law would have to be interpreted as well as enforced by international 
> jury - probably the UN.  There couldn't a a veto involved either.
>
> Really the only reason international law dosn't really exist (except for 
> the losers and the weak to obey) is that the strong nations don't want to 
> be limited.  Really the UN probably does well just to get the powerful 
> nations in through the door most of the time, let alone holding their feet 
> to the fire.  If we are going to have rules though, they're going to have 
> to be enforced against everyone or we're just thinking of rules for other 
> people to obey so they don't get in our way.
>
> Maybe we're heading back to a split world again between the US and Russia 
> simply because they're the nations that can do what they want.
>
> TWP

I don't know, Two wolves.  I think the UK has also done pretty much whatever 
it wanted to do for a long time (except, or course, for building a manned 
space program - when are you guys going to get on the wagon?).

George

"George"  wrote in message 
news:Thoqk.12011$rD2.3197@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "TWP"  wrote in message 
> news:28idnR3ZmfO6WjTVnZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>>
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
>> news:Wjiqk.44528$E41.32965@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Then you've got the problem of defining what the international law is 
>>> ( let
>>> alone getting nations to agree to it ) or you cannot define right and 
>>> wrong.
>>> If Wales declares itself an independant nation and erects borders and
>>> refuses to pay tax to the government, are they allowed to do that if 
>>> it's
>>> their citizens' will or can the UK go in and regain it by force ?
>>>
>>> Is taking the land a crime or is not letting them have it a crime ?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The law would have to be interpreted as well as enforced by international 
>> jury - probably the UN.  There couldn't a a veto involved either.
>>
>> Really the only reason international law dosn't really exist (except for 
>> the losers and the weak to obey) is that the strong nations don't want to 
>> be limited.  Really the UN probably does well just to get the powerful 
>> nations in through the door most of the time, let alone holding their 
>> feet to the fire.  If we are going to have rules though, they're going to 
>> have to be enforced against everyone or we're just thinking of rules for 
>> other people to obey so they don't get in our way.
>>
>> Maybe we're heading back to a split world again between the US and Russia 
>> simply because they're the nations that can do what they want.
>>
>> TWP
>
> I don't know, Two wolves.  I think the UK has also done pretty much 
> whatever it wanted to do for a long time (except, or course, for building 
> a manned space program - when are you guys going to get on the wagon?).
>
> George
>

I don't know that the UK has gotten away with very much since WWII ended 
really.  Power shifted visibly from the UK to US at that time.  If it hadn't 
we'd probably be getting accused of dominating the globe.  Of course we'd 
probably be doing just that! :-)  (I'm pretty sure there was an Empire seven 
times the size of the Roman Empire around here somewhere...)

We did have a small-scale space programme ages ago operated from Australia - 
I think at least one effort was called Blue Streak, and of course there's 
Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic 
http://www.virgingalactic.com/flash.html?language=english , although US 
fabrication makes a lot of that possible, so I don't know if that's truly a 
UK space programme.  I understand William Shatner was offered the first 
passenger ride, but he declined because they could guarantee if he went up 
alive he'd come down alive.  I think he should have done it! :-)


TWP

"George"  wrote in message 
news:weoqk.12008$rD2.2816@bignews4.bellsouth.net...




> Some of that looks good on paper (or a flat screen monitor), but in the 
> atomic age and with nuclear proliferation being a big issue, I don't see 
> how that will work.  Being prepared to fight to enforce international law 
> is one thing, but it is critically important to know exactly when to push 
> away from the table and call it a day.  I think Georgia is one of those.
>
> George
>

I wouldn't touch Georgia really - that isn't a little old lady getting 
mugged, that's a little guy breaking a bottle over a Hell's Angel's head. 
It didn't need to happen, and the results of the act were entirely 
predictable by anyone with more than 20 brain cells.

As for the nuclear age.... I think the reality of the nuclear age is that it 
hasn't really even got started yet.  This age we live in now is probably the 
last age where nuclear weapons will be held only by major powers of the 
world (with a couple of exceptions) who's actions can at least be mostly 
anticipated.  India and Pakistan and I suppose North Korea will only be the 
first of many newcomers to the club.  Eventually we'll probably be looking 
down the barrel of the nuclear gun no matter what we do.  It may seem quiet 
right now as far as the threat of nuclear holocaust is concerned, but in 
fact we're probably just in the eye of the storm right now.

If international law is ever to exist it probably needs to be established 
properly in the next few decades before everyone goes nuclear.


TWP

"TWP"  wrote in message 
news:_PGdnSVdA6JpgjfVnZ2dnUVZ8s_inZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> "George"  wrote in message 
> news:Thoqk.12011$rD2.3197@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote in message 
>> news:28idnR3ZmfO6WjTVnZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>>>
>>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
>>> news:Wjiqk.44528$E41.32965@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Then you've got the problem of defining what the international law is 
>>>> ( let
>>>> alone getting nations to agree to it ) or you cannot define right and 
>>>> wrong.
>>>> If Wales declares itself an independant nation and erects borders and
>>>> refuses to pay tax to the government, are they allowed to do that if 
>>>> it's
>>>> their citizens' will or can the UK go in and regain it by force ?
>>>>
>>>> Is taking the land a crime or is not letting them have it a crime ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The law would have to be interpreted as well as enforced by 
>>> international jury - probably the UN.  There couldn't a a veto involved 
>>> either.
>>>
>>> Really the only reason international law dosn't really exist (except for 
>>> the losers and the weak to obey) is that the strong nations don't want 
>>> to be limited.  Really the UN probably does well just to get the 
>>> powerful nations in through the door most of the time, let alone holding 
>>> their feet to the fire.  If we are going to have rules though, they're 
>>> going to have to be enforced against everyone or we're just thinking of 
>>> rules for other people to obey so they don't get in our way.
>>>
>>> Maybe we're heading back to a split world again between the US and 
>>> Russia simply because they're the nations that can do what they want.
>>>
>>> TWP
>>
>> I don't know, Two wolves.  I think the UK has also done pretty much 
>> whatever it wanted to do for a long time (except, or course, for building 
>> a manned space program - when are you guys going to get on the wagon?).
>>
>> George
>>
>
> I don't know that the UK has gotten away with very much since WWII ended 
> really.  Power shifted visibly from the UK to US at that time.  If it 
> hadn't we'd probably be getting accused of dominating the globe.  Of 
> course we'd probably be doing just that! :-)  (I'm pretty sure there was 
> an Empire seven times the size of the Roman Empire around here 
> somewhere...)
>
> We did have a small-scale space programme ages ago operated from 
> Australia - I think at least one effort was called Blue Streak, and of 
> course there's Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic 
> http://www.virgingalactic.com/flash.html?language=english , although US 
> fabrication makes a lot of that possible, so I don't know if that's truly 
> a UK space programme.  I understand William Shatner was offered the first 
> passenger ride, but he declined because they could guarantee if he went up 
> alive he'd come down alive.  I think he should have done it! :-)
>
>
> TWP

Hehehe.  Yeah, well, now that they've lost Scotty somewhere in the 
Pacific...

George<beam me up>

"TWP"  wrote in message 
news:kNSdnST7SaUUuTfVnZ2dnUVZ8v-dnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> "George"  wrote in message 
> news:weoqk.12008$rD2.2816@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
>
>> Some of that looks good on paper (or a flat screen monitor), but in the 
>> atomic age and with nuclear proliferation being a big issue, I don't see 
>> how that will work.  Being prepared to fight to enforce international law 
>> is one thing, but it is critically important to know exactly when to push 
>> away from the table and call it a day.  I think Georgia is one of those.
>>
>> George
>>
>
> I wouldn't touch Georgia really - that isn't a little old lady getting 
> mugged, that's a little guy breaking a bottle over a Hell's Angel's head. 
> It didn't need to happen, and the results of the act were entirely 
> predictable by anyone with more than 20 brain cells.
>
> As for the nuclear age.... I think the reality of the nuclear age is that 
> it hasn't really even got started yet.  This age we live in now is 
> probably the last age where nuclear weapons will be held only by major 
> powers of the world (with a couple of exceptions) who's actions can at 
> least be mostly anticipated.  India and Pakistan and I suppose North Korea 
> will only be the first of many newcomers to the club.  Eventually we'll 
> probably be looking down the barrel of the nuclear gun no matter what we 
> do.  It may seem quiet right now as far as the threat of nuclear holocaust 
> is concerned, but in fact we're probably just in the eye of the storm 
> right now.
>
> If international law is ever to exist it probably needs to be established 
> properly in the next few decades before everyone goes nuclear.
>
>
> TWP

I guess the real issue is not so much international law, though that 
certainly is an issue.  I think the real issue is international law 
enforcement.  Do we continue to allow nations to police themselves or do we 
become Orwellian over it?  Or is there a middle ground?  I don't know what 
the answer is.  It is over my pay grade.

George