What's the Difference between Russia's Attack on Georgia and the U.S. Invasion of Ira

Only one problem...

Russia did not have a cease-fire treaty signed in 1991 with the Georgian government, which in turn the Georgian government broke, so there is really nothing similar in the two cases. You have apples and oranges here.

 

And there it is. The end of any reason for this thread.

 

Bush and McCain are making a lot of hypocritical statements


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmLrUjW4gEs&watch_response

Russia's message makes good reason ...Bush was disproportionate in his occupation of Iraq when clearly Iraq was not a threat what so ever to a Hyper-Power (United States)

The statements Bush and McCain are making are coming back to haunt them in the form of Iraq.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtdVS8646GI


Now Bush like a child is hitting back in pushing for missiles in Poland which will not work anyway and claims it is because of Iran which seems to fall down when he is putting those missiles when this just so happens to be going on in South Osettia.


bottom line Georgia with the training of U.S. troops attacked South Osettia killed peace keepers and civilians and now come the consequences, all because of Bush incompetent leadership who cared little about the details. but take notice Bush is trying to turn that on its ear with statements that just turn inward and his hypocrisy with disproportionate response in Iraq...it is classic pot calling the kettle black.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmLrUjW4gEs&watch_response

Couldn't have said it better myself. :thumbs:

 

Also hypocritical are those who criticize Bush's actions as illegal & immoral, and then turn around and immediately justify Putin's invasion.

The Polish president is demanding missile defense now, after seeing what the Russians have been doing in Georgia. "Poland and the Poles do not want to be in alliances in which assistance comes at some point later — it is no good when assistance comes to dead people." he said.

 

It appears Russia has a much bigger agenda on its mind than Osetta. Part of the solution should be for Russia's military to stay out of it.

 

Typical liberal blah!!!

USA bad!! Everybody else good!!


S-I-G-H

 

Iraq Had Advance Warnings

We spent years warning Iraq that if they did not stop there attempts to secure WMD's and adhere to the 1991 agreement, we would be back, and this time it would be to bring down Saddam.

Russia made NO such warnings, and it did not have a UN resolution to allow it to blast its way into Georgia/

We exhausted all forms of diplomacy from 1991 through 2003, Russia wasted no time on diplomacy....they simply rolled into the break away republic, and did so to let the world know that they are back, and the block will once again be theirs.

Pastor Paul :tear:

 

Only if by exhausted you mean the neocons and mass media did everything in their power to bring diplomacy to an abrupt halt.

 

The problem with all that is that the Russians don't appear to be stopping with South Ossetia. They have continued to advance into non-disputed Georgian territory. They are insisting that president Saakashvili must go. They are now threatening Poland with nuclear attack.

How did the Russians manage to have themselves declared 'peacekeepers' in S. Ossetia to begin with? Put the fox in charge of the henhouse, didn't the UN.

And you do realize that Russia holds veto power in the UN Security Council. Any new resolution would have been to their advantage.

 

Russia is on the security counsel and could veto anything brought up.

 

Typical Neo-CON blah!

USA good (and can do no wrong); Everyone else (when they do the same things we do) bad

S-I-G-H

 

I would refer you all back to post number 2 of this thread in order to distinguish the difference between the situations between the U.S./Iraq and Russia/Georgia.

 

Who says that cease-fire agreements are only temporary and do not last for 10 years? The bottom line is the fact that on March 3, 1991 - Iraq accepted the terms of a ceasefire between U.S. led coalition forces and the Iraqi government. The terms of this cease-fire were incorporated into the primary ceasefire resolution UNSCR 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq to end its weapons of mass destruction programs, recognize Kuwait, account for missing Kuwaitis, return Kuwaiti property and end support for international terrorism. Iraq was also required to end repression of its people. Source: http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/iraq_timeline.shtml

So there are two treaties or agreements in play here. The first between the U.S. and Iraq. The second between Iraq and the UN. Saddam's Iraq broke both of the treaties/agreements. Just because the Clinton Administration failed to enforce the terms of the original U.S./Iraqi treaty/agreement and a period of time elapsed does not mean that the original treaty/agreement is now invalid (or invalid as of March 2003). Take a close look at the time-line linked above and see all the ways that Saddam's government violated the terms of both of these (US & UN) treaties/agreements.

 

Double posted. I don't know what happened.

 

Here is an article about UN cease-fire agreement that ended the hostilities in the Korean War: http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=3324

Note: The presence of U.S. Troops in South Korea helps to enforce the terms of this cease-fire agreement to this day.

Here is an article about the cease-fire agreement that ended U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War: http://www.mishalov.com/Vietnam_peacepact.html

Would you say these cease-fire agreements are temporary? Haven't these cease-fire agreements lasted more than 10 years?