RoR: Forum

This new conflict on the international scene leaves me ... acutely aware of my ignorance of current global politics.

At the moment, I have trouble forming an opinion or judgment of who is right or wrong in this conflict.

Perhaps others here who have followed these events in detail can give us an executive summary of the events and their moral merits.

Post 1

Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 2:50pm

The stated dispute from Russia is that the Georgian military conducted incursions into what is considered by some an autonomous region of South Ossetia last week. But Russia has not respected this alleged autonomy and has troops stationed there under the label of "peacekeepers". Although it appears they may have been laying the groundwork of an eventual invasion (evidence of that is not conclusive but enough evidence raises suspicion of this, I believe the US ambassador to Georgia claims Russia all along was building up South Ossetia's infrastructure to make way for an eventual invasion).

Georgia claims that Russia has routinely violated its airspace, and that separatists in South Ossetia are backed by Russian arms and money and that they are responsible for trying to destabilize Georgia's territorial integrity.

The Russians seem to have a policy of future hegemony over their former client states that existed previously under the Soviet Union. Putin has voiced displeasure over these former client states taking a pro-west position and soliciting membership to NATO which countries like Georgia and the Ukraine have done.

Georgia has a freely elected government. It has some issues according to Freedom House, but has a much more western approach towards a free society than the current autocratic Russian society has. Putin has openly voiced displeasure over Georgia's elected president.

Post 2

Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 3:38pm

I appreciate the executive summary, John.

I saw someone in another forum compare these actions to those of Hitler invading Czechoslovakia. In that instance, the world powers assumed that Hitler would stop if appeased with that one invasion. History proved them wrong.

What actions might and ought the United States take in response to these events?

Post 3

Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 4:13pm

It appears Russia may be backing off a bit. Hard to tell but I think they may understand there will be significant economic impacts on Russia if they continue this aggression. I think it's obvious too Putin is nothing more than an oil Facist colluding with Russian oil companies, and dislikes any Western effort of bypassing Russian oil exports and pipelines (a major oil pipeline runs through Azerbaijan and Georgia). I don't think there is a perfect answer here and I won't presume to know what is the best course of action, but here is what I would like to see;

Long term strategy is to get off of foreign oil. (I think auto manufacturers will most likely from free market pressures offer us alternative fuel cars, I am particularly excited about the new wave of battery powered cars that Nissan, GM, Mitsubishi and a few others are going to unveil in a couple years)

Short term, isolate Russia economically and embarrass them politically. Kick them out of the G8 and kick them out of the WTO. Put the Ukraine on a fast track to NATO membership, and make it clear to Putin an attack on Ukraine will be an attack on all NATO members. This can at least contain Russian Imperialism. If Russia persists in its military invasion of Georgia, heavily arm and supply the Georgians, give Russia its second Vietnam (their first being Afghanistan in the 1980's) and lie to them that we are arming them (doesn't matter if they believe it). I think it's obvious Russia is instigating a new cold war, routinely sells weapons to anti-West governments (Venezuela being the most recent one) and refuses to help on issues like Iran, choosing to side with the Mullahs. I think enough is enough, tell them if they want another cold war, we'll be more than happy to bankrupt them again a second time.

Post 4

Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 10:34pm

The US government should abide by its rational justification for being - the protection of individual rights within its geographical boundaries.

We pave the way for expansion of the powers of government over people every time we express an expectation that they "do something" whether domestic or foreign.

I cringe every time Bush or Obama or McCain or Pelosi start to talk about foreign affairs or foreign policy.

Post 5

Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 11:09pm

Steve I also cringe every time I hear isolationists dismiss things like an attack on a free democratic nation by a facist dictatorship as something that is none of our business. If we value freedom, and we value our interests and our right to engage in peaceful international trade, it would be in our best interests to recognize there exists a harmony of interests between nations, and that free democratic nations have a common interest in ensuring that naked aggression carried out by thugs and tyrants should not go without a response. If the West doesn't send a clear signal to Russia this kind of aggression will not be tolerated, they won't stop with Georgia.

I think we had a disagreement about something like this about year ago here.

Post 6

Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 11:30pm

Steve, I would be a little more sympathetic to that view, if I had some historical reason to believe that dictatorships like that of Russia would be happy to stop at their borders. But Hitler didn't stop at the Rhine, or the Sudeten, or Austria, or Poland, or France, or Demnmark... Russia didn't stop with Finland, or Ukraine, or Hungary, or Czechoslovakia... The Jihadis didn't stop with Mecca, or Medina, or Jerusalem, or Bagdad, or Constantinople, or Cadiz...

What is happening in Georgia is not an isolated matter. When do we take notice? When the Soviets return to Cuba? Or not even then? Georgia's crime has been to lobby for NATO and EU membership. The solution is to give it to them, not to close up shop in response to Russian bullying. Standing up to bullies does not have to mean an extension of illegitimate powers. keeping such powers in check is a separate issue, and a battle that will be fought whether we stand up in Georgia or not.

Post 7

Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 12:05am

I don't agree with Pat Buchanan that often, but read what he has to say in this column from last April, titled, "Should We Fight for South Ossetia?" He is talking about Bush:
-----
"He [Bush] is flying to Bucharest, Romania, to persuade Europe to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which means a U.S. commitment to treat any Russian attack on Kiev or Tbilisi like an attack on Kansas or Texas.

Article V of the NATO treaty declares that "an armed attack against one or more (allies) shall be considered an attack against them all." Added language makes clear that the commitment to assist an ally is not unconditional. Rather, each signatory will assist the ally under attack with "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force."

Yet, it was understood during the Cold War that if a NATO ally like Norway, West Germany or Turkey, which bordered on the Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact, were attacked, America would come to its defense.

Can any sane man believe the United States should go to war with a nuclear-armed Russia over Stalin's birthplace, Georgia?

Two provinces of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, have seceded, with the backing of Russia. And there are 10 million Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the east of that country, and Moscow and Kiev are at odds over which is sovereign on the Crimean Peninsula.

To bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO would put America in the middle of these quarrels. We could be dragged into a confrontation with Russia over Abkhazia, or South Ossetia, or who owns Sebastopol. To bring these ex-republics of the Soviet Union into NATO would be an affront to Moscow not unlike 19th century Britain bringing the Confederate state of South Carolina under the protection of the British Empire.

How would Lincoln's Union have reacted to that?

With a weary army and no NATO ally willing to fight beside us, how could we defend Georgia if Tbilisi, once in NATO, defied Moscow and invaded Abkhazia and South Ossetia -- and Russia bombed the Georgian army and capital? Would we declare war? Would we send the 82nd Airborne into the Pankisi Gorge?

Fortunately, Germany is prepared to veto any Bush attempt to put Ukraine or Georgia on a fast track into NATO. But President Bush is no longer the problem. John McCain is.

As Anatol Lieven writes in the Financial Times, McCain supports a restoration of Georgian rule over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. He wants to throw Russia out of the G-8 -- and talks flippantly of bombing Iran.

Says McCain, "I would institute a policy called 'rogue state rollback.' I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically elected governments."

Wonderful. A Second Crusade for Global Democracy. But with the Joint Chiefs warning of a war-weary Army and Marine Corps, who will fight all the new wars the neocons and their new champion have in store for us?"
-----

People don't appreciate the degree to which this administration has unnecessarily antagonized Russia because of the NeoCon's Christian animus towards atheism and the left-over Conservative's confrontational attitudes towards Communism.

John calls me an "isolationist" - that isn't particularly helpful. Should I call him an "interventionist" - that wouldn't be helpful either.

John links to a post of his where he misunderstands my quote. I was saying that it wasn't Hitler's evil, but rather the attack on us that justified our entry into WW II. He carries on as if I was claiming we weren't attacked. I have NO intention of going back and re-fighting those old posts.

John says, "...that free democratic nations have a common interest in ensuring that naked aggression carried out by thugs and tyrants should not go without a response. If the West doesn't send a clear signal to Russia this kind of aggression will not be tolerated, they won't stop with Georgia." Nice rhetoric, but what is the proposed action?

Ted says, "When do we take notice? When the Soviets return to Cuba? Or not even then? Georgia's crime has been to lobby for NATO and EU membership. The solution is to give it to them, not to close up shop in response to Russian bullying. Standing up to bullies does not have to mean an extension of illegitimate powers. keeping such powers in check is a separate issue, and a battle that will be fought whether we stand up in Georgia or not."

It is not in the self-interest of our nation to continue treaty obligations that require us to go to war with a nuclear power to stop an armed conflict in Ossetia. We should not be in Nato any longer and the best way to avoid another cold war (which NO one should want to see again) is to eliminate those treaty obligations that only made sense during the cold war. I'm happy with Russia coming back to Cuba (to provide financial support - not missile bases). Until the United States (not Ossetia) is being bullied, we should mind our own business.

I'm hearing calls for the United States to be the world's policeman - and I don't believe that to be moral, legal, or practical.

Post 8

Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 12:33am

I myself only agree with Buchanan's protectionist trade policy, with his suspicion toward Jews, and with his loathing for homosexuals.

Post 9

Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 12:49am

Ted, you left out his opposition to abortion...

but you also didn't address the issue raised in the quoted material, which is in line with Objectivist principles.

Post 10

Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 12:53am

Steve:

People don't appreciate the degree to which this administration has unnecessarily antagonized Russia because of the NeoCon's Christian animus towards atheism and the left-over Conservative's confrontational attitudes towards Communism.

This has left me a bit confused. The Bush administration has antagonized Russia because Bush is a Christian and the Bush administration is just too stupid to realize Russia is predominately Russian Orthodox Christian and not communist atheists anymore? I don't understand. Sounds bizarre to me.

John calls me an "isolationist" - that isn't particularly helpful. Should I call him an "interventionist" - that wouldn't be helpful either.

But you see, I don't mind being called an interventionist, because within a particular context, I believe interventionism is moral.

John links to a post of his where he misunderstands my quote. I was saying that it wasn't Hitler's evil, but rather the attack on us that justified our entry into WW II. He carries on as if I was claiming we weren't attacked. I have NO intention of going back and re-fighting those old posts.

Steve this misunderstanding was inconsequential to the abstractions you argued for, your argument was that had the United States not been attacked, it would not have been justified to declare war on Germany in WW2. I took exception to that as an irrational theory for retaliatory force because it is an intrinsicist view of what is justifiable force. That force taken by a nation in order for it to be justified can only be justified if the nation's soil is literally attacked (your position) and no other context may apply to a legitimate use of retaliatory force. I regarded the thread I linked to, to have delved into a wider discussion about the general abstractions of isolationism vs. interventionism. WW2 was the initial topic discussion but it turned into an example used for a moral argument for interventionism on my part.

John says, "...that free democratic nations have a common interest in ensuring that naked aggression carried out by thugs and tyrants should not go without a response. If the West doesn't send a clear signal to Russia this kind of aggression will not be tolerated, they won't stop with Georgia." Nice rhetoric, but what is the proposed action?

Hmmm, it seems you are quite fond of accusing me of using rhetoric, and it seems in this thread, you completely ignored my post 3 where I give actual proposed actions. Perhaps it would behoove you to read the whole thread before responding?

Post 11

Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 1:04am

John,

I never cease to be amazed at the willingness of people who call themselves Objectivists to declare that they have the right to use my tax dollars to fund their foreign policy interventions.

I've stated my position. I have no interest in these round and round arguments that you seem to enjoy. The thread is all yours.

Post 12

Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 1:50am

Steve, how convenient for you to claim self-righteous anger and then duck from defending your moral positions? You did the same thing a year ago when you professed you lost all respect for me. I'm sensing a pattern.

The fact is I never said I have a right to tax you for any reason whatsoever, to fund foreign policy interventions or even to fund a police department. But the fact remains we do not live in an Objectivist society, and while it is immoral that we are forcibly taxed, it is not immoral when for example a police officer acts to defend the rights of our citizens. Should I also be against trials for murder suspects, on the grounds that it is immoral for that trial to be funded through forcible taxation? Again, another intrincisict way of looking at morality. Trials for murderers are in our rational self-interests just as foreign intervention into matters that threaten our international trading partners and allies whom we depend on for our continued wealth and prosperity are in our rational self-interests.

Now if you are done with your pseudo-indignations, how about engaging in some high standard discussions that you are usually known for here?

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/13, 1:57am)

Post 13

Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 7:50am

The US government should abide by its rational justification for being - the protection of individual rights within its geographical boundaries.

This made sense when it took 3 months to cross the Atlantic, man could not travel faster than a horse could run, and weapons were limited to short range cannons and muskets. In an age of globalization, trans global flights, bioterrorism, nuclear power, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and suit case nukes it's idiotically naive. In the coming age of synthetic life, nanotechnology (weapons that can copy themselves) molecular manufacturing, single state to orbit vehicles, etc, its murderously stupid.

Every year the ability to kill more and more people increases while the cost to do so decreases. Burying our heads in the sand and sitting idly by while murderous tyrannies and dictatorships clamor over the potentials of these new powers and merely hoping every thing turns out a'ok is not at all in anyone rational self interest. It is these nations which start and fight all wars, which house all the famines, which breed the diseases which may wipe out humanity. These nations that have such stifling economic controls that they have outdated and incompetent health infrastructures are are completely unable to control pandemic outbreaks, that have such oppressive regulations as to keep millions in poverty and such total media control as to blame it on everyone but their own murderously inept rulers, breeding terrorist murderers.

Murderous dictatorships are a moral crime against humanity. They are giant prison camps and terrorist breeding grounds. They are the origin of the greatest existential threats humanity faces right now. Liberal market based Democracies do not go to war with each other, and do not start wars. They stop pandemics and undermine terrorism. Their markets create the wealth of high standard of living of the world. They are the richest, freest, and most militarily powerful part of the world, and it is in theirs and every rational human beings long term rational self interest to ultimately end all murderous dictatorships and tyrannies.

I don't agree with Pat Buchanan that often, but read what he has to say in this column from last April, titled, "Should We Fight for South Ossetia?" He is talking about Bush:

Buchanan desires the rise of a Christian fascist state, and democratic liberal democracies actively undermine that. His most recent book blames WWII and the Holocaust on the Allies, insisting that had they just left Hitler alone, he would have been satisfied with Czechoslovakia and never instituted the final solution, which he alleges just came from the wartime atmosphere. An absurd ignorance of history, as Hitler said from the start the great enemy of the Germanic people was judeo bolshevism and that communism was a plot by jews to take over the world, and setup gangs and programs from the start of his rise to power to persecute and ultimately rid Germany of jews.

See the greatest intellectual tag team in history of Christopher Hitchens and Victor Davis Hanson completely obliterate Pat Buchanan's idiocy.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30887

John A said:

Should I also be against trials for murder suspects, on the grounds that it is immoral for that trial to be funded through forcible taxation?

John, how dare you forcibly tax me and use that to criminally prosecute someone who never did anything to me!!!

Funny how Steve keeps evading answering this.

Post 14

Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 3:55pm

I wish there was a "Favorite Post" button to save stuff like #13 on this thread.

Post 15

Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 4:51pm

I agree with Teresa!

Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 8:30am