Off Topic: Curious about how others feel about the Georgian/Russian war

[XBoxBoy]

I hope they invade South Carolina while they are nearby. (Never did like that state)

[XBoxBoy]

I hope they invade South Carolina while they are nearby. (Never did like that state)

[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: Quoting Brezinski is problematic, and for three major reasons: (1) His obsession with the Soviets has made subsequent pronouncements suspect, largely because many of them are revisionist in nature and stand at odds with memoranda, letters and policies from the Carter Administration, most notably the recollections of Cyrus Vance, Secretary of State under Carter, (2) His claim to have either duped the Soviets into invading Afghanistan, or pushed them into it (as part of a grand geopolitical strategy on his part) is also at odds with history, especially the part which ignores the Soviet’s co-optation of the Kabul government in the months leading up to the 1979 invasion (this was well covered in the book “Charlie Wilson’s War”) and (3) His unwillingness to admit to his part in the formation of the muj, al-Qaeda and the Taliban, all of which he financed, armed and supported in their struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

These would be those same “stirred up Moslems” that he gives such short shrift to in his interview. Note the juxtaposition to the “Greater Good” argument of putting the Soviets out of business. Also remember that the Afghan War was simply one event in the larger Cold War. What ultimately put the Soviets under was the massive monetary expenditures and econcomic exertions necessary to keep pace with the US, especially during the Reagan years.

As much as Brzezinski would love to take credit for much of this, history tells a different story.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: Quoting Brezinski is problematic, and for three major reasons: (1) His obsession with the Soviets has made subsequent pronouncements suspect, largely because many of them are revisionist in nature and stand at odds with memoranda, letters and policies from the Carter Administration, most notably the recollections of Cyrus Vance, Secretary of State under Carter, (2) His claim to have either duped the Soviets into invading Afghanistan, or pushed them into it (as part of a grand geopolitical strategy on his part) is also at odds with history, especially the part which ignores the Soviet’s co-optation of the Kabul government in the months leading up to the 1979 invasion (this was well covered in the book “Charlie Wilson’s War”) and (3) His unwillingness to admit to his part in the formation of the muj, al-Qaeda and the Taliban, all of which he financed, armed and supported in their struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

These would be those same “stirred up Moslems” that he gives such short shrift to in his interview. Note the juxtaposition to the “Greater Good” argument of putting the Soviets out of business. Also remember that the Afghan War was simply one event in the larger Cold War. What ultimately put the Soviets under was the massive monetary expenditures and econcomic exertions necessary to keep pace with the US, especially during the Reagan years.

As much as Brzezinski would love to take credit for much of this, history tells a different story.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: Quoting Brezinski is problematic, and for three major reasons: (1) His obsession with the Soviets has made subsequent pronouncements suspect, largely because many of them are revisionist in nature and stand at odds with memoranda, letters and policies from the Carter Administration, most notably the recollections of Cyrus Vance, Secretary of State under Carter, (2) His claim to have either duped the Soviets into invading Afghanistan, or pushed them into it (as part of a grand geopolitical strategy on his part) is also at odds with history, especially the part which ignores the Soviet’s co-optation of the Kabul government in the months leading up to the 1979 invasion (this was well covered in the book “Charlie Wilson’s War”) and (3) His unwillingness to admit to his part in the formation of the muj, al-Qaeda and the Taliban, all of which he financed, armed and supported in their struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

These would be those same “stirred up Moslems” that he gives such short shrift to in his interview. Note the juxtaposition to the “Greater Good” argument of putting the Soviets out of business. Also remember that the Afghan War was simply one event in the larger Cold War. What ultimately put the Soviets under was the massive monetary expenditures and econcomic exertions necessary to keep pace with the US, especially during the Reagan years.

As much as Brzezinski would love to take credit for much of this, history tells a different story.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: Quoting Brezinski is problematic, and for three major reasons: (1) His obsession with the Soviets has made subsequent pronouncements suspect, largely because many of them are revisionist in nature and stand at odds with memoranda, letters and policies from the Carter Administration, most notably the recollections of Cyrus Vance, Secretary of State under Carter, (2) His claim to have either duped the Soviets into invading Afghanistan, or pushed them into it (as part of a grand geopolitical strategy on his part) is also at odds with history, especially the part which ignores the Soviet’s co-optation of the Kabul government in the months leading up to the 1979 invasion (this was well covered in the book “Charlie Wilson’s War”) and (3) His unwillingness to admit to his part in the formation of the muj, al-Qaeda and the Taliban, all of which he financed, armed and supported in their struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

These would be those same “stirred up Moslems” that he gives such short shrift to in his interview. Note the juxtaposition to the “Greater Good” argument of putting the Soviets out of business. Also remember that the Afghan War was simply one event in the larger Cold War. What ultimately put the Soviets under was the massive monetary expenditures and econcomic exertions necessary to keep pace with the US, especially during the Reagan years.

As much as Brzezinski would love to take credit for much of this, history tells a different story.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: Quoting Brezinski is problematic, and for three major reasons: (1) His obsession with the Soviets has made subsequent pronouncements suspect, largely because many of them are revisionist in nature and stand at odds with memoranda, letters and policies from the Carter Administration, most notably the recollections of Cyrus Vance, Secretary of State under Carter, (2) His claim to have either duped the Soviets into invading Afghanistan, or pushed them into it (as part of a grand geopolitical strategy on his part) is also at odds with history, especially the part which ignores the Soviet’s co-optation of the Kabul government in the months leading up to the 1979 invasion (this was well covered in the book “Charlie Wilson’s War”) and (3) His unwillingness to admit to his part in the formation of the muj, al-Qaeda and the Taliban, all of which he financed, armed and supported in their struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

These would be those same “stirred up Moslems” that he gives such short shrift to in his interview. Note the juxtaposition to the “Greater Good” argument of putting the Soviets out of business. Also remember that the Afghan War was simply one event in the larger Cold War. What ultimately put the Soviets under was the massive monetary expenditures and econcomic exertions necessary to keep pace with the US, especially during the Reagan years.

As much as Brzezinski would love to take credit for much of this, history tells a different story.

[afx114]

Do we even know for sure yet who started it? It’s so easy to fall back to Cold War stereotypes and blame everything on Russia, but things are different today. I’m not saying that either Russia or Georgia is at fault, what I’m saying is that we don’t know the whole story yet. I would hope that we could get the facts straight first before taking the easy way out and having a Red Dawn marathon at our houses tonight.

[afx114]

Do we even know for sure yet who started it? It’s so easy to fall back to Cold War stereotypes and blame everything on Russia, but things are different today. I’m not saying that either Russia or Georgia is at fault, what I’m saying is that we don’t know the whole story yet. I would hope that we could get the facts straight first before taking the easy way out and having a Red Dawn marathon at our houses tonight.

[afx114]

Do we even know for sure yet who started it? It’s so easy to fall back to Cold War stereotypes and blame everything on Russia, but things are different today. I’m not saying that either Russia or Georgia is at fault, what I’m saying is that we don’t know the whole story yet. I would hope that we could get the facts straight first before taking the easy way out and having a Red Dawn marathon at our houses tonight.

[afx114]

Do we even know for sure yet who started it? It’s so easy to fall back to Cold War stereotypes and blame everything on Russia, but things are different today. I’m not saying that either Russia or Georgia is at fault, what I’m saying is that we don’t know the whole story yet. I would hope that we could get the facts straight first before taking the easy way out and having a Red Dawn marathon at our houses tonight.

[afx114]

Do we even know for sure yet who started it? It’s so easy to fall back to Cold War stereotypes and blame everything on Russia, but things are different today. I’m not saying that either Russia or Georgia is at fault, what I’m saying is that we don’t know the whole story yet. I would hope that we could get the facts straight first before taking the easy way out and having a Red Dawn marathon at our houses tonight.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: I’m willing to bet that both sides share culpability. Undoubtedly the Georgians, bolstered by their relationship with the US, tweaked Putin’s nose and the Russians wasted no time in seizing the opportunity to respond.

Putin’s annoyance with Georgia is well known, as are his ambitions to restore Russia’s fading glory and pre-empt NATO’s moves further east.

However, the idea that arraya expounds, namely that the West and NATO are “aggressors” is arrant nonsense. Russia has become extremely bellicose as of late, largely fueled by her newfound energy wealth and resulting influence in Europe. Russia has always had designs on this part of the world, and Putin took a calculated gamble.

Wolverines!

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: I’m willing to bet that both sides share culpability. Undoubtedly the Georgians, bolstered by their relationship with the US, tweaked Putin’s nose and the Russians wasted no time in seizing the opportunity to respond.

Putin’s annoyance with Georgia is well known, as are his ambitions to restore Russia’s fading glory and pre-empt NATO’s moves further east.

However, the idea that arraya expounds, namely that the West and NATO are “aggressors” is arrant nonsense. Russia has become extremely bellicose as of late, largely fueled by her newfound energy wealth and resulting influence in Europe. Russia has always had designs on this part of the world, and Putin took a calculated gamble.

Wolverines!

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: I’m willing to bet that both sides share culpability. Undoubtedly the Georgians, bolstered by their relationship with the US, tweaked Putin’s nose and the Russians wasted no time in seizing the opportunity to respond.

Putin’s annoyance with Georgia is well known, as are his ambitions to restore Russia’s fading glory and pre-empt NATO’s moves further east.

However, the idea that arraya expounds, namely that the West and NATO are “aggressors” is arrant nonsense. Russia has become extremely bellicose as of late, largely fueled by her newfound energy wealth and resulting influence in Europe. Russia has always had designs on this part of the world, and Putin took a calculated gamble.

Wolverines!

[Author]

Posts