(further on)

“The real wickedness of the West is here inscribed. It is the wickedness of the deserter who abandons his duty, betrays his ancestors and cuts off his own posterity. It is the wickedness of the man who rationalizes a policy of appeasement. Nearly everyone talks as if there were no WMDs in Iraq and the invasion went ahead on a false basis. President Bush is therefore discredited as a liar. The United States is converted into the likeness of its enemy. The totalitarian powers are said to be no worse than the United States. Whatever crimes they’ve committed are attributed to the CIA. Such claims as these are repeated in American classrooms, put in the ears of American children every day. They are published in books, newspapers and magazines. As Russian President Vladimir Putin recently said, the crimes of the Soviet past are comparable to the crimes of America; the wrongdoing of Stalin may be compared to the wrongdoing of Harry Truman. And many Americans are ready to concede his point. Here is the argument of the fellow traveler.”

( from JR Nyquist’s Global Analysis –the essay from July 2nd of last year: Moral Equivalence )

So what? The world recognizes both areas as Georgian territory. Only Russia differs in that department. There are places in the U.S. that have a minority white population, that mean they can’t be American territory? Ethnicity and nationality are not necessarily synonymous.

South Ossetians started their mad adventure under Russian tutelage. The Russian aim to gain a foothold in Georgia that would get them past the southern Caucasus. What the Georgians did early in the affair does nothing to excuse Ossetian and Russia behavior.

Or is it the ‘injustice’ of Georgian actions that bothers you? Could it be the long going Georgian/Russian conflict inconveniences you? Might it be you’re upset at all the attention we’re giving to this, which is diverting us from the far more vital problem of Obama’s Constitutional disqualification for the office of president. Or, for that matter, the West’s refusal to accept Vlad Putin as our lord, savior, and prime supplier of petroleum goods.

Are you upset that we keep shining an impertinent light on Russian perfidy?

You poor moral relativist. How dare we insist on standards of conduct and behavior? How dare we call upon people to behave decently and with courtesy and consideration for others? Who gave us the right to insist on respect for those who honestly merit it? Who are we to demand verifiable facts and testable evidence, when such distresses poor bloviating dweebs like you?

Think I’m being cruel now? Markus, I have not yet begun to flame.

The “hard to know what Hitler intended all along” is my comment, not Markus’, and refers to the specific moves Hitler made before and during the war, i.e., he didn’t want war with England vs he prepared to invade England; he planned open warfare by 1945 vs moved up the timetable when Britain and France appeared weak; and so forth. I don’t believe Hitler intended all along to be fighting in North Africa early in the war, but like in Greece, felt it important to bail out Mussolini. On the other hand, the assertion that Hitler did not originally intend to invade the Soviet Union (made in the TV program I referenced my earlier comment) is hard to credit.

As usual, a complete crock of lying dishonest bullshit from “markus” – Hitler made his intentions clear when he wrote Mein Kampf, meanwhile “markus” keeps pimping the Buchananite line that Poland started WWII and making excuses for anyone with murder in their heart for the Jews. I’ll just keep repeating it – it’s like blaming Megan’s Law on Megan.

Moral ambiguity, not moral equivalency. Another word would be realism.

Georgia was intervening in Russian occupied Georgian territory. Take your finessing and moral equivalency and use it for a suppository.

You don’t want to face the possibility of conflict, and you hate having to admit that some people need killing. You’re not being fair, you’re being a waffling ass.

Late author and magazine editor John Wood Campbell Jr. once said that there is rarely two sides to a story. More often there are as many sides as there are participants. Sometimes there is only one side to a story. You refuse to decide between the parties, and inflict your ethical indeterminancy crap on people.

Russia invaded Georgia. Russia’s invasion of Georgia occurred years ago, the most recent round of fighting was triggered by Georgian attempts to regain Georgian territory under Russian occupation. Your denials and lies don’t change a thing. You’re a fool, and an enabler for a fraud. That is my honest opinion of you, based on what you’ve written. In case you’re wondering, I am a bastard and I’m proud of it.

Today’s Wall Street Journal (here) carries an instructive review of a new book by Jonathan Brent about his experiences in digging up and publishing Soviet state documents since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991…. Of particularly interest to me are the author’s reflections on the Russian people. [The book reviewer] Tartakovsky writes of Bard and his experiences:

Mr. Brent intersperses his archival quest with reflections on modern Russia. His argument … is that the Soviet mentality is reasserting itself aggressively in Russia today…. [I]n Brent’s view, Russia feels the same: drab,careworn, suffocating. He describes the unrelieved crumminess of all Russian manufactures that are not weapons or space stations. Empty restaurants run out of menus, their strange meats unpierceable by the average fork…. But perhaps a touch of existential despair may be excused when, for locals, it is tradition itself. No country that staggers within a century from Third Rome to Third International to Third World looks confidently to its future. When Mr. Brent asks a woman what she thinks about the years ahead, she answers: “I don’t.”

Whatever the nature of their politics or the name of their state, the Russian people seem never to change. Ira Gershwin’s insight and humor come to mind: “I’ve found more clouds of gray, than any Russian play – can guarantee” (from But Not For Me). Winston Churchill too had Russia’s number: “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.”

R. Balsamo
http://criticalthoughtsblog.blogspot.com/

Yeah, I’ve felt the same way about Europe taking care of its own defense for a while now. Of course, it’s really not monolithic, which makes it easier for Russia to try to divide and conquer (stick with what works, right?). Russia would take at least part of its buffer states back if they could get away with it. I think their calculus is somewhat defensive and pre-emptive, in that the weaker and further way their neighbors, the less potential for trouble down the road.

As far as Hitler’s intent, it is hard to know what he intended all along vs the opportunistic moves. There was a History / Discovery channel program just the other day claiming Hitler did not originally intend to invade the USSR. I do think there was a very large element of payback in most everything he set in motion.

Good discussion. I’m trying to study, so I’m checking out till tomorrow. Be well.