Russia is protecting its pipelines.

We have been targeting the oil in that region of the world for quite some time.

I think Russia wants our hands out of their s-oil.

Truly,
Leslie, WaterMan

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08132008.html

By the way, isn’t time for another oh-so-current “Lyndon Larouchebags” quip? I do so enjoy topical humor.

I will repeat what was said earlier, with the addition of Israel:

sacopenapa Says:

Georgia’s government, backed with US’s financial and military support, was the aggressor in this story. The rest is a LIE like WMD was!

August 20th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
______

George W. Bush was elected by a little over 50 million American voters, out of a population of 300 million. Does 1/6th of the population constitute a “general will” sufficient for sovereignty?

Noam Chomsky. Pick up a book by him. The man breaks it down clearly, plainly, and very objectively.

Remember, we have to define words ourselves or the
Websterrorists and thier fancy 5 dollar words will win, and then we wont have those 5 dollars to buy 10 rugs in Iraq. Hopefuly, since we’ve been bribing them with billions of dollars not to kill our soldiers anymore, we will get a discount and will hopefully get at least 20 rugs for 5 bucks.

Keltoi at Night Says:

And Ralph, I was just reacting to Tokin’s use of Rousseau’s words regarding Sovereignty. Rousseau – again, IMHO – would not have thought of Saddam as fulfilling the Social Contract and would therefore not have regarded his regime as “Sovereign”.

Perhaps you should have noted this limitation on your implication when you typed your comment. Nowhere in your post do you mention Rousseau. You appear to be criticizing tokin librul’s understanding of “sovereignty” as it applies to Iraq by invoking a specific phrase, rather than by considering the contemporary understanding of the term.

Hence, Annie’s well-observed criticism of you and your “ridiculous hair splitting”.

But how about we settle this by using the President’s definition of “sovereignty”, shall we?

“Tribal sovereignty means just that; it’s sovereign. You’re a — you’ve been given sovereignty, and you’re viewed as a sovereign entity.”

There! That clears it up, don’t it?

Period. End of story.

In the case of Afghanistan, the UN approved that action, thus making the invasion “legal”. Although, giving the UN the power to determine who is sovereign and who is not is a bit scary.

And Ralph, I was just reacting to Tokin’s use of Rousseau’s words regarding Sovereignty. Rousseau – again, IMHO – would not have thought of Saddam as fulfilling the Social Contract and would therefore not have regarded his regime as “Sovereign”.

I don’t think that would fly in an ethics course.

Keltoi – I expect stupid, irrelevant and factually incorrect arguments from trolls.

I don’t expect that sort of ridiculous hair-splitting from you.

Both Afghanistan AND Iraq were SOVEREIGN NATIONS when we invaded and occupied them – no matter what lies were used as justification for our invasion and occupation of either country.

Period. End of story.

In Rebuke, Afghanistan was a tribal society, not a nation when W entered the fray. There was no central government. The Taliban were actively reducing national treasure to rubble or trash. Local chieftains controlled every facet of life within their own tiny domains. Afghanistan was equal to what existed in Europe during the time of the Roman Empire. The problem is that once W had secured the basics, he went after his macho agenda of toppling Saddam. In the meantime, the situation in Afghanistan deteriorated to the point that our nation is at worst risk then it was on 9/10/01 and is bankrupt to boot.

There was another action that the Russians can us as justification to invade Poland. The threat to there national security posed by the U.S. missile system to be placed in Poland. Plus to stick it to US they will most likely stop the flow of oil through Georgia.

This is an overseas example of the Republicans using fear to steer Poland into a mistake.

I don’t expect that sort of ridiculous hair-splitting from you.

Both Afghanistan AND Iraq were SOVEREIGN NATIONS when we invaded and occupied them – no matter what lies were used as justification for our invasion and occupation of either country.

Period. End of story.

when I said, “You can try to justify the invasion of Iraq on many grounds (and the Right certainly done that) but absence of sovereignty is not one of them” I should have written, “absence of sovereignty is one of the less realistic”.

Because evidence is abundant that justifications every bit as outlandish as “absence of sovereignty” have been offered over the past five years. There seems to be no limit of outlandishness on that front.

Keltoi at Night Says:
tokin librul Says:
with the understanding that the Sovereign is “a collective being” (Book II, Chapter I) resulting from “the general will” of the people, and that “what any man, whoever he may be, orders on his own, is not a law”

Whatever else he may have been, Saddam hardly constituted “the general will” of the Iraqi people. While it oversimplifies to say Sovereign means “free”, the Sovereignty of the Junta in Burma is at least open to debate when they deliberately kill their own people and kill still more when they forbid outside help to citizens in need.

Not all Sovereignty is created equal, IMHO. Georgia is a democracy where the collective will of the people is represented. That is very different from Saddam’s Iraq.

No, Keltoi, it does not “oversimplify” it to say that “sovereign means free”. It misinterprets it.

As does your implication that “sovereignty” requires “the general will of the people”. In an ideal sense that’s true, but in a practical sense it ignores the wide range of political structures and authorities across the globe.

Iraq had a functioning state apparatus and was recognized by the nations of the world as a nation.

You can try to justify the invasion of Iraq on many grounds (and the Right certainly done that) but absence of sovereignty is not one of them.