But When YOU Do It, It’s “Disproportionate”.
U.S. faults Russia for violence in Georgia; says response ‘disproportionate‘
A senior U.S. official says Russia has attacked areas of the former Soviet state that are far away from the separatist province of South Ossetia where the fighting has centred. The official said Saturday that Moscow’s military response is disproportionate to the threat.
Ah. The Russian response is “disproportionate”, in light of the threat represented.
We agree.
It just sounds a little peculiar, coming as it does from a country that felt “threatened” enough to invade a bankrupt country half a world away, crippled by sanctions and corruption, under continuous overflight surveillance and UN inspection. Must just be me.
And the American list of hypocritical judgments and pie hole openings grows… are we sure that Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf hasn’t found gainful employment as a White House writer?
hmm, how long ’til steve the large pipes in with some tutting and harrumphing about the disproportionate response. not at all measured like the israeli response in lebanon. just won’t do, not cricket at all, that. when justice holds the scales, she is blind. when conservatives hold the scales, they are retarded and heavy of thumb.
But why just centre out the Americans? What of Russian hypocrisy, and I quote, “The continued destruction of civilian infrastructure in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories and the disproportionate use of force by Israel, which causes suffering to the civilian population, can be neither understood nor justified” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin.
“But why just centre out the Americans? What of Russian hypocrisy?”
Well, Kateland, I guess that would be because:
a) there isn’t room or time to explore the full dimension of the entire world’s iniquity from every single point of view in every single blog post, and
b) this happens to be the story and quote that caught me eye.
Hope that’s okay.
I wasn’t suggesting you examine the full dimension of the entire world’s iniquity from every single point of view in every single blog post, but in this instance, I think the Russian one is also germane. Nor do I believe it’s overreaching to mention Russian ‘iniquity’ in ‘pot meet kettle’ kind of way considering Russia happens to be a direct participant in this matter. There is no need to attempt to go all Grozny about it, but by all mean, carry on America bashing unencumbered by my two cents.
Far be it from me to put words in b’s mouth but given that America seems to have decided that it is the global arbitrator of right and wrong this sort of hypocrisy should be pointed out and mocked as often as it appears.
Russia is, of course, in the same boat but when it comes to condemning others in the world for what they have done or are contemplating doing I can’t think of a country that has been more vocal than America.
“America-bashing”.
Sigh. Well, you’re getting BETTER at the Shlemazl thing, although you’re still way too polite.
Let’s examine our little exchance, purged of our respective bon mots and illustrative text.
I said: Gee. Isn’t there something odd about a country calling “disproportionate force”, when they’re doing it too?
You responded:Oh, YEAH? Well, Russians have done it too!
Now, in a court of law, or even a discussion with your kids, that would probably not amount to much of a rebuttal. Better would be: No, they didn’t say that. (Difficult, since they did.) Or: No, they didn’t MEAN that. (Ditto.) Or: American use of force in Iraq was NOT disproportionate, and here’s why. And so on.
Those are responses worth more than two cents. “But JIMMY did it TOO” isn’t.
Personally, I feel that the US meant more of “this was unprovoked” rather than disprotortionate. Without getting into the topic of Iraq or Afghanistan, it came as sort of a surprise that Russia would take such aggressive action in an area that was otherwise “peaceful.”
What was Iraq’s provocation?
The fact that it was a terrorist hotbed, and was a state known to directly fund terrorist activites, would have greatly inhibited the Afghan mission. Not to mention the tiny little fact that Saddam Hussein was a genocidal maniac who murdered thousands upon thousands of his own people.
To those who believe Iraqis are worse off today than they were before the US came and saved the day – read news from sources OTHER than the MSM. Why do we always hear bad news from CNN and BBC and the Globe about the Iraq war? Well, good news doesn’t sell.
Here’s a quote for you:
“Bush was even accused of lying about the presence of weapons of mass destruction, and of exaggerating Saddam’s connections to terrorist groups. He did neither.
True, U.S. forces didn’t find the WMD stockpiles that Saddam convinced the world he possessed, but they did find, in the words of Iraqi Survey Group director David Kay, “dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment.”
Moreover, Herman notes, captured Iraqi documents show U.S. intelligence agencies “seriously underestimated the extent of Saddam’s ties with terrorist groups of all sorts,” including al-Qaeda.”
Let’s take a look at that: dozens of WMD-related program ACTIVITIES. Yes, there weren’t WMD admittedly, but you need to take a look at what could have happened if they didn’t go into Iraq. Bush repeatedly gave Saddam opportunities to turn over the WMD materials as well as admit to a weapons program. Every intelligence agency in the Western world was convinced he had them. Think of the serious, serious consequences if we waited a couple more years.
Not to mention, it is just starting to come to light now that the tabloids in the US, Canada, and the UK need to fess up and admit they had overblown the war’s negative side-effects greatly.
I firmly believe Bush made the right decision and everyone who values democracy and their freedom should too. Freedom doesn’t come at a price…and history shows it certainly doesn’t come without a fight.
So in other words the provocation was what someday, given sufficient time and energy, Hussein might have been a threat?
What about
FEBRUARY 23 & 24, 2001 – COLIN POWELL SAYS IRAQ IS CONTAINED: “I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box.” He added Saddam “is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors” and that “he threatens not the United States.” [Source: State Department, 2/23/01 and 2/24/01]
What about
SEPTEMBER 16, 2001 – CHENEY ACKNOWLEDGES IRAQ IS CONTAINED: Vice President Dick Cheney said that “Saddam Hussein is bottled up” – a confirmation of the intelligence he had received. [Source: Meet the Press, 9/16/2001]
Earlier today I heard Lowell Green spouting exactly the same propaganda FutureLeader, don’t buy into it. It’s deception designed to cover up deception and you’re doing yourself no favours by spreading it any further that it’s already gone.
How about Clinton’s failed “Containment Policy” that was crumbling in 1999?
The Democrats had been spouting for years about how Saddam was a big problem in Iraq and that we needed to do something about it.
They would have invaded if their weren’t so timid.
Look at the dates of the articles you posted – Feb. 2001 and Sept. 2001. When did the Whitehouse invade Iraq? 2003. The time difference allowed weapons inspectors to go in and figure out exactly what the situation was there. And again, they found what I had posted above – “captured Iraqi documents show U.S. intelligence agencies “seriously underestimated the extent of Saddam’s ties with terrorist groups of all sorts,” including al-Qaeda.”
They admitted they underestimated, but after they were able to get a good sense of what threat he posed, they took the appropriate action.
The weapons inspectors did go in, and they found squat.
I’m afraid that the US Senate Intelligence Committee disagrees with the quotation you provided
“The Senate Intelligence Committee has found no evidence of links between the regime of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.”
No, the weapons inspectors went in and reported that Iraq was still not in compliance with UNSCR 1441. Iraq was given 30 days to fully comply, one last chance, and Blix’s testimony to the Security Council was that Iraq was not cooperating.
Hans Blix is a good name to bring up
Was Iraq in strict compliance with SC resolutions – no.
Was it evident that Iraq had no WMD – yes.
You’ve fallen for Bush propaganda Sean, Iraq was crippled and contained, there was no danger, there were alternatives to the death, destruction, and humanitarian nightmare that now exists, and, as is quite obvious now, the Bush regime was grasping at straws and (in some cases) manufacturing evidence to support what they had already decided they were going to do.
Yeah, but Blix worked for the Islamofascicomminazihomochristophobes at the UN. And Al Gore is fat. Or is that Michael Moore? Sorry, I sometimes get mixed up when I attempt sophisticated political analysis like that.
The following comment I left on Sentinel’s blog is rather fitting and just as valid as any solution being proposed. In fact, it is much preferable to the solution of barking at Russia.
” Last night I watched Georgia and Russia go at it in a grueling fight. Girls’ beach volleyball and it was some hot. Can’t think of a much better way to settle their differences”