Georgians Hope U.S. Will Join Boundary Monitors

[hank scorpio]

KIEV, Ukraine — Georgian leaders hope the United States will join the European Union’s monitoring effort along the boundary with two breakaway Georgian enclaves, a step they believe could deter aggression from Russian or separatist forces, a senior Georgian official said on Monday.

The European Union’s 246 monitors in Georgia are unarmed civilians, and are not allowed access to the enclaves, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which Russian forces wrested away from Georgian control in a short war a year ago. Still, Eka Tkeshelashvili, secretary of the Georgia’s national security council, said broadening the monitoring mission to include the United States and other non-union members would make it “politically very costly to Russia to do anything on the ground.”

“It has the potential for reaching a very tangible impact,” she said. “It’s always very hard to think what are the red lines that ultimately Russia might respect, because we saw last year that it passed most of the red lines that we could have imagined.”

The European Union’s members are holding an “informal discussion” about whether to invite the United States to participate, a requirement for any such expansion, said Peter Semneby, the union’s special representative for the South Caucasus. He said the European Union has “taken note of the interest on the Georgian side,” but the decision is not yet formally on any agenda.The question will almost certainly come up this week, when Vice President Joseph P. Biden meets with leaders in Ukraine and Georgia. His visit, shortly after President Barack Obama’s meeting with the Russian president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, in Moscow, aims to reassure Ukraine and Georgia that American support will not be undermined by an improvement in relations with Russia.

Mr. Biden’s reaction to the monitoring proposal will offer one clue to how far that support extends: Participating would assert Washington’s concern over Georgia’s breakaway territories. It would also challenge Russia, which wants the United States to scale back its involvement in post-Soviet republics.

Mr. Biden intends to make it clear, on this trip, that the United States will not abandon its allies in deference to Russia, said one of his senior advisors.

“We will continue to reject the notion of spheres of influence,” Antony J. Blinken, Mr. Biden’s national security advisor, said in a conference call with reporters last week. “We will continue to stand by the principle that sovereign democracies have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own partnerships and alliances.”

At the same time, said one American official who was not authorized to speak on the record, “there will also be some tough love in both places.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/world ... ml?_r=1&hp

[AZGrizFan]

I'm gonna guess that Biden rolls over and takes one up the pooper on this one.

[Cap'n Cat]

I'm gonna guess that Biden rolls over and takes one up the pooper on this one.

Wild-eyed Conk general sends a nuke to Moscow. Civilization dies soon after. Game over, Lefties win.

[AZGrizFan]

I'm gonna guess that Biden rolls over and takes one up the pooper on this one.

Wild-eyed Conk general sends a nuke to Moscow. Civilization dies soon after. Game over, Lefties win.

Figured you'd jump in front of him to take it up the poop chute first.

Those Ruskie bastards don't even have a nuke they could get out of their silo.

[Cap'n Cat]

Wild-eyed Conk general sends a nuke to Moscow. Civilization dies soon after. Game over, Lefties win.

Figured you'd jump in front of him to take it up the poop chute first.

Those Ruskie bastards don't even have a nuke they could get out of their silo.

I'm sure you don't realize it, Z, but in your statement, you unknowingly cite one of the main points of the Reagan Myth. Sit back and take this in.


The CIA had been telling presidents for years (back to LBJ, at least) that the Soviets and their military apparatus was hopelessly backward and a jumbled mess, generally, they couldn't blow a sick whore off a toilet. They couldn't pay their bills internally and they couldn't raise sufficient capital for military expenditures beginning at about the time of the change from Kruschev to Brezhnev. This was a huge secret that was kept close by those in the know, the opposite being conveyed to the public.

Reagan, like a couple of his predecessors, kept that info on the down low, then aggressively went after an ugly and expensive unilateral arms buildup that was 100% not necessary, creating massive debt on our end and making the world much more unsafe than at any time in our history since WWII. Much of it was done to line the pockets of arms manufacturers.

Bottom line, the Soviet Union was sick and diseased and declining from the mid 1950's-on, due to everyone in that period who kept the pressure on them, and that includes Kenndy, Carter, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Eisenhower, as well as the architect of containment himself, Harry Truman. All their minions, too.

Reagan was at the right place at the right time, nothing more. Perspective, Z: it's like attributing the economic boom in the nineties (which was larger and longer lasting than Reagan's, BTW) to Bill Clinton, solely. Clinton was in the right place at the right time.

To attribute the "winning" of the Cold War to Reagan is a slap in the face of everyone who worked at it for forty-five years.

Anyway, back to the Georgian border............

[Wedgebuster]

Lessee here, Ruskies put satellite up in '57, we don't get it done till when?

I'm bettin some of their old war birds still fly, least it seems the safe play at this poker table.

[Cap'n Cat]

Lessee here, Ruskies put satellite up in '57, we don't get it done till when?

I'm bettin some of their old war birds still fly, least it seems the safe play at this poker table.

Sure, but they're still no match. Haven't ever been.

[Wedgebuster]

Lessee here, Ruskies put satellite up in '57, we don't get it done till when?

I'm bettin some of their old war birds still fly, least it seems the safe play at this poker table.

Sure, but they're still no match. Haven't ever been.

Well if they were entirely scuttled just by Dutch talking about how the movie Star Wars put a zap on his bean and he was heard saying, "hey we should do this Star Wars thing too," then I guess you are spot on.

[AZGrizFan]

Figured you'd jump in front of him to take it up the poop chute first.

Those Ruskie bastards don't even have a nuke they could get out of their silo.

I'm sure you don't realize it, Z, but in your statement, you unknowingly cite one of the main points of the Reagan Myth. Sit back and take this in.


The CIA had been telling presidents for years (back to LBJ, at least) that the Soviets and their military apparatus was hopelessly backward and a jumbled mess, generally, they couldn't blow a sick whore off a toilet. They couldn't pay their bills internally and they couldn't raise sufficient capital for military expenditures beginning at about the time of the change from Kruschev to Brezhnev. This was a huge secret that was kept close by those in the know, the opposite being conveyed to the public.

Reagan, like a couple of his predecessors, kept that info on the down low, then aggressively went after an ugly and expensive unilateral arms buildup that was 100% not necessary, creating massive debt on our end and making the world much more unsafe than at any time in our history since WWII. Much of it was done to line the pockets of arms manufacturers.

Bottom line, the Soviet Union was sick and diseased and declining from the mid 1950's-on, due to everyone in that period who kept the pressure on them, and that includes Kenndy, Carter, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Eisenhower, as well as the architect of containment himself, Harry Truman. All their minions, too.

Reagan was at the right place at the right time, nothing more. Perspective, Z: it's like attributing the economic boom in the nineties (which was larger and longer lasting than Reagan's, BTW) to Bill Clinton, solely. Clinton was in the right place at the right time.

To attribute the "winning" of the Cold War to Reagan is a slap in the face of everyone who worked at it for forty-five years.

Anyway, back to the Georgian border............

Wow. Take off the donk colored sunglasses, friend. I was an active participant in that cold war, you know, during the time when "they couldn't raise the money for military expenditures". You're livin' in la-la land if you don't think in 1985 the Ruskies could have easily blown us out of the water and done massive damage to our military, our infrastructure, etc., etc., etc. They were a deep water, world-wide navy up until the late 80's..I've been ON a Russian ship...I've seen first hand what their capabilities WERE. Not ARE. WERE. We beat them into submission in 8 years. You've directly contradicted yourself TWICE in one paragraph, as well: in a previous thread you claimed we weren't TRYING to win a cold war...that we were just happy with containing them (hell, you used that word yourself in this very post!). Also, in a previous thread not 10 minutes ago, YOU attributed the economic boom to Bill Clinton. I've said all along he WAS just in the right place at the right time.

Do you even remember what you wrote yesterday? Put down the bong. Read a history book. Then get back to me.

[Cap'n Cat]

I'm sure you don't realize it, Z, but in your statement, you unknowingly cite one of the main points of the Reagan Myth. Sit back and take this in.


The CIA had been telling presidents for years (back to LBJ, at least) that the Soviets and their military apparatus was hopelessly backward and a jumbled mess, generally, they couldn't blow a sick whore off a toilet. They couldn't pay their bills internally and they couldn't raise sufficient capital for military expenditures beginning at about the time of the change from Kruschev to Brezhnev. This was a huge secret that was kept close by those in the know, the opposite being conveyed to the public.

Reagan, like a couple of his predecessors, kept that info on the down low, then aggressively went after an ugly and expensive unilateral arms buildup that was 100% not necessary, creating massive debt on our end and making the world much more unsafe than at any time in our history since WWII. Much of it was done to line the pockets of arms manufacturers.

Bottom line, the Soviet Union was sick and diseased and declining from the mid 1950's-on, due to everyone in that period who kept the pressure on them, and that includes Kenndy, Carter, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Eisenhower, as well as the architect of containment himself, Harry Truman. All their minions, too.

Reagan was at the right place at the right time, nothing more. Perspective, Z: it's like attributing the economic boom in the nineties (which was larger and longer lasting than Reagan's, BTW) to Bill Clinton, solely. Clinton was in the right place at the right time.

To attribute the "winning" of the Cold War to Reagan is a slap in the face of everyone who worked at it for forty-five years.

Anyway, back to the Georgian border............

Wow. Take off the donk colored sunglasses, friend. I was an active participant in that cold war, you know, during the time when "they couldn't raise the money for military expenditures". You're livin' in la-la land if you don't think in 1985 the Ruskies could have easily blown us out of the water and done massive damage to our military, our infrastructure, etc., etc., etc. They were a deep water, world-wide navy up until the late 80's..I've been ON a Russian ship...I've seen first hand what their capabilities WERE. Not ARE. WERE. We beat them into submission in 8 years. You've directly contradicted yourself TWICE in one paragraph, as well: in a previous thread you claimed we weren't TRYING to win a cold war...that we were just happy with containing them (hell, you used that word yourself in this very post!). Also, in a previous thread not 10 minutes ago, YOU attributed the economic boom to Bill Clinton. I've said all along he WAS just in the right place at the right time.

Do you even remember what you wrote yesterday? Put down the bong. Read a history book. Then get back to me.

Dear Mr. Dulled Nerve Synapses,
You were on a Russian ship, you weren't in Moscow, in discussions with the Politburo, bitch. And it was one Russian ship and, of course, they did nothing to make it tour ready and I'm sure they just threw visiting Americans on any random garbage scow in the port. You want a medal? And, I'm sure when you used the can onboard, a manual of the Soviet Union's nuclear secrets was wedged in the piping above the urinal. Don't pretend you were at the right hand of right hand of God, Muffy. You "participated" in the Cold War little more than I did.



And, how many times do you really want to twist My words? Jesus, Cap'n Cat did NOT attribute the 90's boom to Clinton, He merely said that boom was longer than Reagans. Twist, reach - you been listening to Rush Limbaugh, aintcha? Then this not "trying to win the Cold War" crap - how'd you dream that one up? The only thing the brilliant Cap'n did was characterize Truman as the architect of containment..... (more accurately, one of his men)

Your distached diatribe above is nothing more than a weak attempt to discredit the messenger and twist the message, as has been shown. It's indicative of a powerless waif who has been painted into a corner with facts she does not understand, nor, due to her closed mind and delusional Dixon, IL, 1949, views, can she accept.

Next time, write a reply and clear it with Tman, first, as you do in 95% of all your other replies in this forum.


Thanks!