Bush Administration behind conflict between Russia and Georgia
Ian Brockwell
August 09, 2008
Russia and Georgia have lived together in relative peace for a very long time and despite some occasional disputes, it is Russia that has helped the people of Georgia more than any other (in respect of trade and business opportunities).
Then along came Bush and the gang who saw an opportunity to influence another country on Russia´s borders, another chance to take control of an oil supply (pipeline) and get even closer to Russia at the same time.
Georgian´s are a very proud (although hot tempered) people, and obviously they want the best deal they can get for their country, but what benefits has this alliance with the US brought the ordinary people of this country?
Georgia´s President Mikhail Saakashvili has sold out his people for "a few dollars more", fooling them into thinking that this alliance will bring financial security and protection from the big bad bear! Russia has been Georgia´s main trading partner over the years, will America replace that?
Bush has called Georgia a "beacon of democracy", what was it before the alliance, an uncivilized dictatorship? Things may not have been perfect before, but they were an independent country trading with whoever they pleased. But now Bush´s new puppet (Saakashvili) has changed all that and the business people in Georgia are paying the price!
Once again we see the "double standards" of the Bush administration in condemning the Russian response to Georgia´s attack in South Ossetia, with Condoleezza Rice saying "We call on Russia to cease attacks on Georgia by aircraft and missiles, respect Georgia's territorial integrity, and withdraw its ground combat forces from Georgian soil". Is this the same woman who supports the illegal invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and doesn´t rule out an attack on Iran?
Let´s try and clarify a few points. The South Ossetian´s chose (were not forced) to break away from Georgia after the fall of the Soviet Union and prefer to have stronger ties with North Ossetia (which is more a part of Russia). One can argue about the historical "ownership" of lands forever, but these have changed over time. One could be critical of Israel and Palestine, the land rights of Native Indians in the USA, or those of the Aborigines in Australia, the list is endless.
It is the will of the people of South Ossetia to choose a different destiny (not with Georgia) and they confirmed this desire with a vote, isn´t that democracy too? America made the same choice when it fought for independence from Britain, have the rules changed since then?
Some have suggested that this is not just a regional conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia, but a battle between the superpowers (Russia and the USA). There is a lot of truth to that. Russia see the growing US influence on its borders as a potential future threat to its very existence, and it is no secret that America have tried to destabilize the political powers in Russia for their own benefits.
We only have to look at which countries the Bush administration chooses to attack (or destabilize) to see the true purpose of their goal, they all have some connection to oil (or land where oil pipelines are needed). Do you see the Bush administration applying the same enthusiasm for "democracy" if the country doesn´t have these benefits?
As usual, the Mainstream Media support Bush (no matter what he does) and make every effort to portray Russia as the "bad guys". When the US announced that they wanted to place missiles in Poland, they tell us there is nothing to worry about, it is designed to help protect America and Europe from Iran (or other "evil" countries) who might develop nuclear weapons in the future. But when Russia considers doing something similar in Cuba, the US is "outraged". What´s the difference?
Mikhail Saakashvili has been crying for US help against Russia, but unless Bush sends US troops there to give military support (which would almost certainly start WWIII), the only help he is going to get is "words". My advice to Saakashvili is this, if you don´t like the heat, stay out of the kitchen!
The US is already treading in dangerous waters by having troops stationed in Georgia, supposedly training Georgian troops for Iraq (where 2,000 Georgian soldiers have been sent). Georgia is not a rich country and we could ask where they are getting the money from to finance this attack on South Ossetia.
The best solution to this problem is for the Georgian people to understand that Russia would make a far better partner than the United States (as it was before) and replace Saakashvili with a President that cares for his people and not his pocket. A President that will tell Bush what to do with his so called "democracy"
Then along came Bush and the gang who saw an opportunity to influence another country on Russia´s borders, another chance to take control of an oil supply (pipeline) and get even closer to Russia at the same time.
Georgian´s are a very proud (although hot tempered) people, and obviously they want the best deal they can get for their country, but what benefits has this alliance with the US brought the ordinary people of this country?
Georgia´s President Mikhail Saakashvili has sold out his people for "a few dollars more", fooling them into thinking that this alliance will bring financial security and protection from the big bad bear! Russia has been Georgia´s main trading partner over the years, will America replace that?Bush has called Georgia a "beacon of democracy", what was it before the alliance, an uncivilized dictatorship? Things may not have been perfect before, but they were an independent country trading with whoever they pleased. But now Bush´s new puppet (Saakashvili) has changed all that and the business people in Georgia are paying the price!
Once again we see the "double standards" of the Bush administration in condemning the Russian response to Georgia´s attack in South Ossetia, with Condoleezza Rice saying "We call on Russia to cease attacks on Georgia by aircraft and missiles, respect Georgia's territorial integrity, and withdraw its ground combat forces from Georgian soil". Is this the same woman who supports the illegal invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and doesn´t rule out an attack on Iran?
Let´s try and clarify a few points. The South Ossetian´s chose (were not forced) to break away from Georgia after the fall of the Soviet Union and prefer to have stronger ties with North Ossetia (which is more a part of Russia). One can argue about the historical "ownership" of lands forever, but these have changed over time. One could be critical of Israel and Palestine, the land rights of Native Indians in the USA, or those of the Aborigines in Australia, the list is endless.
It is the will of the people of South Ossetia to choose a different destiny (not with Georgia) and they confirmed this desire with a vote, isn´t that democracy too? America made the same choice when it fought for independence from Britain, have the rules changed since then?
Some have suggested that this is not just a regional conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia, but a battle between the superpowers (Russia and the USA). There is a lot of truth to that. Russia see the growing US influence on its borders as a potential future threat to its very existence, and it is no secret that America have tried to destabilize the political powers in Russia for their own benefits.
We only have to look at which countries the Bush administration chooses to attack (or destabilize) to see the true purpose of their goal, they all have some connection to oil (or land where oil pipelines are needed). Do you see the Bush administration applying the same enthusiasm for "democracy" if the country doesn´t have these benefits?
As usual, the Mainstream Media support Bush (no matter what he does) and make every effort to portray Russia as the "bad guys". When the US announced that they wanted to place missiles in Poland, they tell us there is nothing to worry about, it is designed to help protect America and Europe from Iran (or other "evil" countries) who might develop nuclear weapons in the future. But when Russia considers doing something similar in Cuba, the US is "outraged". What´s the difference?
Mikhail Saakashvili has been crying for US help against Russia, but unless Bush sends US troops there to give military support (which would almost certainly start WWIII), the only help he is going to get is "words". My advice to Saakashvili is this, if you don´t like the heat, stay out of the kitchen!
The US is already treading in dangerous waters by having troops stationed in Georgia, supposedly training Georgian troops for Iraq (where 2,000 Georgian soldiers have been sent). Georgia is not a rich country and we could ask where they are getting the money from to finance this attack on South Ossetia.
The best solution to this problem is for the Georgian people to understand that Russia would make a far better partner than the United States (as it was before) and replace Saakashvili with a President that cares for his people and not his pocket. A President that will tell Bush what to do with his so called "democracy"
Print
Email
