USA urges Russia to respect territorial integrity?

Popmartijn · 09-13-2002, 07:34 AM

Hello,

Talk about being hypocritical. The USA has asked Russia not to take any military actions in the Georgian republic. Here is a link to a BBC news story (I couldn't find any reference to it on the 2 US news sites I regularly check, the Boston Globe and CNN): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2254959.stm Russia alleges that rebels (terrorists) from Chechnya use some valleys in the republic to attack Russia and that the Georgia does not act enough against those rebels.
Georgia has already said that any actions by Russia against the valley are going to be considered a decleration of war. Now, the USA urges Russia not to invade and attack the valley, because of the territorial sovereignity of the republic.

From the article:

Quote:

But State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said the US took "strong exception to statements by President Putin threatening action against Chechen targets on Georgian territory".

"We strongly support Georgia's territorial integrity and oppose any unilateral military action in Georgia," Mr Reeker said.

Sorry?!?

The USA is asking another country to respect territorial sovereignity? The same country who wants to invade Iraq, if necessary on its own, because it doesn't like the ruler of that country (and alleges it poses a big threat to the USA)? The same country who does not want to respect territiorial sovereignity for its own actions wants other countries to adhere to the principles it does not want to adhere to itself? Gimme a break!

To clarify my own situation, I agree with the request the USA made to Russia. I agree to the principle of territorial sovereignity. And that's also one of the reasons I'm against this whole 'war against Iraq' thing, as USA's unilateral actions violate this principle. So in a way I don't understand why the USA is protesting against Russia; they want to violate this principle, why may others not violate it?

Marty

The Wanderer · 09-13-2002, 08:42 AM

if you cannot see the difference here, I cannot help you

oh, but for the record, the USA hasn't invaded Iraq, we've been too busy trying to get support for actions against Hussein, who, I'm sure is a strong believer in territorial sovereignty much like yourself, I mean, he's a pretty reasonable guy, right? he's just "misunderstood" is all

Popmartijn · 09-13-2002, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Wanderer
if you cannot see the difference here, I cannot help you

Please, enlighten me. As I really don't see the difference here. But I'm willing to listen when you explain it to me

Quote:

oh, but for the record, the USA hasn't invaded Iraq, we've been too busy trying to get support for actions against Hussein, who, I'm sure is a strong believer in territorial sovereignty much like yourself, I mean, he's a pretty reasonable guy, right? he's just "misunderstood" is all

Personally, I will not shed a tear when he leaves the arena (be it a natural death, a domestic revolution or whatever). But this still doesn't mean that everyone should just invade Iraq and interfere with the territorial sovereignity (or any other country they don't like). I mean, the USA has weapons of mass destruction and I think that Iraq considers Bush evil (at the very least), but that does not mean I agree with them (or anyone) attacking the USA just because they don't agree with the regime over there.

Marty

STING2 · 09-13-2002, 04:43 PM

Popmartian,

I'll explain it for you. Unlike the USA in regards to Iraq, the Russians have no approval for an invasion of parts of Georgia although, I think they should be allowed to given the circumstances. The USA not only has approval to invade Iraq, but in fact is required to because of Iraq's violation of the Gulf War Ceacefire terms that stopped US offensive operations in the Gulf War. Breaking the ceacefire agreement obligates the US and other UN members to force Iraq's compliance with that agreement through the resumption of offensive military actions that were put on hold in 1991 because Saddam agreed and signed the ceacefire agreement. Any violation of the agreement requires that UN members, chiefly the USA to bring Saddam into compliance!

The Wanderer · 09-13-2002, 07:39 PM

no STING2, we should wait for him to die of natural causes!

CannibalisticArtist · 09-14-2002, 06:29 PM

here are a few questions. why is saddam and his regime still alive? i mean it's been like what? 12 years since the gulf war? why wasn't he destroyed completely during the gulf war? etc. i want to know why giving him 12 years under sanctions, while he recoperates militarily and sucks even more life from his people, was such a great idea.

The Wanderer · 09-14-2002, 07:26 PM

maybe because the UN didnt think it was a good idea to oust him during the "Liberation of Kuwait"

CannibalisticArtist · 09-14-2002, 08:47 PM

why didn't the US "fight for what's right" and ignore the UN 12 years ago like they are doing now? i find it hard to believe that saddam hussain is more powerful now than he used to be, and IF he is, then they only have themselves to blame by LETTING him get so powerful when they didn't destroy him back in 1990. either way you look at it, the attack on iraq right now is either a sloppy patch up job or a opportunistic move by bush.

Rono · 09-15-2002, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Wanderer
maybe because the UN didnt think it was a good idea to oust him during the "Liberation of Kuwait"

And ofcourse i tried to find some info about American invasions and i found Panama ( 1989 ) and Haiti ( 1994 ). Haiti had a UN aproval but what about Panama ?

...and that bill that aproves to attack the Netherlands when there is a American prisoner of war bothers me too.

hiphop · 09-15-2002, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CannibalisticArtist
here are a few questions. why is saddam and his regime still alive? i mean it's been like what? 12 years since the gulf war? why wasn't he destroyed completely during the gulf war? etc. i want to know why giving him 12 years under sanctions, while he recoperates militarily and sucks even more life from his people, was such a great idea.

The only logical answer to this question is.....???

Take into account that - apart from not being the best on the worldwide scene of agencies - the agency was able to kill just about everyone they wanted to see removed.

Maybe it�s just a game, who knows?

V Nura · 09-15-2002, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Popmartijn
Hello,

Sorry?!?

The USA is asking another country to respect territorial sovereignity? The same country who wants to invade Iraq, if necessary on its own, because it doesn't like the ruler of that country (and alleges it poses a big threat to the USA)? The same country who does not want to respect territiorial sovereignity for its own actions wants other countries to adhere to the principles it does not want to adhere to itself? Gimme a break!

are there any UN resolutions relating to the situation in georgia???

anitram · 09-15-2002, 10:27 AM

I don't believe so, Arun.

But I do think there are a few relating to Israel and the West Bank....

CannibalisticArtist · 09-15-2002, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars

The only logical answer to this question is.....???

i believe my theory makes the most sense. there is really no justification short of iraq actually attacking the US right now.
iraq has been violating UN laws, but so are a number of countries, including israel. israel is infinitely more powerful than iraq and both have been commiting severe violations, why isn't the US doing anything about it if they are STRICTLY attacking countries based on UN violations and NOTHING else? Bull. Fucking. Shit.

hiphop · 09-16-2002, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CannibalisticArtist
IF he is, then they only have themselves to blame by LETTING him get so powerful when they didn't destroy him back in 1990.

If he is they only have themselves to congratulate by...

CannibalisticArtist · 09-16-2002, 02:19 PM

huh?

FizzingWhizzbees · 09-16-2002, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by STING2
Popmartian,

I'll explain it for you. Unlike the USA in regards to Iraq, the Russians have no approval for an invasion of parts of Georgia although, I think they should be allowed to given the circumstances. The USA not only has approval to invade Iraq, but in fact is required to because of Iraq's violation of the Gulf War Ceacefire terms that stopped US offensive operations in the Gulf War. Breaking the ceacefire agreement obligates the US and other UN members to force Iraq's compliance with that agreement through the resumption of offensive military actions that were put on hold in 1991 because Saddam agreed and signed the ceacefire agreement. Any violation of the agreement requires that UN members, chiefly the USA to bring Saddam into compliance!

What approval has the US been given to attack Iraq? Approval from who? And if violation of a UN resolution means UN members are forced to take military action then when do we start bombing Israel?

FizzingWhizzbees · 09-16-2002, 02:43 PM

Sorry, I clicked post before I was done writing. I wanted to point out that far from having approval to bomb Iraq, the US has met strong and widespread opposition to such an attack. The majority of European countries oppose it, and in fact Gerhard Schroeder of Germany has based his re-election campaign on an anti-war platform. There is mass opposition from both the people and governments of other countries in the Middle East, many of the rulers of these countries fear they will be unable to control the response of their people if the United States does attack Iraq. China and Russia, both members of the UN security council stand in opposition to an attack. And I haven't even mentioned the opposition within the US itself, even some of the most hawkish US politicians are opposed to a military attack on Iraq and polls consistently show there is not substantial support for a unilateralist US offensive.

OzAurora · 09-16-2002, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars

The only logical answer to this question is.....???

Take into account that - apart from not being the best on the worldwide scene of agencies - the agency was able to kill just about everyone they wanted to see removed.

Maybe it�s just a game, who knows?

I am not one for conspiracy theories, but for years when it comes to American foriegn policy I have asked myself this same question- how can the world's greatest military machine not be able to get rid of one man, with all of their intelligence powers- it just does not make sense- thats cause they dont want him dead cause any war is a good war for the yanks- war is good for the economy

hiphop · 09-17-2002, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by OzAurora

I am not one for conspiracy theories, but for years when it comes to American foriegn policy I have asked myself this same question- how can the world's greatest military machine not be able to get rid of one man, with all of their intelligence powers- it just does not make sense- thats cause they dont want him dead cause any war is a good war for the yanks- war is good for the economy

Yeah, absolutely. Glad someone is able to follow my vague expressions. I am not an conspiracist either. But it�s not a big secret wars are great for economy.

09-13-2002, 08:42 AM	#2
The Wanderer Kid A Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Holy Roman Empire Posts: 5,271 Local Time: 02:22 AM	if you cannot see the difference here, I cannot help you oh, but for the record, the USA hasn't invaded Iraq, we've been too busy trying to get support for actions against Hussein, who, I'm sure is a strong believer in territorial sovereignty much like yourself, I mean, he's a pretty reasonable guy, right? he's just "misunderstood" is all __________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-13-2002, 04:43 PM	#4
STING2 Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 8,876 Local Time: 07:22 AM	Popmartian, I'll explain it for you. Unlike the USA in regards to Iraq, the Russians have no approval for an invasion of parts of Georgia although, I think they should be allowed to given the circumstances. The USA not only has approval to invade Iraq, but in fact is required to because of Iraq's violation of the Gulf War Ceacefire terms that stopped US offensive operations in the Gulf War. Breaking the ceacefire agreement obligates the US and other UN members to force Iraq's compliance with that agreement through the resumption of offensive military actions that were put on hold in 1991 because Saddam agreed and signed the ceacefire agreement. Any violation of the agreement requires that UN members, chiefly the USA to bring Saddam into compliance!

09-13-2002, 07:39 PM	#5
The Wanderer Kid A Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Holy Roman Empire Posts: 5,271 Local Time: 02:22 AM	no STING2, we should wait for him to die of natural causes!

09-14-2002, 06:29 PM	#6
CannibalisticArtist War Child Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: West Coast babyeee Posts: 511 Local Time: 11:22 PM	here are a few questions. why is saddam and his regime still alive? i mean it's been like what? 12 years since the gulf war? why wasn't he destroyed completely during the gulf war? etc. i want to know why giving him 12 years under sanctions, while he recoperates militarily and sucks even more life from his people, was such a great idea.

09-14-2002, 07:26 PM	#7
The Wanderer Kid A Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Holy Roman Empire Posts: 5,271 Local Time: 02:22 AM	maybe because the UN didnt think it was a good idea to oust him during the "Liberation of Kuwait"

09-14-2002, 08:47 PM	#8
CannibalisticArtist War Child Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: West Coast babyeee Posts: 511 Local Time: 11:22 PM	why didn't the US "fight for what's right" and ignore the UN 12 years ago like they are doing now? i find it hard to believe that saddam hussain is more powerful now than he used to be, and IF he is, then they only have themselves to blame by LETTING him get so powerful when they didn't destroy him back in 1990. either way you look at it, the attack on iraq right now is either a sloppy patch up job or a opportunistic move by bush.

09-15-2002, 10:27 AM	#12
anitram Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: NY Posts: 18,865 Local Time: 03:22 AM	I don't believe so, Arun. But I do think there are a few relating to Israel and the West Bank....

09-16-2002, 02:19 PM	#15
CannibalisticArtist War Child Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: West Coast babyeee Posts: 511 Local Time: 11:22 PM	huh?

09-16-2002, 02:43 PM	#17
FizzingWhizzbees ONE love, blood, life Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: the choirgirl hotel Posts: 12,614 Local Time: 07:22 AM	Sorry, I clicked post before I was done writing. I wanted to point out that far from having approval to bomb Iraq, the US has met strong and widespread opposition to such an attack. The majority of European countries oppose it, and in fact Gerhard Schroeder of Germany has based his re-election campaign on an anti-war platform. There is mass opposition from both the people and governments of other countries in the Middle East, many of the rulers of these countries fear they will be unable to control the response of their people if the United States does attack Iraq. China and Russia, both members of the UN security council stand in opposition to an attack. And I haven't even mentioned the opposition within the US itself, even some of the most hawkish US politicians are opposed to a military attack on Iraq and polls consistently show there is not substantial support for a unilateralist US offensive.