Russia Goes Rogue

[AsianDream]

In the case of this "rebel" British province - The Good Friday Agreement is a major historic milestone and one that seems to be actually working.

Northern Ireland has never been a "rebel" province of the United Kingdom. Since the creation of Northern Ireland in 1922 following the partition of Ireland into the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland, the voters of Northern Ireland have consistently voted 2/1 to remain in the United Kingdom.

The exercise of political and military power, is not determined by that country's number of planes, tanks, guns or soldiers. To think thus would be to assume that the United States should have won its war in Vietnam.

The Government of Georgia was naive and even stupid to take the bait offered by the South Ossetian irregulars. The Russians were ready and prepared to intervene. Such a simple strategy, that worked as planned:

The spider and the fly

In this case you are talking about the paradox of Democracy – in that this can easily turn into dictatorship by the Majority. The weakness of Britain is that it has no formal constitution or supreme court. So there is ample scope for the Majority to oppress any minorities – this is what happened in Northern Ireland and why a rich first world country unsuccessfully resorted to Military force in order to try and control part of it’s own territory.

The relevance of your spider and the fly metaphor depends on if you subscribe to the conspiracy theory of history rather than the “fuck up” one.

I personally find the “fuck up” theory of history far more consistent with reality than elaborate conspiracies. Occasionally conspiracies are real (eg: Iran Contra, Watergate etc) but mostly they aren’t (Napoleon/Hitler trying to invade Russia are true fuck ups).

The latest situation in Georgia has all the characteristics of a “fuck up” by both sides – neither of whom has anything much to gain – no matter what the outcome

Out of interest - The Vietnam war is a classic example of a historic “fuck up” - but in some ways losing the Vietnam war is a credit to the USA - the main reason they lost was that they were not prepared to be ruthless enough to win.

 

[Chalchalero]

I guess the real gist of my point there was that states cant do whatever the hell they want to people because they think they own the land, sovereignty comes from below not above.

Actually that is neither entirely nor solely the truth. According to Wikipedia.org:

While many purists regard the individual or an individual nation state as the sole seat of sovereignty, in international law, sovereignty is defined as the legitimate exercise of power and the interpretation of international law by a state. De jure sovereignty is the legal right to do so; de facto sovereignty is the ability in fact to do so (which becomes of special concern upon the failure of the usual expectation that de jure and de facto sovereignty exist at the place and time of concern, and rest in the same organization). Foreign governments recognize the sovereignty of a state over a territory, or refuse to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty#Different_views_of_sovereignties

Ergo, sovereignty comes from wherever the general consensus determines it to come from.

 

[AsianDream]

I take real issue with point 8. How is an American missile shield now clearly warranted in relation to Russia's reaction to Georgian aggression in South Ossetia? Have we not seen this exact same problem before, America tries to put up ballistic missile net, Russia puts missiles in Cuba, both sides withdraw, we live. Bush reinitiates attempts to install a BMN, Putin started sending long range nuclear bombers into NATO airspace (esp. Britain), and threatening the use of nuclear weapons against world capitals.

The missile shield IS a substantial part of the problem, and your argument for its justification is like me saying "Im justified in having a gun" "why?" "because I'm being threatened" "why are you being threatened?" "because I have a gun".

As for your statement that the balance of power would not change because the US already has a 1st and 2nd strike capability and Russia has no early warning system left (reference?), that is not a claim that stands up under either defensive or offensive neorealism. Russia has 1st and 2nd strike capability aswell, and any BMN which compromises the capability of Russian forces given a large relative gain to the US greatly upsets the balance of power.

Russia is still a nuclear power, its active stockpile is still estimated to be 1 and 1/4 the size of the US active stockpile. Whilst technologically they may be inferior, Russian nuclear policy has always been based on quantity over quality, essentially making it impossible to get all the nukes in the first strike, and considering Russia would only need to successfully deploy 3.9% of its active stockpile to be more than capable of destroying the entire world, one should not be too quick to scold them like impotent children.

In conclusion ballistic missile net = severely compromise BoP = major threat to great nuclear power = badness.

As for the idea of "Pax Americana", well, to be frank its laughable. It may be a powerful state for now when it comes to maintaining order, but America will never bring peace to the world.

I guess I’ve got a prejudice in favour of the “underdog” – in this case should I be in favour of the gallant Georgians standing against the might of the Soviet Military machine or the Brave South Ossetian patriots resisting Georgian oppression?

In this case probably a classic children’s playground argument holds the answer – who started it? This is obviously the Georgian government - South Ossetia has been effectively an independent country since the break-up of the USSR and the recent crisis has been entirely the result of Georgian action.

I also wouldn’t bet that Russia has no early warning system – they certainly had one in 1990 – it might be expensive to build these – but not too hard to keep them operational.

I also share your skeptism of the value of "Pax Americana" - which has been very much discredited by the US war in Iraq.

The concept of pre-emptive defence was justified by both the USA and British on the basis that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction targeted against them and was a supporter of Al Queda - both these charges have been proven to be completely unfounded - in fact the latter claim was completely disproved by the official US "9/11" commission and no trace of WMD has ever been found.

In short the Iraq war looks just like a good old fashioned "unprovoked war of aggression" - the sort of thing that WWII German leaders were hung for in the Nuremburg trials

 

[kallipolis]

The weakness of Britain is that it has no formal constitution or supreme court. So there is ample scope for the Majority to oppress any minorities – this is what happened in Northern Ireland and why a rich first world country unsuccessfully resorted to Military force in order to try and control part of it’s own territory.

We should not compare the United Kingdom with The United States, where The United States Supreme Court acts as a branch of government.

The United Kingdom Parliament is the supreme authority, in the United Kingdom on all matters pertaining to the creation of laws.

A UK Supreme Court is in the process of being created, for the purpose of assuming many functions presently exercised by The Law Lords of the House of Lords. In other words government has decided to separate politics from the legal process.

I do not view a different system of government between the UK and the USA as being symptomatic of weakness in the UK system of government. How come?

The history of Republican violence in Ireland has always guaranteed that The Army would be utilised in support of the local police. This is standard procedure in all former or current British territories. In other words the civil authorities will always exercise authority over the military authorities when combating low grade civil unrest, which includes a concerted terrorist campaign.

When the NI police armed with side arms were confronting an enemy equipped with heavy machine guns, anti armour missile, semtex explosives and an array of electronic weapons and surveillance equipment, clearly the police were in need of military support.

The UK security services authorities thoroughly penetrated all levels of Sein Fein and the IRA, obliging the extremist Republicans to accept negotiation. Rather a victory for the democratic process and the UK security services.

No there was no fuck up in Georgia/South Ossetia. The Georgian Government walked into well laid trap. The Russian regular forces were ready and prepared to engage the Georgian forces, within hours of hostilities commencing. Historically the Russian authorities move slowly. The current confusion in Georgia and back tracking by the Russians, does indicate that the Russians are determined to play a hard game, until international opinion becomes overwhelmingly negative towards them.

Out of interest - The Vietnam war is a classic example of a historic “fuck up” - but in some ways losing the Vietnam war is a credit to the USA - the main reason they lost was that they were not prepared to be ruthless enough to win.


Then clearly you know very little of American tactics in Vietnam, where some horrible atrocities were committed by the US and where there was a consistent campaign by CIA special units to act against their enemies in a manner that is inconsistent with the actions of a civilised society:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/oct/26/pressandpublishing.usnews

 

[bluepheonix]

Chal, I concede many of my earlier points in reference to your counterarguments on page 2 pending the availability of further credible information about the war. However in relation to this:

Quote:
While many purists regard the individual or an individual nation state as the sole seat of sovereignty, in international law, sovereignty is defined as the legitimate exercise of power and the interpretation of international law by a state. De jure sovereignty is the legal right to do so; de facto sovereignty is the ability in fact to do so (which becomes of special concern upon the failure of the usual expectation that de jure and de facto sovereignty exist at the place and time of concern, and rest in the same organization). Foreign governments recognize the sovereignty of a state over a territory, or refuse to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soverei..._sovereignties

Ergo, sovereignty comes from wherever the general consensus determines it to come from.

I am aware of the international law definition, [although I believe it is the legitimate monopoly of power] however it practical terms find it blatantly lacking. Such a definition essentially creates a Hobbesian notion of a state which legitimises ANY state action by definition illigitimises any opposition. De jure sovereignty is the AUTHORITY to ensure obedience, subsequently empowering law, however I would argue that such authority only arises out of the willing consent of the people to recognise the authority of the state. As such de jure authority depends directly on the consent of the people as a whole to be governed by the state, which then conveys legitimacy. In order to be truly sovereign a state must have de jure and de facto sovereignty, without de facto it is powerless, without de jure it is oppressive and illegitimate.

Thus I believe, and many such as Locke would agree with me, that sovereignty lies with the people, and when the government no longer acts in the interest of the people they are within their legitimate rights to reform it.

 

[AsianDream]

Actually that is neither entirely nor solely the truth. According to Wikipedia.org:

Ergo, sovereignty comes from wherever the general consensus determines it to come from.

I think this definition of sovereignty is that (to paraphrase Mao) it comes out of the barrel of a gun (or I guess in earlier times the point of a sword).

However a government is only Legitimate if it rules with the consent of those governed.

In the final analysis - most tyrannies have only worked for as long as they have soldiers prepared to fire on their own people. The reluctance of soldiers to fire on their own countrymen was the proximate cause of the loss of power of the Soviet communist party and is quite likely (one day) to happen in China.

 

[AsianDream]

The weakness of Britain is that it has no formal constitution or supreme court. So there is ample scope for the Majority to oppress any minorities – this is what happened in Northern Ireland and why a rich first world country unsuccessfully resorted to Military force in order to try and control part of it’s own territory.

We should not compare the United Kingdom with The United States, where The United States Supreme Court acts as a branch of government.

The United Kingdom Parliament is the supreme authority, in the United Kingdom on all matters pertaining to the creation of laws.

A UK Supreme Court is in the process of being created, for the purpose of assuming many functions presently exercised by The Law Lords of the House of Lords. In other words government has decided to separate politics from the legal process.

I do not view a different system of government between the UK and the USA as being symptomatic of weakness in the UK system of government. How come?

The main weakness of the British constitution is that there isn't one! -

In the USA the Supreme Court decides if laws are constitutional. The current US Supreme Court Judges may be corrupt (as the partisan split in the 2000 presidential election demonstrated) but at least they have a constitution they are supposed to work within. The proposed UK version of a Supreme Court is more a sick side show in that countries path to a single chamber legislature.

No there was no fuck up in Georgia/South Ossetia. The Georgian Government walked into well laid trap. The Russian regular forces were ready and prepared to engage the Georgian forces, within hours of hostilities commencing. Historically the Russian authorities move slowly. The current confusion in Georgia and back tracking by the Russians, does indicate that the Russians are determined to play a hard game, until international opinion becomes overwhelmingly negative towards them.

Describing the Georgians as innocent dupes entering a well laid trap is like saying Bank robbers are victims when they get caught by the Banks security measures. The Bank may be well protected - but the robbers did have the choice not to attempt the crime. Before you protest and talk about soveringty etc - Certainly the bungled attempt by the Georgian government to take over a region that had been self governing for 18 years could never be a legitimate excersise of state power.

Out of interest - The Vietnam war is a classic example of a historic “fuck up” - but in some ways losing the Vietnam war is a credit to the USA - the main reason they lost was that they were not prepared to be ruthless enough to win.


Then clearly you know very little of American tactics in Vietnam, where some horrible atrocities were committed by the US and where there was a consistent campaign by CIA special units to act against their enemies in a manner that is inconsistent with the actions of a civilised society:

Yes - the USA did some bad things in Vietnam - but very minor compared to the ruthlessness that has historically been needed to subdue a hostile population.

As I said - it is to the USA's credit that they lost the Vietnam war - controlling a hostile population seems to only work with a brutal reprisal strategy - so you kill 100 of the local population for every one of your soldiers killed. This seemed to work fine for the Romans - also the Germans never had much problem in countries they conquered (though clearly in many cases there weren't many of the local population left).

One rule of war is that there is no such thing as a limited War. The USA didn't beat Japan in WWII by being overly squeamish about civilian casualties.

 

[kallipolis]

The main weakness of the British constitution is that there isn't one! -

As the current United States administration's disregard for the constitutional rights of the American citizen evidences, the fact that a piece of paper is no replacement for sound Parliament government, backed by a government that respects the laws of the land.

The proposed UK version of a Supreme Court is more a sick side show in that countries path to a single chamber legislature.

If you say so. When the court is up and running, we will know the truth. Speculation produces speculation.

As I said - it is to the USA's credit that they lost the Vietnam war

I am sure many Americans will be amused, by your reasoning.

 

[AsianDream]

The main weakness of the British constitution is that there isn't one! -

As the current United States administration's disregard for the constitutional rights of the American citizen evidences, the fact that a piece of paper is no replacement for sound Parliament government, backed by a government that respects the laws of the land.

The proposed UK version of a Supreme Court is more a sick side show in that countries path to a single chamber legislature.

If you say so. When the court is up and running, we will know the truth. Speculation produces speculation.

As I said - it is to the USA's credit that they lost the Vietnam war

I am sure many Americans will be amused, by your reasoning.

In assuming that the British government will always be run be “sound/decent” people you seem to forget the fundamental reason for the US constitutional concept of the “Separation of Powers”. This is based on the knowledge that power will always tend to corrupt – and therefore needs to be balanced. The US founding fathers were both idealists and pragmatists – they recognised that unchecked executive power could be a disaster.

As to the prolonged gestation of the UK Supreme Court – assuming the next administration doesn’t change it for some other idea - I somehow doubt that this will be packed full of great legal minds – more a place to put very old judges and failed politicians out to pasture.

I wasn’t intending to amuse Americans about the Vietnam War – The USA simply is not a nation capable of occupying a hostile country – this reflects the fact that they are a civilized democracy – so probably inherently not able to do this well (though they may commit a few minor war crimes in the attempt).

I don’t have much faith in the ability of Americans to learn from their mistakes – didn’t they get some sort of hint from Vietnam that they wouldn’t be very good at occupying Iraq?

 

[kallipolis]

Your personal views on Americans and American democracy, is duly noted.

Your speculations on the UK Supreme court are also noted.

 

[Chalchalero]

Chal, I concede many of my earlier points in reference to your counterarguments on page 2 pending the availability of further credible information about the war. However in relation to this:



I am aware of the international law definition, [although I believe it is the legitimate monopoly of power] however it practical terms find it blatantly lacking. Such a definition essentially creates a Hobbesian notion of a state which legitimises ANY state action by definition illigitimises any opposition. De jure sovereignty is the AUTHORITY to ensure obedience, subsequently empowering law, however I would argue that such authority only arises out of the willing consent of the people to recognise the authority of the state. As such de jure authority depends directly on the consent of the people as a whole to be governed by the state, which then conveys legitimacy. In order to be truly sovereign a state must have de jure and de facto sovereignty, without de facto it is powerless, without de jure it is oppressive and illegitimate.

Thus I believe, and many such as Locke would agree with me, that sovereignty lies with the people, and when the government no longer acts in the interest of the people they are within their legitimate rights to reform it.

Ah, Locke versus Hobbes...I haven't had one of those fun discussions since university.

I could write an entire thesis here on why I disagree with you from my own Hobbesian perspective, but that would be going too far off topic and would bore you and everyone else to tears. So instead I will deal specifically with the matter at hand, which is the international law definition of sovereignty.

I am sure you must be aware of the Lassa Oppenheim quote:

There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more
controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this
conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science
until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally
agreed upon.

I decided that perhaps I should find a definition a little more closely related to the matter at hand, i.e. South Ossetia with relation to Georgia.

I found an interesting website by a law firm which deals in international law. On this site they state thus:

Self-Determination.

The right of peoples to self-determination is undeniably a right under customary international law, but the hard part is defining “Self” in “self-determination.

One source of customary international law here is the United Nations Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (1970).

The right to split away and form your own new government is only recognized in terms of ending colonialism or ending foreign subjugation.

The declaration is not meant to authorize or encourage any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race or creed.

This is a big exception.

Self-determination is not just the right to break free and establish a new territory. There is also a middle course, a right of minorities to be themselves without being punished — a right to participate in cultural, linguistic, etc., groups.

The problem is, that leads to more separatism. If every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation. Peace, security and economic well-being for all would become even more difficult to achieve.

Separatist groups may not have the right to rebel. Nor may they be entitled to foreign assistance. (They do, of course, have human-rights rights.)

http://www.burneylawfirm.com/international_law_primer.htm#state_recog

Arguably one might consider Georgia's relationship with South Ossetia to be foreign subjugation, but as it is not legally recognised as such by the rest of the world, it therefore technically isn't.

This was the best I could find in short notice and with little time (I am supposed to be leaving for dinner already, for Heaven's sake!), but I will continue searching for more and better clarification on the issue. I would greatly appreciate it if you would post any that you happened across as well. It would help if we both knew from what side of the fence each of us is barking, don't you think?

 

[bluepheonix]

lol sorry for the short reply, I intend to post again thisafternoon but Im late for uni at the moment Im still working out how it all fits together, however having read

The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples
By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.

Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle, in order:

(a) To promote friendly relations and co-operation among States; and

(b) To bring a speedy end to colonialism, having due regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned;

and bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to Mien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the Charter.

Every State has the duty to promote through joint and separate action universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the Charter.

The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.

Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter.

The territory of a colony or other Non-Self-Governing Territory bas, under die Charter, a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it; and such separate and distinct statue under the Charter shall exist until die people of the colony or Non-Self-Governing Territory have exercised their right of self-determination in accordance with the Charter, and particularly its purposes and principles.

Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shah be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as

described above and thus possessed of a government representing die whole people belonging to the territory without distinction u to race, creed or colour.

Every State shah refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any other State or country.

Im finding some level of justification in South Ossetias claim to independence, considering they do not operate under a Georgian Government representing the people regardless of creed or colour, but under a South Ossetian government. Also Georgia's armed and political exertion of influence over people attempting to exercise their right to self determination would seem to be in violation of the afforementioned declaration.

 

[jackoroe]

Let's see how the Russians like the US missiles being placed in Poland! Bush was a bit smarter in this instance, than he's been given credit for. Yes, I know, even a broken clock is right twice a day!

 

[MrWright]

terrific op ed piece by ralph peters today in the post

basically calling russia out on its shit - and castigating our govt for it's do nothing response

basically saying (and i agree)

1 - That the Russian invasion was calculated and planned well in advance - reminiscent of Hitler's march into Czechoslovakia under the guise of protecting Germans

2 - That our response has been impotent

3 - Georgia today/Ukraine tomorrow - advances for freedom will not be tolerated

4 - The only good news is that the Russian Military is not clicking on all cylinders - lotta might but not efficient

scary shit - makes Iraq look like a JUB purse fight

I agree but I think we ARE impotent. The thing is that Russia's a massive nuclear power too and we've reached a point in history were countries are effectively in a hands off with other nuclear powers because there's no way to really deal with them. Unlike Hitler's Czechoslovakia, atomic weapons might come out if we don't peacefully deal with the situation.

Very scary shit though.

 

[Kulindahr]

Poor Georgia. When your big brother (the United States) just sits back and watches you get your ass whooped, you have to ask yourself what's the use of having a big brother.

And I wonder how many other countries around the world are asking themselves that question.
That anyone is asking it could be counted a victory for Putin.

Vietnam proved that the United States could not defeat The North Vietnamese, despite the overwhelming military superiority of the United States.

This seriously misleading statement has to be pulled out and examined.
The North Vietnamese did not defeat U.S. military forces. The North Vietnamese were not even the U.S. military's greatest foe.
Both of those go to the U.S. Left.

What Vietnam proved is that no military, however powerful, can succeed when political forces at home impose foolish restrictions on its operations.

Whatever things might be said about Russia's action, the forces being shackled by political forces at home isn't one of them.

 

[kallipolis]

Kulindahr

You can place any spin you wish on the realities of the Vietnam war, to suit your agenda.

The fact is that the United States lost its war in Vietnam.

 

[Kulindahr]

Add to the mix Putin's generally arrogant temperament, his barbaric boorishness, his willingness to bully, imprison and/or murder anyone who stands in his way, as well as his obsession with Russian (read: Putin's) dominance over - well, everything, and it was bound to come to this at one point or another.
. . . .
In my opinion Russia is just getting started. Now that Putin is the power behind the throne, he is even more dangerous than ever because he can do whatever he wants and let someone else take the blame for it. The gloves are coming off. Mark my words.

Amen, and amen. Given Putin's character, I've been waiting for something like this.

Actually that is neither entirely nor solely the truth.
....
Ergo, sovereignty comes from wherever the general consensus determines it to come from.

According the the U.N. Charter, to which all parties in this mess are signatory -- or wish to be -- sovereignty rests in the rights and self-determination of peoples.

That little item is one of the most ignored parts of the Charter. Had it been taken seriously, China would have recognized Taiwan's independence, and the U.S. would never have pussyfooted around for fear of offending sensibilities... and Hong Kong could have gone its own way, instead of being treated as a set of slaves to be bartered between masters -- to name just a few changes that would have been made in the world.

On that subject, China's autocrats must be cheering for Putin at the moment, because he's taken the well-deserved spotlight off their totalitarian ways.

But at the same time, Putin must be very happy with George Bush, for going to Iraq and thus (1) providing a dubious comparison, and (2) stretching the U.S. to where it can't respond effectively even if it wanted to.

 

[Kulindahr]

Self-Determination.

The right of peoples to self-determination is undeniably a right under customary international law, but the hard part is defining “Self” in “self-determination.

One source of customary international law here is the United Nations Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (1970).

The right to split away and form your own new government is only recognized in terms of ending colonialism or ending foreign subjugation.

The declaration is not meant to authorize or encourage any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race or creed.

This is a big exception.

Self-determination is not just the right to break free and establish a new territory. There is also a middle course, a right of minorities to be themselves without being punished — a right to participate in cultural, linguistic, etc., groups.

The problem is, that leads to more separatism. If every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation. Peace, security and economic well-being for all would become even more difficult to achieve.

Separatist groups may not have the right to rebel. Nor may they be entitled to foreign assistance. (They do, of course, have human-rights rights.)

That's a very nice piece of sophistry you quoted, Chalcacero!
It takes a bit of plain language -- "the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" -- and spins it to say what will make the people in charge of other peoples' destinies happy. In different language, it's an interpretation by the oppressor and for the oppressor.

The only question is what constitutes a "people". It's difficult to see how the South Ossetians don't qualify.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr

You can place any spin you wish on the realities of the Vietnam war, to suit your agenda.

The fact is that the United States lost its war in Vietnam.

My agenda is to put your misleading comment into perspective. You definitely meant to say that a mighty military could be defeated by a smaller force. That may be so, but the Vietnam conflict is not an example of that: the mighty military was never actually permitted to engage.
The truth is closer to what some Vietnam veterans I've known have said, that the U.S. military lost its war in Vietnam, to its own enemies in Congress. Others say they didn't lose; they were never allowed to fight.

In actuality, whenever a smaller force triumphs over a vastly larger and more powerful one, there is always a restraining factor on the larger, or a supplementing factor for the smaller.

 

[kallipolis]

the mighty military was never actually permitted to engage.The truth is closer to what some Vietnam veterans I've known have said, that the U.S. military lost its war in Vietnam, to its own enemies in Congress. Others say they didn't lose; they were never allowed to fight.

When a war has been lost the blame culture (among the armed forces and some politicians) will always blame some one else. As if 500,000 men and mountains of money to fund the war, wasn't enough.

In actuality, whenever a smaller force triumphs over a vastly larger and more powerful one, there is always a restraining factor on the larger, or a supplementing factor for the smaller.

Your reasoning being that a larger and more powerful army will always triumph over a smaller, lesser equipped army except when certain restraints are applied on the larger army.

Once again you fail to recognise that a war is fought with more than armies. The blame culture merely evidences to the failed strategies employed by the United States, when assuming that its war in Vietnam could be won by purely military means.

The United States failed to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people. There was no social or political progress in a horribly corrupt South Vietnam. The Vietnamese people were well aware that the South Vietnamese government was a puppet of the United States.

The Northern Vietnamese won the battle of the Vietnamese soul.

Spinning excuses to justify a failure to win a war by blaming the American general public's hostility to the war, cries out as an act of revenge against ones own people whose sons were dying in Vietnam for the policies of a bankrupt American war strategy.

If we are blame anyone it is the failure of the United States government to learn its lesson from the French Army defeat in 1954, at the hands of the Vietnamese resistance movement.