TheAgitator.com
Why Russia Was Wrong to Invade Georgia
Friday, August 15th, 2008According to John McCain:
In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.
Seriously. He said that without even a hint of irony. The mind truly boggles. And in related news, Ike Turner says you should be kind to your wife. Video below the fold.
–Ed Brayton
Hulk Hogan just called; he says steroids won’t get you anywhere, brother.
Bret Favre called; he’s going to retire after this season. And he’s going to stay that way.
One of the problems with the neo-con neo-imperialism is that we really have no leg to stand on when other countries do the same thing. In many ways, the Russian actions in Georgia are way more restrained and justified than our actions in Iraq. It makes McCain, Kristol, et al look like hypocrites. And it makes it obvious that they are either aware of the hypocracy and willing to bold-face front, or they are hugely ignorant to not see the parallels.
Economists have a simple definition of rationality: a person is “rational” if, from a set of options, he will always make the same choice. Politics is probably the one profession where ignorance of economics is an essential job requirement. Unsurprisingly, politicians are irrational, that is highly inconsistent.
Iraq invaded Kuwait, remember?
There was a cease fire but no peace treaty, remember?
Saddam’s Iraq repeatedly violated the terms of the cease fire, remember?
Therefore there is no inconsistency in believing that one nation shouldn’t (aggressively) invade another and support for Iraq war v2.
Countries don’t invade other countries. Multinational coalitions with UN backing do.
Surely you understand the distinction.
“Economists have a simple definition of rationality: a person is “rational” if, from a set of options, he will always make the same choice.”
Then why is it so difficult to find two economists to agree on an outcome, given the same set of options?
When you’re through giggling behind myopic lenses which see events only through a filter of US politics, a more serious analysis of Russia.
( myrhaf.blogspot.com/2008/08/mccain-and-russia.html )
“Economists have a simple definition of rationality: a person is “rational” if, from a set of options, he will always make the same choice.”
Then why is it so difficult to find two economists to agree on an outcome, given the same set of options?
Because it’s possible for two people to disagree with each other but have internally consistent decision-making? Note that the definition is not “will always make the same choice as me.”
The Myrhaf blog ignores the existence of the Ossetian ethnic group and the fact that South Ossetia is a breakaway region from Georgia, where a majority of residents hold Russian passports and only about 1/5 are Georgians. The recent issues started when Georgia invaded South Ossetia. Georgia has claimed the territory as part of Georgia, but the residents would rather be independent of Georgia and combine with their compatriots in North Ossetia, which is within the boundaries of Russia.
I don’t know. I can see what he was getting at, and it makes sense. Seems like an intentionally uncharitable reading of his meaning here…
Jim, do you really think the Russians are going to let Ossetia being an autonomous country anymore than they are Georgia?
Speaking of hypocrisy, McCain’s taking contributions from the founder of Manhunt.com … but it’s on the DL.
http://www.towleroad.com/2008/08/mccain-takes-23.html
(Yeah, I know, nobody’s probably vetting personal donations. But I like to think this is a bigger deal than it is. Helps me keep a healthy sense of moral outrage going.)
Former Union Republics, Autonomous Republics, Autonomous Regions,… in the words of one noted Political Scientist, “It’s complex”. Personally, I support the breakaway republic of Robertson, so I sort of side with the brave Russians who interposed themselves for the sake of the poor, defenseless South Ossetians against an overarching centralized state power, much as they did with nearby Chechnya.
You guys are just going out of your way to take him out of context, aren’t you? I’m no fan of McCain, but OBVIOUSLY he meant ‘invade’ in the context of occupying to gain territory as opposed to a policing or punitive action.
Here are some examples:
Germany INVADED Poland with the intent of annexing her territory.
Iraq INVADED Kuwait with the intent of gaining her harbors.
The United States INVADED Iraq with the intent of destroying it’s leadership.
It’s all in the context of how you use the word ‘invade’. I notice that the video CUTS OFF right as he said that… did he qualify his use of the word?
Does this mean we get to add Russia to our list of countries affiliated with the “axis of evil” or whatever GW called them? Cool. We can now take our already over-burdened military and let them know that they now need to be prepared to not only maintain their hold in the countries WE have already invaded, but they need to be ready for further hostilities in Iran, North Korea, and Russia. Why not just go for the gold and put China on notice too….I’m sure that won’t be a problem and we can count on world help and cooperation.
The only problem with many Libertarians (and I’m a registered Libertarian in AZ) is that they forget that the rest of the world is not necessarily going to play by our Libertarian utopian fantasies.
Unfortunately, you can’t play geo-politics from the Libertarian angle, you’ll get creamed.
We had 2 world wars in the first 50 years of the twentieth century, none in last 50 (not that there weren’t wars, and not all of them were necesary or justified). Why, because we had the power and nobody was going to push that far.
America’s foreign policies leave a lot to be desired, but I can think of many far worse scenarios for the last 50 years than what transpired. Life is messy, all over the world, but equating Russia’s actions to US actions (even in our worst moments) is clearly pretty mixed up thinking.
[...] McCain blisters Russia for its military intervention in Georgia, saying “in the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.” Excuse me?? What [...]
“but equating Russia’s actions to US actions (even in our worst moments) is clearly pretty mixed up thinking.”
Yeah…no actually it’s pretty straightforward thinking.
McCain never met a war he didn’t have a raging hard-on for – this one probably only bothers him because Russia thought of it first. Is there oil in Ossetia?
Life is messy, all over the world, but equating Russia’s actions to US actions (even in our worst moments) is clearly pretty mixed up thinking.
Considering that at “our worst moments” (during the Cold War) we were supporting terrorists and sending weapons to mass-murdering dictators as they were killing civilians in the streets, I think it’s a fairly reasonable comparison.
And while there are big strategic and political differences between our invasion of Iraq and Russia’s invasion of Georgia, it all boils down to the sick ambitions and fevered egos of corrupt, petty politicians who look at the tragic civilian costs of war as not worthy of real consideration.
Seems the general argument here from our resident “RAH RAH AMERICA IS NUMBER ONE YEAAAAH” types is that the morality of an invasion is all about pretext.
Russia should have said it was going in to capture WMDs.
Ahhmerrrricahhh! Fuck yeah! Comin’ to save the motherfuckin’ day yeah!
Honeyko #13: Nope, but shouldn’t the South Ossetians have some say in the matter? And the fact remains that the recent events were prompted by Georgian action, not Russian.
MMIE #21: Re: oil:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/georgia.russia3
Even if you give McCain the nicest interpretation, he still sounds ridiculous. In the 21st century “nations don’t invade other nations?”
Really? Why not? Has mankind all of a sudden changed in some fundamental way? Have limited resources and rising population pressures suddenly vanished? Nations have always invaded nations…I wonder if he could articulate what has changed all of a sudden?
nuclear weapons?
I think its foul, cause neither obama nor mccain has a real historical or geopolitical grasp on whats up with Georgia & russia
I loathe McCain, and I think he’s wrong on just about everything. Maybe he’s wrong here; I don’t know enough either way to pretend to have a well-formed opinion. But I can read, and I understand language reasonably well. I also think of myself as intellectually honest, and to me it’s perfectly clear that McCain wasn’t being descriptive here, Cliff. In other words, McCain clearly doesn’t mean that, as a matter of fact, nations don’t invade each other anymore.
Rather, what he means is that, after the horrors of the 20th century’s World Wars, and in the post Cold War era, nations shouldn’t tolerate invasions of one by another. Maybe that’s naive, and maybe it’s foolish foreign policy. But it’s obviously what he meant.
And yes, we invaded Iraq (man, that Ike Turner bit was fucking HILARIOUS though: keep that shit up). But implicit in what McCain means by “invasion” is “invasion for aggressive, imperialistic purposes.” And clearly the U.S. isn’t guilty of that – at least in McCain’s mind.
But implicit in what McCain means by “invasion” is “invasion for aggressive, imperialistic purposes.” And clearly the U.S. isn’t guilty of that – at least in McCain’s mind.
But I think that’s kind of the point. In McCain’s mind, Iran is funding Al Qaeda, the Czech Republic is Czechoslavakia, and he never said he didn’t understand economics. His mind and reality are frequently divorced. The fact is that since Iraq posed no threat to us, our invasion was aggressive. “Imperialistic” is a more subjective concept, but if another country invaded my home and occupied it, I might think of that as “imperialistic.”
It isn’t unreasonable to think that the war in Iraq is not the same, morally, as what’s going on between Georgia and Russia. As such, it’s not really surprising or crazy that McCain would say this, and it’s certainly not so mind-boggling that it deserves a snarky, misguided blog post about it, even if it did give rise to a totally fucking hilarious Ike Turner joke. Seriously, Ed, you’ve got a comedic gift.
OK – fine. So it wasn’t funny. I didn’t think I was funny, either. But I did have a slice of baloney in my shoe when I wrote it.
I guess McCain figures as long as it’s the good ole USA doing the invading then it’s sanctioned by God . . . or . . . someone who blesses America over all others.
Ridiculously hypocritical to make the obvious point.
Um, close bold tag, dammit.
Fixed!
Jacob, with the bacon bourbon recipe and you fixing my post here, you have just become my favorite guest blogger on the Agitator! Now, if only that were really worth something! ;)
Thank you, kind sir!
[...] McCain Friday: ‘In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.’ [...]
It isn’t unreasonable to think that the war in Iraq is not the same, morally, as what’s going on between Georgia and Russia.
Oh, I agree. But I still think that folks like McCain and Putin, Bush and Medvedev are basically the same.
#16 Bob
You guys are just going out of your way to take him out of context, aren’t you? I’m no fan of McCain, but OBVIOUSLY he meant ‘invade’ in the context of occupying to gain territory as opposed to a policing or punitive action.
Here are some examples:
Germany INVADED Poland with the intent of annexing her territory.
Iraq INVADED Kuwait with the intent of gaining her harbors.
The United States INVADED Iraq with the intent of destroying it’s leadership.
Let me correct that for you, Bob-o:
Germany INVADED Poland with the intent of annexing her territory.
Iraq INVADED Kuwait with the intent of gaining her harbors.
*The United States INVADED Iraq with the intent of gaining control of it’s oil reserves and passed it off as trying to spread freedom.
“John McCain admits US invaded Iraq for oil”
@37
“The United States INVADED Iraq with the intent of gaining control of it’s (sic) oil reserves and passed it off as trying to spread freedom.”
Did we get ‘em?