Bush throws support behind Georgia, Warn to Russia

[pkpatriotic]

What a great wonder, that who has jeopardized global peace and attempted to break sovereignty of several countries i.e. specifically Iraq & Afghanistan etc in the world, talk about the sovereignty of “Georgia”

Bush throws support behind Georgia
WASHINGTON: U.S. President George W. Bush Wednesday demanded Russian troops leave Georgia as he dispatched Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the country in a strong show of support for his pro-West ally.

"The United States of America stands with the democratically elected government of Georgia, insists that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia be respected," Bush said in a brief White House statement.

Standing with Rice and US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at his side in the White House Rose Garden, he scolded Moscow for its attacks on Georgia and warned it had put Russia's post-Cold War embrace by the West "at risk."

"To begin to repair the damage to its relations with the United States, Europe, and other nations, and to begin restoring its place in the world, Russia must keep its word and act to end this crisis," he demanded.

Bush said he had reports of Russian actions "inconsistent" with Moscow's statements that it had halted military operations and agreed to a French-brokered provisional ceasefire in the Russian-Georgian conflict.

"We expect Russia to meet its commitment to cease all military activities in Georgia, and we expect all Russian forces that entered Georgia in recent days to withdraw from that country," he warned.

 

[Flintlock]

Too late Mr. Bush. The war is over.

 

[martialLAW]

Hypocrisy, moral+intellectual inconsistency, duplicity and contradictions are concepts that have become as American as Coca Cola and the 'stars and stripes' !!

The situation has become so bad that they don't even realise how poorly their rhetoric is being received around the world in the light of what US imperialism has done [and is doing] in Iraq and Afghanistan.

America has no credibility left.

 

[Durran3]

If you think that's Hilarious. Here is what John McCain has to say.

"In the 21st Century Nations don't attack other Nations"

 

[martialLAW]

American vomit.

 

[MG 3]

After some of the other forums Ive been on and then coming here its like coming back from fwd area. I like the drift here.

 

[pingfeng]

We are learning the lessons from Russian military action, and it's really not so attrctive that whatever Bush said.

 

[Neo]

Internal Conflict within NATO on rushing troops to defend Georgia ​

There is a rising difference of opinion between the US and other NATO countries whether to send NATO troops to defend Georgia.

The French president has conveyed to the Russians that NATO will get involved if Russians do not withdraw voluntarily. However, Russians also know that the EU countries will not allow NATO to get involved as long as they do not run across the Georgia.

Americans want the NATO and the EU to get involved and pressure Russia to an unconditional withdrawal from the Georgian territory.

The Russian armed forces said on Monday they had started to withdraw troops from the conflict zone in Georgia.

”Thus far there isn’t any evidence we’ve seen. Let’s hope that this is a technical slowness in getting implemented... let’s see the Russians begin to pull back. That’s what we’d like to see, but we haven’t seen it yet.” the US official told reporters ahead of an emergency meeting of NATO foreign ministers on Tuesday.

The Georgians point to Russians that are pulling out after destrying all military infrastructure in the area. ”They are destroying everything and then pulling out of these places,” Georgian officials point out. ”If they call this a pullout, then I do not understand the meaning of the word.”

 

[martialLAW]

We are learning the lessons from Russian military action, and it's really not so attrctive that whatever Bush said.

Bush rarely says anything attractive in the English language . . . or indeed, ANY language !!

 

[Neo]

Black Sea can experience a naval nuclear showdown between Russia and NATO – the war for oil has started ​

Balaji Reddy
Aug. 24, 2008

War ships from NATO nations have sailed into the Black Sea in recent days. Ships from Germany, Poland, Spain and the United States were in the area.

Nogovitsyn, the Russian military spokesman, said, "...there is a chance of escalation over the Black Sea fleet. The NATO countries continue to step up their presence ... I don''t think this will help to stabilize the situation in the region."

Russian Naval fleets are already in black sea. The show down is imminent. Blatant show of force is plausible any time.

As NATO accepets Georgia as a new member, the confrontration between Russia and NATO can escalate very fast.

U.S. Navy warship carrying humanitarian aid anchored in the southern Georgian port of Batumi on Sunday, AP reported.

The move sends a signal of support to Georgia in a two-week old struggle with Russia over the breakaway province of South Ossettia that has seen Russian troops drive deep into Georgian territory.

Most Russian troops have withdrawn from eastern and western Georgia, but they still maintain some checkpoints in the country, a spokesman for Georgia's Interior Ministry said Saturday.

 

[martialLAW]

Pakistanis has better pray that Russia is able to check the advance of NATO in Georgia. There is no doubt that NATO will pose a greater and greater security risk to Pakistan in the coming years . . . all under the pretext of fighting extremism/militancy, ofcourse.

 

[Keysersoze]

Pakistanis has better pray that Russia is able to check the advance of NATO in Georgia. There is no doubt that NATO will pose a greater and greater security risk to Pakistan in the coming years . . . all under the pretext of fighting extremism/militancy, ofcourse.

Errr no.........The one thing that you should remember is that NATO is not just one nation. it is a group of nations. In order for there to be a military attack upon another country one of the nations (within NATO)would have to been attacked. The Afghanistan involvement was due to the attack on 9-11. The same call (article 5 i believe) was not made for the Iraq fiasco.

 

[martialLAW]

Errr no.........The one thing that you should remember is that NATO is not just one nation. it is a group of nations. In order for there to be a military attack upon another country one of the nations (within NATO)would have to been attacked. The Afghanistan involvement was due to the attack on 9-11. The same call (article 5 i believe) was not made for the Iraq fiasco.

I'm aware of the "all for one, one for all" clause in the NATO charter. However, the United States changed the terms of reference for NATO in the days following the attacks in New York on 9/11. NATO is no longer a tool of the Cold War, rather, Washington has extended its remit beyond its Cold War boundaries within Europe and regards it as an instrument of its foreign policy that could be deployed in the Middle East and other parts of the Muslim World. This is the reason why NATO is in Afghanistan . . . and the last time I viewed a map of the world, Afghanistan was not in Europe !?

 

[Keysersoze]

I'm aware of the "all for one, one for all" clause in the NATO charter. However, the United States changed the terms of reference for NATO in the days following the attacks in New York on 9/11. NATO is no longer a tool of the Cold War, rather, Washington has extended its remit beyond its Cold War boundaries within Europe and regards it as an instrument of its foreign policy that could be deployed in the Middle East and other parts of the Muslim World. This is the reason why NATO is in Afghanistan . . . and the last time I viewed a map of the world, Afghanistan was not in Europe !?

Sigh! you are not understanding.........

Here is the article.

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Now it does not specify that a attack has to come from Europe....The facts are this. After 9-11 article 5 was invoked to deal with a country that had "attacked" the USA. In this case AFGHANISTAN.

Now There was no remit in IRAQ because there was no attack right? NATO was not involved there. And for NATO to be involved in Pakistan there would have to be a attack by Pakistan on a NATO member. If PAkistan were not dealing with the problem (as it is doing ) then there would be problems. IF (as some people or idiots have been advocating) Pakistan did nothing against the people causing trouble in foreign lands then there would be a invasion.

Luckily Pakistan has not attacked a member of NATO and is dealing with the people who go to other countries and cause trouble and then hide in PAK.

Therefore there is no threat from NATO. Simple really. I find it amusing that you are suggesting that the French and Germans (old Europe as the Americans called them) are now all slaves of American foreign policy. The war in Afghan is not popular there so i doubt they wanna just jump into another one unless they have treaty obligations.

Article 6 (1)

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

* on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
* on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

 

[martialLAW]

Sigh! you are not understanding.........

Here is the article.

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Now it does not specify that a attack has to come from Europe....The facts are this. After 9-11 article 5 was invoked to deal with a country that had "attacked" the USA. In this case AFGHANISTAN.

Now There was no remit in IRAQ because there was no attack right? NATO was not involved there. And for NATO to be involved in Pakistan there would have to be a attack by Pakistan on a NATO member. If PAkistan were not dealing with the problem (as it is doing ) then there would be problems. IF (as some people or idiots have been advocating) Pakistan did nothing against the people causing trouble in foreign lands then there would be a invasion.

Luckily Pakistan has not attacked a member of NATO and is dealing with the people who go to other countries and cause trouble and then hide in PAK.

Therefore there is no threat from NATO. Simple really. I find it amusing that you are suggesting that the French and Germans (old Europe as the Americans called them) are now all slaves of American foreign policy. The war in Afghan is not popular there so i doubt they wanna just jump into another one unless they have treaty obligations.

Article 6 (1)

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

* on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
* on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

I appreciate the articles you've posted, but, what you fail to compute is that NATO troops in Afghanistan can utilize the principle of self-defence to cross into Pakistan in order to take on militants. This would bypass the need for a NATO member having suffered an attack in order for NATO to respond.

Quite simple, really.