Author: mopress

Responses to South Ossetia Question Marks

Excellently written, excellently phrased. I enjoyed this immensely. Thank you for writing it.

–Sunnyvale, CA

************

Sir, thanks for this commentary today.

As a former US Marine/Vietnam vet, I hope they start a vets against war group and stop any further expletive wars before the expletive politicians can start more wars.

If the US of A sends troops (where will they find them) to this new hell hole, there ought to be an armed revolution right here in America. Regardless of who is the idiot president or “decider” in chief. That means the expletive sell out Obama included there in.

Enough of wars. Tell the expletive Zionists if they bomb Iran, we will bomb them for their war crimes.

Pull out EVERY American military person from every foreign country. The ONLY exception would be the Marine guards at our embassies, as they are there for minimal security and show.

Just the personal opinion of an aged veteran of an earlier imperial war, who woke up today with more than the usual physical pain that I have lived with since 1989.

End ALL wars. NOW.

Thanks for your commentary sir. Thanks also for your time reading my humble (and not so polite) rant of a reply.

–Glenmora, LA

************

Nice job of press criticism! Thanks.

–Dallas, TX

************

excellent, thank you, my feelings exactly. I wrote to several “reporters/journalists” at nytimes this weekend telling them that they suck and should work for Fox.

Peace

–Montana

************

Great piece, but who else, other than me and you, are interested, concerned, and informed? Only if the masses get organized and energized will change be possible.

************

what we can expect is that georgia, the so-called ally of america, will now consider joining russia again, because they were betrayed by nato and the u.s. beautiful foreign policy again by the folks in washington.

************

I really wonder what can have been in the Georgian government’s mind. They know better than anyone that the Russian armed forces have all the information collected by their Soviet predecessors – and of course many of them are the same people – who were based in Georgia for decades. They must know every inch of ground, every defensive position, every building. And all the defence plans, too. The only thing the Russians lacked, and could not possibly get without helpful Georgian cooperation, was a provocation. So the Georgians gave them one – and how!

As for expecting US help, what form did they think that might take? Even Dubya would hardly threaten to nuke Moscow over something like this. Georgia, USA – maybe. Georgia, Asia – never. But what else? The US Navy cannot get at Georgia without going through the Black Sea. Ever wondered how one of those big CVNs would react to a nice big missile hit? I bet the Pentagon isn’t keen to find out.

Any long-range missile or bombing activity is ruled out with so many Georgians and Russians mixed up together – and all on Georgian territory now. So that leaves sending in the Army – or maybe the Marines. Excuse me while I roll around laughing helplessly. Those guys are all tied up not winning their wars against two impoverished, ruined Muslim countries with no regular armed forces to speak of. And besides, there is the distinct possibility the Russians would beat them, which again the Pentagon would not like to risk.

I attach a link to today’s cartoon (Aug. 12, 2008: “You and Whose Army?” by Morten Moreland) in The Times of London. Neat, huh? I think it sums things up pretty well.

Best wishes
Basingstoke, England

************

also see comments posted at Dissident Voice

Propaganda the Morning After

By Greg Moses

DissidentVoice / CounterPunch

There are two sides bleeding and too many dead in what is hopefully the aftermath of a weekend war in the Caucasus. And right on cue, the prime opinion space for the American mind is being occupied this Monday morning by a propagandist for perpetual war.

“Will Russia get away with it?” asks the beaming columnist for the New York Times, his smile winking at you as if no way he could be talking up death and disaster.

On one side of the world, writes the propagandist, you have “the United States and its democratic allies.” On the other side, you’ll find “dictatorial and aggressive and fanatical regimes” who “seem happy to work together to weaken the influence of the United States and its democratic allies.”

“The United States, of course, is not without resources and allies to deal with these problems and threats,” hints the propagandist. “But at times we seem oddly timid and uncertain.” Which brings us around to his winking question again: “Will we let Russia get away with it?”

But what if we paraphrase a famous movie hero and remind the propagandist that aggressive is as aggressive does. Then, we may ask, which side of the propagandist’s world last Thursday picked up its guns and blasted a path through the Caucasus mountains to the city of Tskhinvali, killing as many local militia as possible and quite a few others who somehow got in the way?

Was it the enemies of the US and its allies who did this thing? Was it the Russians? Who was it who sent 30,000 refugees fleeing northward for their lives, some of whom stayed North just long enough to catch their breaths before heading South again to fight for their homeland?

Maybe the propagandist means to ask if we will let Russia get away with letting so many refugees flee into its country so quickly? I mean, by comparison, how does that make the US immigration police look in the eyes of the world?

As it turns out, the Russians were not only watching, but waiting, says Michel Chossudovsky of the Centre for Global Research. “The Russian response,” he writes, “was entirely predictable.”

Against the predominantly Georgian military (who were at least accompanied by Israeli advisors, and very likely other nationalities, too, although the New York Times was good enough to minimize embarrassing gossip of American involvement over the weekend) the Russians let go an onslaught of tanks, driving the Georgian coalition backward as quickly as they had arrived.

Does the propagandist mean to ask whether we will let the Russians get away with that tank attack? It’s a curious question, because it seems to accept the premise that “the United States and its democratic allies” should certainly be allowed to get away with marching on Tskhinvali next time, only without anyone else “happy to work together” against it.

The Russians did go farther than just pushing back the Georgian coalition. Their leaders exercised a right to “retaliation” which is a little broader than a right to “protect and defend.” It would be better if we lived in a world where nobody was allowed to “retaliate.” But I live in Texas, and the movement against retaliation isn’t going to start here, so maybe the propagandist thinks it should begin in Georgia? We can see plainly that it won’t begin at the New York Times.

In the end, I wonder if the propagandist has read any Jung lately, because he seems to have a very immature conception of himself, completely unable to recognize that he has become his own shadow: “dictatorial and aggressive and fanatical.” But in this regard he serves his social function perfectly as a perfect reflection of the mind of New York Times readers everywhere.

Well, not to be too harsh, there is some helpful reporting that slips through the teeth at the Times. On Monday morning we can also read how that wearily retreating Georgia coalition was expressing bitter disappointment that more of the US and its allies were not there when, apparently, they had been expected to show up.

After the traumatized soldiers from the Georgia coalition get home and have a little more time to think about what they have lost forever, they may wish to take up the question of the propagandist, who knows? Make it their life’s work, for pay. Or they may do what many young men and women have done among the US and its allies, that is, start a local chapter of veterans against war.

Reuters is reporting that the Russians made two bombing raids directed at airports near Tbilisi, one in the morning and one in the evening. The report is confirmed by a photographer who “saw smoke.” Such targets might be construed as defensive if there are threats of continuing air attacks by Georgia, but one raid reportedly hit near a civilian airport. Georgia claims that it has withdrawn from South Ossetia.

McClatchy reports wider attacks by Russia in areas outside the breakaway states, but they attribute their info to Georgian officials.

Meanwhile, there is a French proposal under development asking parties to return to status quo.

The news out of South Ossetia is grim and grimmer, with pictures of death, and reports of Ossetian refugees fleeing North and Georgian refugees fleeing South. Western media, of course, are focusing on the Georgian casualties.

In the end, Russia has made its point. The Georgian offensive has been turned back. Voices of peace should call for a ceasefire and international attention to humanitarian needs.

The Los Angeles Times runs the following paragraph:

Bush was careful to urge both sides to stand down. But his remarks clearly placed the onus for the escalating violence on the Kremlin, saying that bombings in Georgia were occurring “far from the zone of conflict in South Ossetia” and calling on Russia to cease such attacks.

The quotation marks indicate a dangerously ambiguous phrase, because if the Russian military actions go beyond the breakaway territory, it would have to be taken very seriously. But the quotation marks could also mean that within South Ossetia, the Russian incursions go beyond the boundaries of the ethnic Ossetians into areas where ethnic Georgians live. However, if this is the actual meaning, then it begs the question of what the Russians might be shooting at. Bush could be describing what we already know — that the Russians are targeting the Georgian military, who are seeking to enter the zone of conflict. The reporting should therefore specify where “far” is. But I don’t see that the story provides this crucial detail. And because the story does not specify a targeted area outside South Ossetia, which would be crucial news, I think the story is just “reporting” what’s said. In which case — as expected — the propaganda team is recovering.