Sovereignty wars
posted at 1:20 pm on August 13, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The West has generally patted itself on the back for its breakup of Yugoslavia and sponsorship of ethnic nationalism in the Balkans, at least until last week. Russia, using the same philosophy as a pretext, treated Georgia much the same way NATO treated Serbia over a 13-year period. In the Los Angeles Times, Thomas Meaney and Harris Mylonas point out the parallels and warn that these actions will serve to destabilize even more countries unless we start respecting sovereignty:
In February, Bush and most European leaders backed the independence of Kosovo from Serbia, which Putin vociferously opposed. Don’t worry, assured U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, saying, “Kosovo cannot be seen as precedent for any other situation in the world today.” But precedent is exactly what it set. Just as the West wanted to shield Kosovo from Serbian domination, so Putin hopes to free South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgian interference and keep them in the Russian orbit of influence. Thus far, he has succeeded by rolling out tanks while the West has paid only lip service to the territorial integrity of Georgia.
If the United States wishes to avoid carnage like this in the future, we need to be more consistent about how we treat fledgling independence movements. Beyond Kosovo and South Ossetia, why do we encourage the independence of the southern Sudanese but condemn the uprisings of the Kurds in eastern Turkey? Why do we speak up for the Tibetans in China but tune out the Basques in Spain?
Like every great power, the U.S. favors self-determination movements that destabilize its competitors — Russia, China, Iran — and opposes (or ignores) ones that might upset our allies. That’s the code of realism in foreign policy. But it’s also a Pandora’s box. If America opts not to respect the principle of national sovereignty, it discourages other world powers from doing so and undermines state sovereignty the world over.
I warned in March about the folly of recognizing Kosovo, especially over the strenuous objections of Moscow and the Serbs. In fact, I specifically noted that Georgia would be next, although I thought Russia would target Abkhazia first for its strategic Black Sea position. Georgia made that same assumption in May.
It isn’t just a matter of precedent, either. This is at least in part payback for the West thumbing its nose at Russia while it dismembered the Balkans over the last 13 years. Russia and Serbia have traditionally been close allies, and the suppression of Serbian sovereignty produced a completely predictable result. The Russians want to protect what’s left of their turf, and in this instance, supported attacks by separatists in order to provoke Georgia into attacking them. Now Russia feels justified in doing to Georgia what NATO did to Yugoslavia, and later to Serbia itself.
This will echo in places other than the Balkans and the Caucasus, however. The lesson separatists took from Kosovo is that any ethnic group has a right to secede from a sovereign nation simply by being different from their countrymen. As Meany and Mylonas note, that could apply to almost every nation in the world, including the US, Canada, Great Britain, Spain, France, Germany, and so on. That precedent undermines the concept of sovereignty as understood since at least the Peace of Westphalia, and leads the world into dangerous territory, especially in an age of terrorism.
Russia has no excuse for its brutality in Georgia, nor for its rather transparent provocations in an attempt to re-establish empire in the Caucasus. However, we need to stop rewarding violent separatist movements with land and recognition whether they suit us or offend us, and place more emphasis on sovereignty. Otherwise, we risk setting the world ablaze in scores of nationalist conflicts we have encouraged directly or indirectly for short-term score settling.
Update: People rightly point out that the Serbians were committing “ethnic cleansing” in the Balkans and needed to be stopped. No question; that’s accurate and it needed to be stopped. What didn’t need to happen was the forced dismemberment in favor of ethnic enclaves of Yugoslavia, and the same exact thing again with historically Serbian territory. We should have gone after Milosevic, gotten rid of his regime, and then left to allow the Yugoslavians and later Serbians to address the issues of ethnicity on their own.
Instead, we encouraged the nationalism of the ethnic enclaves, putting them in position to demand independence, and for what? What did the US or Europe gain in the dismemberment of Serbia that produced an independent Kosovo? What great national interest did that serve?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
Has Russia done anything in the past 15 years to make up for the previous 50? And have they shown their intentions are any different?
Putin simply realizes that he needs a strong economy at home to placate the people while he does it.
Pretty simple if you ask me.
lorien1973 on August 13, 2008 at 1:24 PM
“…Now Russia feels justified in doing to Georgia what NATO did to Yugoslavia, and later to Serbia itself.”
Wait a minute Ed, NATO did nothing to Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia broke apart by themselves after 50+ years of Communist rule evaporated and reignited nationalist, ethnic, and religious hatred that had been frozen in place by Tito.
elduende on August 13, 2008 at 1:28 PM
So the answer is to let the world go to hell and have the U.S. accept blame for everything.
The more the world changes the more it stays the same.
Bishop on August 13, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Even if 90%+ of a population no longer wishes to be part of a larger political entity, they must be forced to stay?
Since when did the rights of the nation start to exceed the rights of individuals.
Yes, the breakups can be messy, when the majority nation is willing to use force to enforce their will. Or it can be clean and amicable when both sides are willing to be adult. (Czech and Slovak Republics)
What’s needed is not the wider community willing to do whatever it takes to keep these forced marriages together, but rather the wider community letting it be known that they will not tolerate violence to keep them together.
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 1:31 PM
OT: Bush Orders Military to Deliver Aid to Georgia
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 13, 2008 at 1:32 PM
No one cares about the idea of national sovereignty anymore. That is why we have the American political system poised to destroy our own by opening up our nation to anyone who thinks they have the right to be here.
Unfortunately, the nation-state has become passe in the world of pseudo-intellectuals and they are working as hard as they can to do away with it, long before they have come up with any reasonable replacement. It borders on the intellectually criminal.
This is why anyone who ever gives any credence to the UN should be run out of the public arena on a rail.
progressoverpeace on August 13, 2008 at 1:33 PM
So, how long before La Raza or TUCC make their moves?
a capella on August 13, 2008 at 1:33 PM
If we had gone in and told the leader of Georgia, that it was time to let the break away Republics go, and that our continued support depended on him finding away to let this happen peacefully, this crisis might have been averted as well.
Instead meally mouthed worshiping of established borders led to the Georgians believing they could use violence to force their wills on an unwilling portion of the population.
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 1:33 PM
The difference is the intervention. We intervened forcefully in Yugoslavia on behalf of everyone against the Serbs. We didn’t respect the sovereign nation we ourselves recognized, not as Yugoslavia and not as Serbia later.
Yugoslavia should have been left to its own devices. So should Georgia.
Ed Morrissey on August 13, 2008 at 1:34 PM
If La Raza or TUCC can get a solid majority of people to agree with them, what makes you think we can stop them? Or should?
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 1:34 PM
The difference, which people seem to overlook, is that Serbia was responsible for ethnic cleansing of nearly a million Kosovars, which was why the US stepped in.
Show me the mass graves of Ossetians killed by Georgians. Until then, the comparison is void.
MadisonConservative on August 13, 2008 at 1:35 PM
In Yugoslavia, we intervened to prevent the Serbs from murdering everyone who disagreed with the Serbian majority.
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Ed,
check your moral stand. the difference between say Serbia and say Canada are immense. Canada did not practice ethnic cleansing on the French in Canada. It respected the minorites rights. Same in spain. there is not an ongoing government effort to harm the minorites. the differences in these countries is in one the minorities rights are protected and in the others they are not.
Sure some count5ries are supporrted by Washington for stratetgic reasons but most have other reason for that support. Type of government, history of minorites atrocity etc
unseen on August 13, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Additionally, Russia is planning on absorbing Ossetia and Abkhazia. When did the US proclaim Kosovo territory?
MadisonConservative on August 13, 2008 at 1:38 PM
It becomes more apparent as time passes that in order to have sovereign stability (defined as not having to update the CIA’s World Factbook with new country names), there really is a need for 2 superpowers who have diametrically-opposed views on everything. Sort of the Yin and Yang thing.
Under this set-up, the penalty (or more comfortably known as the threat of a penalty; MAD, for instance) for a de-stabilizing action is more painful. And it has the added benefit of allowing the lesser powers to know exactly where they stand in relation to the supers, why they are there, and how to stay there.
Unlike the Balkans, Russia’s intent here is to turn Georgia into a puppet state. The West’s intent in the Balkans is clearly not one of empire or colonialism. It’s a big difference.
My exit question: Who is the entitled sovereign power: North or South Korea? Which one should give up so that sovereignity can be respected?
BobMbx on August 13, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Southern Sudan: not in a democracy
Turkey: in a democracy
Tibet: not in a democracy
Basques: in a democracy
It doesn’t seem to be such a double standard when you look beyond whether the countries are allies or opponents of the USA, and to whether or not the regions with separatist movements have the option of politics and local government to address their grievances rather than just fighting. Political freedom is the standard here, and there is no real reason to support the “liberation” of regions that already enjoy a great deal of freedom within the current borders.
Big S on August 13, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Yugoslavia should have been left to its own devices. So should Georgia.
Ed Morrissey on August 13, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Ed,
what world are you living in?
unseen on August 13, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Russian apologists keep saying that this is just like Kosovo: Why is the West condemning one breakaway region and supporting the other? If it were like Kosovo, one might ask the same of the Russia. But it’s not. Yes, both situations involve rebel regions attempting to be pacified and self-anointed “peacekeepers” trying to stop the pacifiers. But that’s where the similarity ends.
In Kosovo, a government with a history of genocide against nominal Muslims attempted to ethnically cleanse Kosovo through atrocity, until the multilateral forces of NATO — which previously had had no relationship with the Kosovar people or leadership — crippled Serbia’s infrastructure, causing it to withdraw, ending the conflict. After all this, how exactly would Kosovo be reintegrated with Serbia?
In Georgia, a government that had tolerated both separatist regions for 16 years (albeit not before then) finally tried to bring one under its control, not through ethnic cleansing, but through conventional military action. In fact, it is now the Georgians in the region who appear to be victims of ethnically cleansing; contrast this with the Serb-majority areas in Kosovo that remain Serb-majority. Again, a force intervened in the name of peacekeeping, but this time is was a single country — by the way, that’s what unilateralism looks like — one which had supported the breakaway regions for their 16 years of de facto independence (from Georgia, that is; the notion that they’re truly independent from Russia is laughable). And, since it was Russia, the crackdown has been more brutal (as has been Moscow’s M.O. from Afghanistan to Chechnya), and did not end once the alleged objective — Georgia out — had been achieved.
This is not the same situation. These apologists, coming with the background of either believing Russian media or believing the West to always be hypocrites (or both), remind me of a coworker I had, who grew up in post-Cultural Revolution China. He once said, “Communism, capitalism — it’s all the same.” It takes either national brainwashing or willful ignorance to come to such a conclusion in light of recent history, but, as this recent situation has shown, neither is in short supply.
Oh, and Kosovo is democratic, whereas South Ossetia is a police state. For what it’s worth.
I understand the point Ed’s trying to make, but it’s not as simple as all that. We should tread lightly with Kosovo, but they are our ally on par with Israel, Iraqi Kurdistan, and the Federated States of Micronesia in loyalty, so rejecting their independence would have been folly.
calbear on August 13, 2008 at 1:40 PM
There are a few extra dynamics here that include Christians VS Muslims, Kosovo becoming a center for Islamic terrorists, Iran looking at South Ossetia as long lost cousins, and Turkey getting all hot and bothered. The Serbs are crazier than the Russians.
The hatred these people all have for each other goes deeper than most Americans can imagine and goes back to ancient times. This whole mess is something like Yugoslavia falling apart, but on a much grander scale. The Soviets have everything to gain by being their barbaric selves, and the only weak hope for these countries is instant membership in NATO along with Maverick’s suggestion of not making this a political issue during an election (fat chance).
Hening on August 13, 2008 at 1:40 PM
If Arizona becomes 90% hispanic in the next 10 years then they have the right to form their own nation?
offroadaz on August 13, 2008 at 1:42 PM
How about the Germans in WWII, or the Rwandans in 1994?
I suppose “never again” is not one of your credos.
calbear on August 13, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Yugoslavia should have been left to its own devices. So should Georgia.
Ed Morrissey on August 13, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Whoa.
Bishop on August 13, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Seems the Russians have flagrantly violated the first eight articles of the Helsinki Accords they agreed to and signed. So, treaties are not worth the paper they are printed on?
coldwarrior on August 13, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Sergey said it absolutely the best.
Entelechy on August 13, 2008 at 1:47 PM
No, no, no.
Putin is using the Hitler and Stalin philosophy. That is a much better parallel. Bringing up Serbia, while maybe not totally invalid, just distracts from what Putin is up to. It puts one in the position of looking for the pea under the wrong shell.
MB4 on August 13, 2008 at 1:47 PM
BobMbx on August 13, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Are you nuts? The answer is to have freedom across the world. If the USA consitutition was adopted across the world most wars would never be fought. The respect of minority rights is something most countries fail to adhere to. The rule of strongmen, or rule of majority without regards to minorites rights is the problem. Not that the USa is the only superpower. when you have two superpowers you have more war, chaos, and instability as each tries to outmanuvere the other. Look at the history of the cold war. Wars in Korea, Vietnam, South America, Central AMerica, Africa without end. Millions dead. Now look at the world after the USSR fell. Central America and South America in realtive peace, Asia in realitive peace. Two small wars in Europe as the victors undo the damage that the Soviet Union caused.
The only hotspot in the World at the moment is the Middle East and that is more a result of the left overs of the Cold war mentality than anything else.
unseen on August 13, 2008 at 1:48 PM
If Georgia’s “own devices” included genocide, should we still ignore them?
What if something similar happened in Mexico or Canada, would we sit idly by, should we?
Bishop on August 13, 2008 at 1:48 PM
If Arizona were 100% white, they would have a right to form their own nation.
The people of Arizona, or any other state, have the right to leave the union if that is their wish.
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 1:50 PM
BTW LGF is reporting that BUSH is sending troops and ships in to Georgia:
Bush also said Defense Secretary Robert Gates will lead the U.S. effort to provide humanitarian and medical supplies to Georgia. U.S. aircraft are on the way to deliver aid, and Navy vessels carrying aid will leave soon, he said.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
unseen on August 13, 2008 at 1:50 PM
No, no, no, a thousand times no!
Patton said it best!
In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-#itches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.
- George S. Patton
Damn! I wish I didn’t have to censor Patton (”#”) to get his words through Hotair’s filters.
MB4 on August 13, 2008 at 1:51 PM
The people of Arizona, or any other state, have the right to leave the union if that is their wish.
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 1:50 PM
No they do not. that was the reason we fought the civil war. the South thought that. they were proven wrong.
unseen on August 13, 2008 at 1:51 PM
A majority of which people? That’s the whole problem in these affairs. A small group decides it wants to be a small country based on culture, religion, or ethnicity of that small group regardless of national wishes. I mentioned this the other day. Tribalism seems to be the latest fad. I’m also aware many of these small groups have legitimate concerns about their treatment under existing regimes. I’m just not sure the tensions go away by creating a separate entity.
a capella on August 13, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Sorry, but they do. Lincoln just considered it more important to preserve the Union, which I agree with. Unfortunately, no one would fight a civil war today to keep a state in the union, which is why any sort of amnesty will lead to the eventual dissolution of the United States.
progressoverpeace on August 13, 2008 at 1:54 PM
This is an extremely important issue and your points are dead-on.
The United Nations, rather than upholding the sovereignty of a member in good standing – Serbia – was complicit in it’s dismemberment. To this day I have never seen a solid legal justification for this action…indeed interference in a quintessentially internal affair. Regardless of its motives (and it is difficult to sympathize with Serbia after its conduct diring the Yugoslavian breakup)Russia was correct in its protests about what was going on.
As a Canadian, I too had a problem with it…the last thing I would ever want is the UN opining upon the actions of the Canadian Federal government in its approach to dealing with separatism.
So now we have Georgia. When Ms. Rice said that Kosovo provided no precedent to anything, who was she kidding? Who did she think she was fooling? Of course it was a precedent…for Georgia, Abkazia…who knows where else? If Serbia was denied the right to use force to defend its territorial integrity, why was Georgia any different?
The UN abandoned its role in upholding the fundamental principle of national sovereignty when it acceded to the dismantling of Serbia. It demonstrated its impotence in protecting small states when it could do nothing to preserve Georgia’s borders.
Someone commented this past week whether we were seeing, in Georgia, another Hungary of 1956. I do not think so…it’s the wrong analogy.
What we are seeing is a replay of Yalta…and unless the value of sovereignty begins to receive more support, more states are going to find themselves helpless and abandoned within the wrong “sphere of influence”.
Blaise on August 13, 2008 at 1:56 PM
My feelings exactly.
MadisonConservative on August 13, 2008 at 1:56 PM
It’s not quite that simple, even in the United States. Secession is a settled legal matter (re: civil war). I’m not sure what would happen if Arizona or Florida or CA tried to secede, but it’d be interesting nonetheless.
Besides, I totally disagree with the notion that because a portion of a country is 90% (insert color here), it cannot live with another part of a country that is of alternate race. The balkanization of this planet is one of the truly sad situations we face right now.
lorien1973 on August 13, 2008 at 1:57 PM
If La Raza or TUCC can get a solid majority of people to agree with them, what makes you think we can stop them? Or should?
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 1:34 PM
It is called the US army. Why should we stop them because a compact was made by every US citizen called the US consititution. In that documents the rights of all people are gauranteed. that means that if 99.999% of people in a state wants to suceed the .001% who don’t are respected. That are entitled to the rights and protections of the US government. Mark study some history. We already had this fight and this war. The Union won. and the reasons the North gave for the war are the same today as it was in 1860.
unseen on August 13, 2008 at 1:58 PM
And you were right. Which is why I don’t believe that ‘nation building’ and ‘coalition building’ should be a part of the federal government of the USA. We shouldn’t form alliances to give false hopes to countries that shouldn’t be saber rattling.
We really should fall back and re-assess what we are doing in the world. I’m all for a strong defense. . . but that doesn’t include waging wars for all countries around the world because we like them.
American military should be used for America, not other countries. I’m a global free trader, but I think we need to be a bit more isolationist militarily. If Israel can handle Iran, we shouldn’t stand in their way, but we shouldn’t help them either. Our military should not be the world’s police force as it has become.
ThackerAgency on August 13, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Try California.
English is no longer spoken in much of Southern California.
pseudonominus on August 13, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Dam…. I’m a Mutt…
If that an ethnic group?
Of course, just AMERICAN is becoming a minority to the something-Americans… so maybe I am!
Romeo13 on August 13, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, Putin will use it to some short term advantage. If he goes after the Ukraine next, it will wear thin pretty quickly. I think the Western response has been good,….he’s in a bit of a box now.
a capella on August 13, 2008 at 2:01 PM
But, we can’t even throw 20 or 30 million illegals out of the US, people who have no right to be here, at all, and yet you think that we would send the army in after US citizens? I just don’t see it.
We are displaying no intention to protect America sovereignty today. I don’t see why that would change.
progressoverpeace on August 13, 2008 at 2:01 PM
The balkanization of this planet is one of the truly sad situations we face right now.
lorien1973 on August 13, 2008 at 1:57 PM
It is what happens when ideas are shunned. Like the idea of federalism, the idea of self determination. the USA was set up so that people could have the majority of control at the local level but minority rights would be protected. THat certain rights were given to everyone. The federal government was not all powerful.
unseen on August 13, 2008 at 2:01 PM
progressoverpeace on August 13, 2008 at 2:01 PM
there is a difference between illegal immigration and sucession. I do not think any president would allow the USa to break apart.
unseen on August 13, 2008 at 2:03 PM
MadisonConservative on August 13, 2008 at 2:04 PM
As C.S. Lewis wrote in Abolition of Man (paraphrase):
Underlying philosophical riddle for those who wish to play.
Weight of Glory on August 13, 2008 at 2:04 PM
After, say, Quebec left Canada, there would be no great argument that the entire US would back in fighting to keep the Southwest. Many would argue to keep the US together (us, for instance) but the whole left would be against fighting and many on the right don’t like the nation-state now. I just don’t see the US keeping any states that vote to secede, which is why I consider amnesty to be so terribly dangerous.
progressoverpeace on August 13, 2008 at 2:05 PM
progressoverpeace on August 13, 2008 at 2:05 PM
I see your point. And agree somewhat, however, we have precedent with the civil war. We have Supreme court rulings, president EO, we have whole volumes on sucession. The country will not allow itself to be split up IMO because the consitution requires the government to protect the rights of ALL its citizens.
unseen on August 13, 2008 at 2:09 PM
MadisonConservative on August 13, 2008 at 2:04 PM
You do realize of course when asked during the primaries what candidate he was most afraid of was RON PAUL.
You also realize that Ron Paul is right on a lot of things. I disagree with him on the Iraq war, but he’s right when he says we shouldn’t do things we can’t pay for unless it is a dire emergency for AMERICANS.
I don’t know about you, but when I want to do something I can’t afford, I don’t do it. When America wants to do something it can’t afford, it increases taxes and raises the deficit (thereby devaluing the dollar).
Saying I sound like Ron Paul isn’t a negative to me. Paul got more donations than Obama during the run up to the primaries.
ThackerAgency on August 13, 2008 at 2:10 PM
that is McCain said Ron Paul was the candidate he was most afraid of. . . because he had the most conservative principles. He was just wrong on the Iraq war in my opinion.
ThackerAgency on August 13, 2008 at 2:11 PM
It’s only temporary. This isn’t the last word on Kosovo, or Georgia either. Neither are Mexico’s claims to the American SW, the Russian bears territorial interests in Central Asia and even in Alaska, Hawaii’s independence aims, etc.
History didn’t end, and it doesn’t start when Americans first become interested in something.
JiangxiDad on August 13, 2008 at 2:12 PM
That’s my point.
MadisonConservative on August 13, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Well said.
ThackerAgency on August 13, 2008 at 2:14 PM
History didn’t end, and it doesn’t start when Americans first become interested in something.
JiangxiDad on August 13, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Russia sold its interests in Alaska. they have no territoial claim.
Mexico’s claims to the SW are not applicabale here because other cultures have prior claims. If you start down the line of giving back the SW to mexico you must finish by giving it back to the people that Mexico and spain conquered it from.
Hawaii’s claims are probably the strongest here since they only are once removed. however their agreement to join the union is binding.
unseen on August 13, 2008 at 2:17 PM
I would say that we also have precedence with WWII and the utter devastation we wrought on our enemies … civilians and all … yet Iran (and many other states) seem totally undeterred by that. Heck, Mexico doesn’t seem to have any fear of aggressively working to violate the US border!
There are many things we did in the past to protect the sovereignty and sanctity of the United States, but we refuse to repeat many of those same actions today (a good number have since been declared ‘illegal’!).
I find this all saddening, but that’s how it appears to me.
progressoverpeace on August 13, 2008 at 2:19 PM
this entire converstaion is the result of the failure of our education system. Comparing the US action in Serbia to the Russian adventure in Georgia is comparing apples to organges. Russia and Nato ARE not the SAME. comparing the seperatists campagins of the KURDS and the Sudenesse are not the same.
Moral equivalency has taught in our schools is a canard. there is a difference between the USA and other nations. The founding principles is why. The aims of the USa and other nations are different.
There was a difference between the west occupation of West Germany and The USSR occupancy of eastern europe.
there was a difference between the USA invading Afganistian and the USSR’s invasion. There are basic fundemental difference even though the actions are the same on the surface they are not the same.
Kosovo and Sout oesstia appear the same on the surface but they are not. The failure of Americians to understand those fundementally different details is the problem. It is due mostly from the leftist crap our schools have taught over the last 30 years. From the PR that hollywood spills out year after year.
For instance the Left’s attempt in this country to compare Bush to hitler. They are different as night is to day yet the left fails to see the difference and instead concentrates on those things that appear to be the same.
unseen on August 13, 2008 at 2:26 PM
The only thing the civil war proved was that the side with the most guns gets to impose it’s will on everyone else.
There is nothing in the constitution, or any other document that says that a state may not leave the union.
In fact most people at the time of that war believed the south had the right to seceed. That’s why Lincoln had to resort to jailing any editor who disagreed with him. It’s why Lincoln had to impose a draft, for the first time in this nations history.
It’s why Lincoln had to shred the Constitution.
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Did you happen to watch the fall of the Soviet Union live on TV? I did. A universal orgasm swept through the West and other budding democracies. Peace! Now we can say the Ruskies are our friends. Boris Yeltsin appeared proclaiming to germinate democratic reforms in the CIS. Here we are now, 17 years later, and the Bear is back.
Why, because Yeltsin was not strong enough to hold to the reforms against hardline, wolves in sheeps clothing dictator wannabes. Who did not support the CIS? Another weakling…Clinton. He allowed, by curtailing the reach and power of the CIA and other dirty job agencies, the reformers to lose power against the traditional communists and organized crime (is there a difference?) who were gaining power at an exponential rate.
How did we defeat Soviet communism? By electing a strongman, Reagan. How did the CIS revert back to it’s old ways? Weaklings were in charge. By the time Putin came to power (1999), the machinery for oppression had been installed. A wasted opportunity to acheive to lofty society you aspire to.
Am I nuts? No. I am pragmmatic in my approach to problem defintion and resolution. Unfortunately, too many people take the romantic approach….”Can’t we all just…get along? Wouldn’t the world be so nice if…….”. Romanticists never get around to defining what “if” is.
We have a two party political system (the good and the bad). Until more modern times, it served us well by ensuring all political viewpoints had a voice in the debate. Now, the parties only serve themselves. Having two superpowers who disagree and choose to debate is an ideal construct. The Cold War, for all it’s expense, leaves us that legacy.
BTW, just curious. In which period were more people killed:
1. During the Cold War (ended in 1991)
2. After the Cold War.
BobMbx on August 13, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Blaise,
So if Canada started executing any French Canadians who supported seperation, then the rest of the world should just but out?
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 2:28 PM
“I warned in March about the folly of recognizing Kosovo, especially over the strenuous objections of Moscow and the Serbs.”
Capt’n: you were right about this when you wrote about it on your old Blog, and you’re right here; our dichotomous approach on this, has directly lead to Russia’s justification for the intervention in Georgia; and once you tie into the Left’s penchant for aggravating Seperatist tendancies around the world, by trying to classify EVERYONE as some form of Aggrieved/Victim “Minority”, thus highlighting and exacerbating Religious, Ethnic, Cultural, and Nationalistic conflicts and splits; we face not only abroad, but here at home, a very real danger of not only the fracturing of our own country and national identity which the Leftist “Democrats” (OxyMORON Alert!) would dearl love and in fact, encourage; but we can also anticipate the continuing fracturing of other nations in the world into essentially unviable competing mini-states split solely along Ethnic, Religious, Cultural, Tribal and Nationalistic lines.
End result: more unviable mini-welfare states, that will require the largess of the United States, and intervention and support via the UN; another goal of the Leftist “Democrats” (OxyMORON ALERT!) on their quest for subjugating the US to oblivion, subjugation to a “World” Government, and worldwide Welfare & Socialism!
Sorta sounds like the “World Citizen”, Barack HUSSEIN Obama (PBUH)’s vision of the world, doesn’t it?
Dale in Atlanta on August 13, 2008 at 2:28 PM
While I agree, I had to do it. ;)
MadisonConservative on August 13, 2008 at 2:28 PM
lorien1973,
Sometimes one has to live apart before one can rejoin the group.
Forcing someone who does not want to be part of your group, to stay in the group, is the last thing you want to do if better relations is your goal.
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 2:29 PM
progressoverpeace on August 13, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Yes but at the same time we as a country have not been faced with extermination since WW2. people and laws change rapidly during crisis. the patriot act after 9/11 is a good example.
During peace time things can be tolarated that can not be during war times. when the crap hits the fan the presidents and Congress will lean on the side of the Union. As they did in 1860.
unseen on August 13, 2008 at 2:29 PM
unseen,
So you believe that preserving the union is so important, that anyone who disagrees with you should be killed?
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 2:30 PM
MadisonConservative on August 13, 2008 at 2:28 PM
I have found that if I take the time to double check my spelling and grammer, things tend to slow way down. Blame it on the mind out running the fingers’ ability to punch the right keys.
unseen on August 13, 2008 at 2:32 PM
unseen, you claim that the courts require that the rights of all citizens be respected.
Then you declare that if 99.999% of the population wants to secede, that the the army must be used to protect the rights of the 0.001% that doesn’t.
What happened to the rights of the 99.999%? Why do the wishes of the 0.001% outweigh the rights of the rest?
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 2:34 PM
This is the history of western world powers. When one looks at our external policy on race and religion it is discriminatory. Internally we promote integration, externally we promote segregation.
sjramos on August 13, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Please quote chapter and verse of the Constitution that supports this claim.
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 2:35 PM
What happened to the rights of the 99.999%? Why do the wishes of the 0.001% outweigh the rights of the rest?
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 2:34 PM
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few….
SPOCK (I think!)
Dale in Atlanta on August 13, 2008 at 2:36 PM
“…of the few, or the one.”
BobMbx on August 13, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Dale in Atlanta,
Forcing peoples who do not want to stay together, to stay together, is no way to build a viable country either. All you end up with is more hatred and when the split does come, it will be all the more bloody for having been delayed.
A country does not have to be large, to be viable.
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 2:39 PM
It’s pretty odd that Cap’n Ed finds moral equivalency between the West’s actions in Kosovo and Russia’s in Georgia. The root cause of Russia’s actions is Georgia’s intent to join NATO. Obviously this would be bad for the Russians. So they incite an ethnic minority in order to give them a pretext for either annexing or forcing regime change to a friendly government in Georgia. It’s most like Germany in the years leading up to WWII if anything.
Kosovo as a precedent is just a flimsy pretext Russia is selling the world and Cap’n and others bought it.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on August 13, 2008 at 2:39 PM
That’s a reasonable argument. It only gives me cold comfort, though. Don’t forget, we’re still busy handing our sovereignty over to a bunch of intl orgs, and surrendering it to waves of illegals, as we speak.
From your keyboard to G-d’s screen, though.
progressoverpeace on August 13, 2008 at 2:40 PM
I’m not persuaded that “had we not..” then “Russia wouldn’t be…”, they might cite it as an excuse but thats all it is, an excuse. and in Russia they will do it with or without excuses.
jp on August 13, 2008 at 2:40 PM
unseen,
So you believe that preserving the union is so important, that anyone who disagrees with you should be killed?
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Let’s ask a different question and then I will answer yours. If the South had been allowed to suceed what would have happened in WW1 and WW2. Would Germany and Japan have been stopped. Would millions not be reduced to gas chambers? Would the idea of freedom and minority rights be still in the world. would slavery still be the law of the land in the South and other parts of the world?
If you believe that your rights stop at the nose of someone else than you have to a major problem with sucession. Because that persons action to disolve a binding union that they enetered into will impact your life and your rights and your childrens rights and their safety for generations to come.
So to answer your question the preservation of the Union is the most important thing. I do not advocate “killing” people who disagree with me. I advocate protecting my country from enemies both forgein and domestic.
So using your logic. All army personnel and all memebers of Congress should not swear that oath?
unseen on August 13, 2008 at 2:40 PM
I believe that the United States, as a whole, is important enough to fight a war for, and kill if necessary. Absolutely.
progressoverpeace on August 13, 2008 at 2:41 PM
There have only been a few times in my life when I was truely embarassed to be an American.
One of those was when Bush the Elder went to the Ukraine, and urged their people not to leave the Soviet Empire because in his view, stability was so much more important than freedom.
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 2:41 PM
That’s a reasonable argument. It only gives me cold comfort, though. Don’t forget, we’re still busy handing our sovereignty over to a bunch of intl orgs, and surrendering it to waves of illegals, as we speak.
From your keyboard to G-d’s screen, though.
progressoverpeace on August 13, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Yes and I see those has major problems because it is being done without regards to the lessons of the founding fathers.
unseen on August 13, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Bingo…there is no moral Equivalency here and there are vast distinctions. again, the virus of years of anti-american hand wringing and the buchanan/paultard spin on the right is showing clear fault lines everywhere.
jp on August 13, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Ok, I think you’ve been reading to many lefty blogs and it’s starting to take it’s toll. I only say this because what appears to me is that you are saying Russia’s actions in Georgia is America’s fault.
- The Cat
MirCat on August 13, 2008 at 2:47 PM
There have only been a few times in my life when I was truely embarassed to be an American.
One of those was when Bush the Elder went to the Ukraine, and urged their people not to leave the Soviet Empire because in his view, stability was so much more important than freedom.
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 2:41 PM
On that I would agree. Now if Ukranie had the same rights and protections of Americian in regards to say any state in the Union that I would didagree with Ukraine leaving the USSR.
again we come to moral grounds. If people are given freedom, rights and protections than “their desire” for a ethnic zone, historical lands ect should be fought against. If however, they are oppressed, do not have freedom, nor rights than their desire for those things should be helped.
unseen on August 13, 2008 at 2:47 PM
unseen,
1) The US probably never would have entered WWI, we had no dog in that fight anyway, Wilson wanted us in so that he could prove that the US was one of the big boys.
2) Had the US not entered WWI, in all likelihood, there never would have been a WWII.
Regardless, even if there had been a WWII and it unfolded like the one in our time line, then why do you think both the North and the South would not have been convinced to join the fight?
The people voting to disolve the union are not the ones who voted to join it. Why do you think that it takes being part of a large country, that ignores your wants and desires, in order to have your rights protected.
Isn’t the very concept an oxymoron?
If you believe that the union should be preserved, at all costs, then you most definitely do believe that those who disagree with you deserve death. Because that’s what the army that you want to send in does. It kills people and destroys things.
Any army officer, that swore an oath to preserve and protect the constitution, violated that oath when he took up arms to kill any southerner who wanted out of the union.
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Any country, that you have to kill people in order to keep them in that country, isn’t worth preserving.
Or do you guys not remember the Berlin wall.
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 2:48 PM
unseen,
So the people have rights, but not the right to leave.
What is this a prison?
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Postmodernism is the root of this problem.
jp on August 13, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Kind of reminds me of the “we had to destroy the village in order to save it” logic employed during Vietnam.
Some people feel the United States is so important, that they are willing to destroy the foundation on which this country was founded (individual freedom) in order to protect it.
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 2:51 PM
jp,
Absolutely right. Cap’n Ed and others are taking the stance that the West’s motives are as sinister as Russia’s smacks of liberal brainwashing. Just because the world media is buying the line that Russia’s attack is somehow justified doesn’t make it so. We bought the same line in the Sudetenland, and it was just as bogus as this current mess will turn out to be.
Real murder was taking place in the Balkans. Murder on a large scale. We stopped it. The West stopped it. What exactly is Russia putting a stop to by overrunning Georgia if not that state’s intent to join NATO? Lest we all forget, NATO exists for mutual *defense*. Defense from expansionist powers. Powers like Russia. If Georgia joined NATO, Russia wouldn’t be able to pull this crap. That’s all this is about. It has nothing to do with the Balkans, tempting though that might be to believe.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on August 13, 2008 at 2:53 PM
WRONG! States ratified the Constitution! People’s wishes are expressed through the duly elected representatives in the State governments.
dominigan on August 13, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Has the KGB added stupid to the drinking water here or something? Please let me know which Western power annexed any part of Yugoslavia? Hell, find a Yugoslavian. There’s no such people, no such language, no such culture in the history of the world. The borders of Yugoslavia were drawn in London and Paris to serve the ends of the great European powers. The parallel there is that the borders of the component parts of the USSR were all drawn to benefit the Russians at the expense of any local nationalities.
I support a free Ossetia, sure. If they want their own place, then I’ve got no beef with that. THAT IS NOT WHAT IS HAPPENING. This is 100% a naked land-grab by Russia. This is the Sudetenland annexation all over again. Remember that one? The peace-loving Nazi’s were only aiding the Sudetendeutsch gain independence from the genocidal Czecks, Slovaks, and Moldavians. THAT is the parallel here, not Kosovo. DO NOT BE FOOLED. DO NOT DRINK THE KGB’S STUPID JUICE.
TABoLK on August 13, 2008 at 2:54 PM
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Why would we have joined WW2. Japan would have not attacked Peral Harbor because there would not have been a pearl harbor because there would not have been a US navy. and if the North did join the fight they would have been worried about the South taken advantage of the war and expanding or the South the north. thus the mutal ditrust would have prevented NA from fighting in concert and thus Russia and Britian would not have been supplied and would have fallen. Japan would have continued it conquest and China would have fallen. North AMerica would have been arraied against two massive armies bent on world domination. It’s possible that Japn and Germany would have attacked each other at some point. Much like the USSR and USa of today.
Any southern that wanted out of the union become an enemy of that constitution, and would require the soldier to take up arms against that movement to fullfill his oath.
The only way your wants and desires can be protected is by a strong country. History is full of examples of small countries being conquered by larger ones. In size there is strentgh. Since the founding principles of the USA is freedom and equal rights, the only way to have those rights and freedoms is to have the USA strong and capable of defending those rights. Thus a strong Union is needed to protect the rights of all citizens. Federalism was the founding fathers ways of allowing the states freedoms to live the way they want. succession was the line in the sand.
unseen on August 13, 2008 at 2:59 PM
You mean like the Palestinians?
exhelodrvr on August 13, 2008 at 3:00 PM
unseen,
So the people have rights, but not the right to leave.
What is this a prison?
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Last I checked you are free to leave the USA any time you want. You just are not allowed to take your land with you.
unseen on August 13, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Any country, that you have to kill people in order to keep them in that country, isn’t worth preserving.
Or do you guys not remember the Berlin wall.
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Again you compare apples to plums. You are free to leave any time you want. Take a trip to Canada, Mexico sometime. the border gaurds do not shoot you if you cross the border. I swear that was the stupidest statement form you yet.
unseen on August 13, 2008 at 3:03 PM
It would be the height of hypocrisy to demand respect for sovereignty anywhere else in the world, we don’t respect our own.
Territorial integrity? Pffft, you mean like a national identity or a common culture, maybe even a common language? Yeah right, we got got that.
The Russian Bear understands big fish eat little fish and America will whine and sanction and maybe even threaten a little then go back to shafting some other would be friend and it won’t be because we don’t want to, it’ll be because of the purposeful dis-uniting and PC suicide liberalism disease thats taken control of this country.
Speakup on August 13, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Man, you are paranoid.
If you want to get into alternate history fantasies, I will stick with my contention that there never would have been a WWII if the south had been allowed to leave the union.
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 3:08 PM
ah yes, you can leave, you just have to leave everything behind. How utterly generous of you.
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Yes, the Kosovars were the victims of massacres and ethnic cleansing. The Serbs made it clear that they were unwelcome in Serbia. What would you have them do? If a husband rapes and brutalizes his wife, is she expected to stay in the marriage in hopes that he’ll reform? There have been no reports of the Georgians brutalizing the Ossetians (although Russia claims the Georgians were ethnic cleansing during their foray into Ossetia, a claim that appears to me to seek moral equivalency with Kosovo). Every state has the right to maintain it’s sovereignty. But every population has the right to revolt against oppression, or we, the United States, wouldn’t be here.
NNtrancer on August 13, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Kind of reminds me of the “we had to destroy the village in order to save it” logic employed during Vietnam.
Some people feel the United States is so important, that they are willing to destroy the foundation on which this country was founded (individual freedom) in order to protect it.
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Because without the FORCE of the USA that foundation would be just another blip in history. the world is full of strongmen, and people that hate freedom. You can not have individual freedom if you do not have the FORCE to defend it. It is only by the strength of arms that freedom is alive today. Without that strength freedom would be quickly
destroyed.
unseen on August 13, 2008 at 3:10 PM
So, treaties be damned? It was all about Wilson wanting into the game? Talk about trutherism
You think The old German guard would have been satisfied with just Europe? History shows that en empire on the march fallows the same principles of inertia.
If they did, they would not have been as strong. Also with dueling ideologies they would have spent most of their resources on justifiable paranoia.
Yes, because human/individual rights were so paramount in the south at the time. Talk about your oxymorons.
The Union being preserved was extremely important. What would have been left after self carving would have been absorbed by European countries. English/Spanish/French wars in North America would have been resurrected. England wanting to make an agreement with the South for control of the Northern states shows this to have been a real concern.
I think you need to reread what you wrote because you’re arguing with yourself.
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 2:47 PM
MirCat on August 13, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »