Stand up to Russia

bush didn't colsoldate power into the presidency?
and his lackeys havnt called for bush to be president for life via the family security site?

There is a difference: Hitler's economic policy was unsustainable, and thus war is inevitable; Russia's energy resources mean that Putin gets to get Europe and the ex-Soviet republics to dance to his tune for much longer. It's not in Russian interest to trigger an all-out war.

E.D.:

Elaborate, Jack.

That's a dangerous request to make, because I've been known to elaborate incessantly.

:^{)>

(Seriously: Researching and reflecting as we speak.)

E.D.:

Sorry to have been so cryptic and curt.

I've been working on an article on this subject all week. Mind if I link it here when I finish the hyperlinks and the polishing? (I include a link to this seed)

E.D.:

Melos, Morals, Matryoshkas and Majorities: Of Sudetenland and South Ossetia

Thanks!

Thanks for the link, it's an interesting read. The columnist mentioned some facts that needed to be said, I just wish his tone was a little more professional. But looking at it from his side, Max Boot sort of print-godwined himself and smeared his nation big time, so it's not hard to imagine that he would take it personally.

Here's an interesting site for those seeking at little background and checking out bloggers in the area:

GlobalVoicesOnLine.org

Thank you Jimster for the link.

Once its terraforming project has begun in ernest and the air is not totally toxic, I'm right behind you. Do you think $10K will cover the flight ;o)?

Well welcome to the world, there have been war's since some men love power from the begin of time.

Mars sounds good, crap, I'll row.

Gosh I love you guys.

Demmy, can Mars' atmosphere be any more toxic than ours right now? sarc

Cranky- you row I'll man (I mean woman) the whip! sarc

Say we meet at 0300 and sneak out...

Woohoo, he said whip!!

Whoops, reread........I mean WOOHOO SHE said whip!!! Amazons on Mars, I'm in.

newsblog903. Save a seat for me.

Well if you think that way, then you don't know God, why would you think that we can not and will not do what it take to make FREEDOM THE NORN of the world?

Jesse, did we forget our meds today?

agnosticator, you've pretty much covered reality. The bad thing is, we flew the Georgian troops from Iraq back to Georgia, and now we're flying in "humanitarian aid" in C17s. Geedubya's going to get some Americans killed so we can start WWIII with unloaded guns.

Very much agree and hope Russia cooperates with the EU. At the same time I hope the US stays out of this as much as possible.

I have to agree with you on all counts. Empire builders, whether old fashioned communists Russians or new fashioned capitalist Russians, will build (?) or rebuild their empires. Frankly, I'm not surprized. From a strategic point of view taking Georgia gives them access to the Black Sea and the resources that region has. If Russia can (A) have a friend (Ossentia) on the Black Sea they gain, or (B) Retake Georgia, they gain. The temptation to simply look at this as a renewal of the Cold War is great, but one that must be ignored.

This is about the consolidation of power, and the control of resources, plain and simple.

Merchant

Well maybe we might get more people's who believe in God to get rid of the evil people's if we stop killing baby's that can come in the world to help with problem's. Wars are a way to do battle with GOOD vs evil.

If you want to know the reason's for that problem, you might need to talk to God or read the Bible, it tell about thing's like this, good will always win over evil.

If you want to know the reason's for that problem, you might need to talk to God or read the Bible, it tell about thing's like this, good will always win over evil.

I have nightly (and a daily wake up) prayers and one-sided conversations with the Creator. While he doesn't answer me directly ("here's the way it is, Dwemmy- now listen up!"), he helps me through reflection to realize what I think are universal truths.

In the case of Russia/Georgia/South Ossetia/Nato/USA He has helped me to temper my opinion as things are very fluid right now; but surely all sides have people who are behaving nobly and good as well as base and evil.

How will the bible help me specifically with regards to this conflict? Please advise.

And continuing with what demmywemmy says, I've been looking at a lot of stories about this whole mess and some of the stories conflict with each other and some of em are obviously partisan propaganda. Some of the pictures of the Russian columns and army are a little weird. The pictures I saw today of a group of Russians that moved south from Gori today showed a convoy of trucks, I saw 6 different brands of truck, and leading them was a BMP, a Soviet/Russian armored personell carrier that about 8 bazillion countries use these days with the turret gun removed. I'm kinda thinking that's a little suspect. Most of the reporters I've seen in war zones don't know a BMP from a Bradley from a T-80, probably don't speak the language and probably coudn't tell a Russian soldier from a bagel.

I think we shouldn't get our panties in a bunch until we know a little more about what's really going on over there.

Unfortunately, our president has seen fit to airlift the Georgian troops from Iraq back to Georgia, and is now landing "humanitarian supplies" in Air Force C17s. We'll be landing teams to "assess the needs on the ground". It might very well be that Americans will be dying SOON.

What happens then? Nothing good, that's for sure.

Cranky- I have some banana chips left over from the cold war in my cellar. I'll share them with you and Demmy.

Unfortunately, our president has seen fit to airlift the Georgian troops from Iraq back to Georgia, and is now landing "humanitarian supplies" in Air Force C17s.

Besides being our allies in Iraq and elsewhere, those Georgian troops are also fathers, brothers, and sons of people being attacked in overwhelming numbers by the Russians even in recent violation of a truce. As to the "humanitarian supplies" you have to be pretty cranky to be in complete opposition toward aiding our allies - humanitarian aid or otherwise for the more skeptical.

TopJedi, the news I've been following on this was that on Friday, Georgia attacked South Ossetia, which is an area where most of the population has Russian citizenship, to bring it under submission. While doing so, they attacked and possibly killed and wounded Russian peacekeepers who were there under the terms of a treaty signed by the Georgians in 1992. The Russians responded by moving troops into South Ossetia, and launching preemtive airstrikes on Georgian airbases.

After that, the news is hard to follow, i.e.: On monday, Russian troops were said to have cut Georgia in half, and were streaming out of Gori. The news today is that the Russians were streaming south out of Gori with either "50 tanks", or "50 trucks and armored vehicles". You'd think that if they did it on Monday, and cut the country in half, that they wouldn't need to do it again today........maybe it's some sort of "Groundhog's Day" time warp thing. Or maybe we're not getting really accurate news, because the reporters don't speak the language, don't know a tank from an armored personell carrier from a jeep. Some of the mislabeled photos I've seen would lead me to believe that it's possible that the reporters don't know a Russian soldier from a bagel.

The Georgians were/are probably our allies in Iraq as repayment for western oil companies building a pipeline across their country to bypass Russian control of Central Asian oil being shipped to Europe and the U.S.

At any rate, using the argument that "they're our allies, and we must support them no matter what they do" is exactly how WWI was started. It's akin to how some people treat family...........blood is thicker than water, no matter how stupid my relatives are. That's exactly why the Arabs have unable to move into the modern world, because they are still fighting over tribal issues from hundreds of years ago.

oldcrankyman, yes I have been reading much of that as well about South Ossetia. As I claim to understand very little of that region, I also recall hearing that Rice warned Georgia several months not to provoke Russia with any action toward the tiny region of South Ossetia.

It may well be that Georgia brought some of this upon themselves, but much of the outrage I have heard is the shear overwhelming force with which Russia decended on the Georgian people in many areas as you have mentioned with all the intentions of cutting the entire country of Georgia in half.

Ground hog day or not, more than just the media are accusing Russia of violating the truce. If you truly believe Georgia is an ally for just their oil, by that logic we would much prefer Russia for their vastly greater oil output than even the oil rich nation of Georgia.

As to the idea that I am favoring "hundred year old Arab tribal issues" that are akin to stupid family problems that led directly to WWI as a means to support an ally "no matter what they do" is actually as funny sounding as it is wrong about my approach to this problem.

We are far from establishing that Georgia is "stupid family" and we have every indication that Russia was mightily well prepared for this "defense of South Ossetia" and made incredible headway into Georgia in a few short days as it parsed the country in two, and seized the capital in the noble "defense of Ossetia."

There is so much unfolding that we can agree much is not known or fully understood yet. But let's leave the Arab tribal issues, and stupid relative comparisons out of this.

I'm a little confused as to this thing I keep hearing about Russia responding with overwhelming force. The way I understand it, that's how you fight a war to keep your people safe. We practiced that in the 91 Gulf War, seemed like the right thing to do then, didn't it?

As you also mentioned Cranky, 'Georgia killed a few Russian "peacekeepers" in South Ossetia' and Russia invaded with tanks and split the entire country of Georgia in half while retaining additional Russian "peacekeepers" inside to maintain stability.

Is this really how you fight a war to keep your people safe? Is it really that confusing?

I said

possibly killed and wounded Russian peacekeepers who were there under the terms of a treaty signed by the Georgians in 1992

. I was giving the benefit of the doubt to the Georgians with that statement, since we don't really know if Russians were in fact wounded or killed.

You then said

Russia invaded with tanks and split the entire country of Georgia in half

On monday I read a claim by the president of Georgia that Russia had split his country in half, by advancing out of Gori, a city just south of South Ossetia. This evening, I read 2 stories, one which claimed the the Russians were dashing south from Gori with 50 tanks, and one that said that a Russian column of trucks and armored vehicles was advancing south from Gori, with pictures. The pictures showed a BMP armored personell carrier with the turret gun missing and 6 different brands of trucksdriving down a road somewhere. Since these 3 stories don't agree, then at least one of them is not true.

My point about the overwhelming force comment is that you seem to think that there's some sort of rule where you count up what the other guy has, and then send in an equal number to make it fair. Smart commanders do everything they can to use overwhelming force against an opponent to try and lose as many of their troops as possible, i.e.

keep your people safe

Is this really how you fight a war to keep your people safe?

YES

you seem to think that there's some sort of rule where you count up what the other guy has, and then send in an equal number to make it fair.

As a Veteran I can appreciate that the Russian's overwhelming attack ("defense") strategy was highly successful and very well executed and I fully agree with you on this.

However some of the outrage I am hearing is that the Russian's seemed "too well prepared" and I realize how that may sound to you also. Clearly an armed force should always be ready for any conflict etc...

The extent to which Russia has "defended" South Ossetia has all but dismissed discussions of South Ossetia as the world tries to deal with the devastation in Georgia. Reports I am hearing this morning is that the "Russian peacekeepers" have not withdrawn from the areas of Georgia that they had previously agreed to.

This doesn't sound like peace-keeping. It's sounds like an invasion with intent to conquer.

Exactly E.D. and there is that little footnote that the "peacekeepers" are still in violation of the truce and have not withdrawn as they promised. Seems that Russia's actions are betraying their best spin.

From the pictures I've been seeing the Russians don't look all that well prepared. The equipment looks kinda rag tag. Today I saw a picture of a Russian patrol, 4 guys and an armored vehicle. The vehicle was a mobile anti aircraft gun. Hard to tell, I've read some of the same claims by the news for 3 days in a row, who knows what's really going on over there?

True enough, the reports seem very unreliable.

TopJedi, the news I've been following on this was that on Friday, Georgia attacked South Ossetia, which is an area where most of the population has Russian citizenship, to bring it under submission.

South Ossetia is a part of the nation of Georgia. Period, full stop. South Ossetia is not allowed to secede from Georgia any more than Chechnya is allowed to secede from Russia. In both situations the nation responded by trying to put down the rebellion. We have even done that once in this country if memory serves.

Brian:

To paraphrase Bill Munny from Unforgiven, "'Allow's' got nothing to with it."

Valid point. Might makes right. That is the fundamental law of nations. Had the Confederacy won the Civil War everyone would be saying today how it was "allowed" to secede.

Clearly Russia struck now because Georgia's NATO application is scheduled to be reviewed in December, which would have radically changed the calculus of attacking Georgia for Russia. It is a shame we didn't approve their membership earlier, which might have dissuaded this attack.

Brian:

Valid point. Might makes right. That is the fundamental law of nations.

That's a key point in the article I just posted.

As I point out in commentb #1, Victor David Hanson used the exact same quote as me posting almost exactly when I did to reach the opposite conclusion. Does that mean I'm as smart as VDH?

:^{)>

Before that happen they will be just a place to park car's.

Why would you think that our country can not fight on three front? You should read history and see what God can do for the people's that keep his holy word.

True, you can learn from history, but it is not a crystal ball. Russia is NOT Nazi Germany. But if you must use history, Russia beat Germany in WWII on the Eastern Europian Front as our ally.

Also, this isn't the USSR. This Russia apparently learned from its mistakes. Unless there is a stiff global economic and diplomatic price to prevent them from doing this again they will repeat this action. Even so, if they keep their gains from this incursion they will have done what Iraq in '91 could not do in Quwait. The price they pay may cause them to lick their wounds, but they still swallow the cannary.

THe Russian's were our ally in WW2 only because the Nazi's were a greater threat, and when Russia defeated Nazi Germany on the western front Russia ended up taking the whole eastern part of Europe to form an empire. But they called a "union" of republics. Russia has always been a threat to the world.

I think you miss understood me. In fact, the Russians ARE a treat. I'm simply saying they are not Nazi Germany. The Russians, these Russians have different geopolitical goals and tactics. There, I think I have made myself clear.

Just to be picky, the Russians weren't our allies in WWII, the Soviet Union was. That might be a good thing to remember. The Soviet Union is not the same animal that Russia is.

If Russia is indeed now violating its truce with Georgia that is only 24hrs old, I think the steps we are taking at the moment are appropriate:

1. Tons of humanitarian aid en route to Georgia
2. Collective outrage against Russia from EU nations, NATO, and US
3. Suspension of Russia from G8 and other economic/diplomatic sanctions
4. Obvious repositioning of largest carrier battle groups in close proximity to the Black Sea/Med
5. Every non-military act of support we can extend to the Georgian people.

If this truce violation and escalation by Russia continues in the face of these actions, I would offer you a different list... but my knowledge of unfolding situation is very limited.

This is a scary question: What do we do if Russia continues?

If Russia continues I would hope that the UN will step in.

I would hope that the UN will step in.

I have long hoped the UN would step in on anything... but I think the French are doing the best in the EU so far to confront Medvedev and Putin and pull together the truce... even if Russia has now broken it.

This Russian aggression is first a threat to the EU and we (US) should first give all support to EU efforts to protect stability in the region while we supply humanitarian aid to Georgia.

Boy, it's hard to have a logical discussion with people who have made their minds up before the discussion starts. Again, I'd suggest that we probably don't know all the facts in this matter, and we really don't know who the bad guy is here. We can't afford to play Hatfields and McCoys and go to Georgia's aid just because they are our "allies".

I think we need to step back, find out what the truth of the matter is and not get all stressed out because Russia is involved.

Expecting help from the UN is ridiculous. Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto authority.

know- sorry stupid mistake,texting got the better of me.

Mark, I think most people who aren't hot to jump all over Russia for this realize a few basic facts.

1. Our president has thrown away any right he has to act morally superior to pretty much anybody.

2. We don't really know who the guilty party is in this crime yet.

3. We don't have enough of a military force to do anything but get our a$$es handed to us if we tried to intervene.

4. Calling other country's leaders names ("manic", I'll assume you meant "maniac") really doesn't help a logical discussion.

Cranky,

1. Wrong is still wrong. A cup full of moral superiority is not the prerequisite here.

2. Agree. We do know that two sides agreed to a truce and one has violated it.

3. Disagree. But it would depend greatly on how we chose to intervene.

4. Agree.

Check this story from BBC, a daily synopsis of the events in the region. Especially interesting is the entry for August 7, last Thursday. Since Britain is one of our staunchest allies, I'll hope that everyone can take this story at face value.

Whoops, the link thing didn't work, sorry, I'm a newb..I'll try again, and in case it doesn't work, here's the URL the old fashioned way.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7551576.stm

@ oldcrankyman

RTFM, n00b!

Just kidding. :-P

Hey Abby, you spell it your way and I'll spell it mine............back in the olden days when paintball first started, that's how we spelled it.

Good thing it worked the second try.........for some reason the normally written URL disappeared when the link thing worked. I hate that rule about having to be smarter than what you're working on.

Some Russian guy Emailed me pictures and video links from the area........course I can't read Russian, so I'm not sure who's who. Some pretty gruesome stuff. Kinda funny to watch Fox news on ru.youtube.

So you think that if Russia continues the United States will get involved militarily? I don't think that would be wise.

Abby, you are so right. But, we airlifted Georgian troops from Iraq and are now airlifting "humanitarian" supplies. We'll be landing teams to assess needs soon. It seems the pres wants to get some Americans shot at, if not killed.

This is not a good thing.

what is the purpose of this invasion?

If anyone knew the right answer to that difficult question, I think we would know the right response.

Well, could you also argue that responses are premature without adequate information? After all, nations do not go to war over hurt pride. This is not a personality conflict between Putin and Saakashvili. There has got to be sufficient cause to piss of the planet on the eve of the Olympics. What was the incentive?

Actually I'm not so sure that nations haven't gone to war over hurt pride and personality conflicts. That may be one of the larger motivations.

I also doubt that the planet's reaction was a significant consideration in pursuing a single minded and self-justified cause by the Russians. Subsequently violating a truce with the Georgians does not seem yet to be of major consequence to the Russians either, whether athletes are earning various shiny medals or not.

E.D., I'd probably have to agree with you on 3. I can imagine we'd be a little pi$$ed if Russia made a deal to send all of Mexico's oil to China, and then started arming and training the Mexican army. Eh wot?

So is this positioning by Russia for long-term influence over Europe in the energy markets?

So is this positioning by Russia for long-term influence over Europe in the energy markets?

There are plenty on NV that will tell you "No." I, on the other hand, will tell you "possibly." I wouldn't rule out the possibility that influence over the energy market might have something to do with Russia's movements. The US isn't the only country that realizes the power of oil.

There's obviously a lot more to this saga given the history involved, but I believe the pipeline has at least something to do with this mess.

Using the language of Dune, "the spice must flow". So when the Messiah/Antichrist/Mahdi is installed in Hillah/Baghdad, should he build a pipeline to the south?

I think another reason for this is the iron grip Russia feels by NATO and the US. Look at the missile shield that they want to install in Poland etc. Georgia after all is in the backyard of Russia and look what you did when Russia tried to station nukes on Cuba.

Furthermore, I read somewhere (sorry can't find it anymore) that Saakashvili is more of an authoritarian leader then a democratic one now and pushes for NATO memberschip despite large segments of the population being against it.

So it's really a win/win situation for Russia, They a) will ensure that Géorgia will have no Army left to fight a province under their protection, b) this incident will make it less likely that Georgia will be admitted to the NATO, c) they were able to assess the repercussions of such actions on a low scale with little risk to escalating and d) they were able to show the world that they are again a force to recon with.

So in essence Saakashvili overestimated the alliances he made and gave Russia the perfect opportunity to achieve their goals.

U so right with these comments.

Define "experts". Heh.

How is it ever right for nations to make war and to kill people? Please explain that to me.

Ok Abby, I'll try. (Never did get any awards for standing and talking when I should have sat quietly.)

You say "make war and kill people" as if those were two different things. But I'm going to assume that was just a figure of speech. Let's move on.

If you witness a bully on your block harassing and abusing someone who is powerless to stop them, and whatever passes for law and order has taken their shot and proven impotent, and you are the ONLY one with the will and the ability to make the abuse stop, then I believe you have a moral obligation to step up to the plate. And because the bully is in the WRONG, you do whatever is necessary to make him stop. And, this is where liberals vapor lock, even if you have to use the same tactics, the same application of force, that the bully was using on the innocent victim, on the bully to make him stop, that DOES NOT make you "just like" the bully. Force is force, violence is violence. It only comes in so many flavors. You use the tool necessary to get the job done. But motivation and previously demonstrated moral standing is EVERYTHING.

If a rapist puts a gun to your head and forces you to comply, and I witness this and I come to your rescue, and I stop the rapist by putting a gun to HIS head, that doesn't make me the same just because I used force, violence, an evil" gun. Yet liberals will condemn me equally because force, and violence are just "wrong." This moral equivalence is so wrong-headed it's sickening, and only weakens us as a society.

Personally I am a sheepdog, and that means if I see a wolf preying on a sheep, I will respond. Period. But...warning: bad joke ahead...it almost makes we want to ask the victim if they're a liberal first, before I decide to get involved. "Ok then, sorry to intrude, I'm sure you'd rather just negotiate."

Now, the same scenario can be blown up to a national scale. Just as there are bad people in a society, that same evil can infect the government of a nation, and they can abuse a neighbor. If the "rule of law" is given a chance and proves impotent - See "United Nations" - and the U.S. is the only one big enough and strong enough to stop the aggression, then I believe we have an obligation to do so. And unfortunately, by the time it gets to us, that will likely mean using force. If you want to label all such as "making war," go ahead.

Do we always get it right? Not even close. Too often we don't just kick the bully in the a** and tell him not to show his face again, and then pick the victim up, dust off his britches and send him home. No, we have to interview him, analyze his home life, visit his parents, see if there's anything we can do for him, like build him a new playhouse, stick around and guard him day and night, and of course see what he might have of value to repay us with. See, "Iraq."

And of course on the other side of that coin, we have our true failures. I believe God will have some questions for American leaders, military officials, and the population of the U.S. about why the big, capable, morally superior United States, with all of its financial and military resources, stood by and did NOTHING during the genocides that have swept Africa.

As for Georgia, the problem we face is that we are seen as weak. This is NOT due to George Bush or the war in Iraq. It's a much bigger picture. The biggest reason is probably because we are seen as DIVIDED. The bully looks at us and sees that he can probably do whatever he wants because we will spend so much time fighting amongst ourselves about what we should do, or if we should do anything at all, that we'll never really get around to dealing with him.

If we were still the United States and United States military built under Reagan, the bully would take one look at us and decide maybe today wasn't the day to abuse ANYONE. You have to make them BELIEVE we will not stand for this kind of behavior, and that we WILL put a stop to it. We haven't been in that position for a long time. Sadly, I'm not sure we ever will again.

Wait, I'm sorry Abby. Was that a rhetorical question? Oops. My bad. Uh, good luck in California.

;)

Yesterday I saw a guy go bersek on the bus I was riding. The guy must have had a bad day and boarded the bus with a sort of dolly. The driver tried to keep him from boarding due to the dolly. The man slid his pass and barged in telling the driver 'don't sweat me man'! (Note: it is over 105 degrees).
Rather than sitting down, tucking the dolly into a corner and being quiet the man escalated to a disrespectful rage that 'forced' the driver to pick up his phone and ask for police. I am 6'4" 220lbs and I am sitting observing this.
When the man realized he was not getting away with it he stood very close to the driver screaming at the top of his lungs. The driver showed incredible restraint (I would have lost it!)
At this point I said: Why don't you get off the bus, you are holding us up and you may avoid getting arrested. He was not a very big man, he turned to me in a menacing fashion and asked me if I was going to make him get off. At that point I stood up and he backed down and slowly got off the bus.
Our response to conflict has to be measured not only by some ideal moral code but by a balancing of the response and outcome we seek. The real world is not a John Wayne/Western movie.
The driver is working for less than a living wage. The people on the back of the bus would not budge when I suggested a citizens arrest. I am a Veteran in treatment for PTSD among other things. I was upset at the abuse I was witnessing, at the lack of response from the riders and the effect on my serenity. I had to step back in my mind and consider all my options. Do I get involved? He did not seem to have a weapon, he seemed in good shape and he was sicko. He was at a 'nothing left to lose' state and that is a dangerous person (state). I did not want to overdo a response that could land me in front of a judge with charges myself.
There are lessons here for all. Be grateful for the bus drivers that toil for less than a living wage transporting students, the elderly, minimum wage slaves etc. I like my fast food and late cheap as possible too! I could have thrown the guy from the bus. I could have hurt him. He could have drawn a weapon. I could have gone to jail for assault (yes who touched who first?). The riders on the bus could have spoken out in unison.
WE can't promote democracy by waging war (aggression) any more than we can promote virginity through rape. The raging dude got off the bus, I padded the bus driver on the back and congratulated him for not loosing it. That man was wrong in doing what he did but consider he may (in his mind) have every reason to loose it. God only knows many fall through the cracks and nobody cares till they are affected by their own apathy.
Our response to 911 is a case study of how we must be very careful when responding to aggression , threats. If in order to get 'justice' you have to kill, injure and maim thousands upon thousands of people (directly or indirectly) plus sacrifice your Bravest Citizens (note: visit a VA Hospital and see first hand the carnage of war and remember some of the damage is invisible to the naked eye) at the altar of respect/revenge. Did I mention that financial, spiritual, moral cost analysis? THINK!!!

WE can't promote democracy by waging war (aggression) any more than we can promote virginity through rape.

Of course you are absolutely right, William. Well said. Good analogy. Too bad you missed the point.

I wasn't talking about promoting democracy, or promoting anything. I was talking about responding to a threat or an actual attack. Responding. R-E-S-P-O-N-D-I-N-G. That means reacting to someone else's aggression. And my entire point was that those two things are in no way equivalent.

Like a bully at school physically picking on some kid until the victim finally decks the bully. The liberals of a typical public school administration will try to punish BOTH kids for "fighting." Huh uh, nope. Not on my watch. An unprovoked attack is one thing, and self-defense, or defense of a third party AGAINST that attack are as different as night and day.

Overwhelming violence is EXACTLY the appropriate response to a violent unprovoked attack. If you want to stop it in time to survive, and just as important, if you don't want it to happen AGAIN, then you better make the attacker recognize the price to be paid for an unwarranted violent attack. Anyone who thinks otherwise, and everyone is absolutely free to think as they please, had better realize they are putting themselves - and their country - at risk. Individuals? Go ahead, it's your a**. Do the same thing to our country? Not if I can help it.

Doggoneit, where was I? Oh, yeah...

...I was also attempting to make the point - perhaps too subtly - that promoting ANYTHING is where we start to run off the rails. We should do whatever it takes to make the bully see reason, or incapacitate him, always his choice, and then we make sure the victim is okay, and then we go back to the firehouse and wait for the next call. We don't stick around to try to change the victim. "Maybe you should try a different route to school." Nope, none of our business. We saw the fire, we put it out. End of story. Build, rebuild, move, we don't care.

(My tangled analogies are even starting to confuse me. It must be late.)

Nation-building, or promoting democracy, or pick your phrase is where we usually screw up, spend all our money and goodwill, and often fail dismally. Not because it isn't in our best interests, or even the right thing to do for the victim(s), but because we try to do it with the same force tools (read, the military) that we solved the original problem with. Not trained, not qualified, not appropriate, wrong tool for the job. Period. We are good at the the first part, stopping the bully, because we use the United States military, and we are lousy at the second part, promoting democracy, because we use the United States military.

Why the folks in charge can't see this forest for the trees is beyond me.