I LOVE THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

UNIESSENTIAL

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

BIESSENTIAL

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

TRIESSENTIAL

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

QUADESSENTIAL

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

QUINTESSENTIAL

MORE RUSSIANS

Today I am writing about a news story that has nothing to do with me directly, but about which I am rather puzzled.

As you know, I reside in The United States of America.

There has been quite a lot of news coverage about the current conflict - war - between Russia and Georgia. Here, the coverage on television, from CNN to Faux News, is uniformly antiRussia. I offer this article by Dmitry Rogozin, Russian ambassador to NATO, as a sort of foil to the overwhelmingly antiRussian coverage. Truth or propaganda?

From Pat Oliphant:

So who do I think is right? Russia? Georgia? Both? Neither? I really have no objective information on which to base a judgement. My heart roots for the little guy, but I'm not sure Georgia is 'the little guy' here. Is little Georgia just a puppet state of George II of America? I don't know.

Anyway, here's the article from the Op-Ed page of the International Herald-Tribune:

Washington's hypocrisy

By Dmitry Rogozin

Monday, August 18, 2008

BRUSSELS: The U.S. administration is trying to stick the label of "bad guy" on Russia for exceeding the peacekeeping mandate and using "disproportionate force" in the peace-enforcement operation in Georgia.

Maybe our American friends have gone blind and deaf at the same time. Mikheil Saakashvili, the president of Georgia, is known as a tough nationalist who didn't hide his intentions of forcing Ossetians and Abkhazians to live in his country.

We were hoping that the U.S. administration, which had displayed so much kindness and touching care for the Georgian leader, would be able to save him from the maniacal desire to deal with the small and disobedient peoples of the Caucasus.

But a terrible thing happened. The dog bit its master. Saakashvili gave an order to wipe Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, from the face of earth.

The Georgian air force and artillery struck the sleeping town at midnight. More than 1,500 civilians perished in the very first hours of the shelling. At the same time, Georgian special forces shot 10 Russian peacekeepers who didn't expect such a betrayal from their Georgian colleagues.

The Kremlin attempted to reach Saakashvili, who was hiding, by phone. All this time the Russian Joint Staff forbid the surviving peacekeepers to open return fire. Finally our patience was exhausted. The Russian forces came to help Tskhinvali and its civilian population.

In reply to the insulting criticism by President Bush that Russia used "disproportionate force," I'd like to cite some legal grounds for our response. Can shooting peacekeepers and the mass extermination of a civilian population - mainly Russian citizens - be regarded as hostile action against a state? Is it ground enough to use armed force in self-defense and to safeguard the security of these citizens?

Tbilisi concealed the scope of the humanitarian catastrophe in South Ossetia. Saakashvili's constant lies about the true state of affairs in Georgia were attempts to lay the fault at somebody else's door.

The Russian response is entirely justified and is consistent with both international law and the humanitarian goals of the peacekeeping operation conducted in South Ossetia. I will try to explain.

The Georgian aggression against South Ossetia, which came as a straightforward, wide-scale attack on the Russian peacekeeping contingent - Russian armed forces legally based on the territory of Georgia - should be classified as an armed attack on the Russian Federation, giving grounds to fulfill the right to self-defense - the right of every state according to Article 51 of the UN Charter.

As for the defense of our citizens outside the country, the use of force to defend one's compatriots is traditionally regarded as a form of self-defense. Countries such as the United States, Britain, France and Israel have at numerous times resorted to the use of armed force to defend their citizens outside national borders.

Such incidents include the armed operation of Belgian paratroopers in 1965 to defend 2,000 foreigners in Zaire; the U.S. military intervention in Grenada in 1983 under the pretext of protecting thousands of American nationals, who found themselves in danger due to a coup d'êtat in this island state; the sending of American troops to Panama in 1989 to defend, among others, American nationals.

We also have to keep in mind the present-day military interventions by the U.S. and its allies in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan. By the way, the last three cases are examples of tough American interventions when its own citizens did not need direct protection. But in spite of those countries' massive civilian losses at the hands of American soldiers, no one blamed Washington for a "disproportionate use of force."

Of course, the history of international relations is full of abuses committed under the pretext of defending citizens.

In order to draw a clear line between lawful and unlawful use of force, one can single out a number of objective criteria: first, the existence of a real threat to life or systematic and violations of human rights; second, the absence of other, peaceful means of resolving the conflict; third, a humanitarian aim for an armed operation; and four, proportionality - i.e., limitation on the time and means of rescue.

Russia's actions were in full compliance with these criteria. In conducting its military action, Russian troops also strictly observed the requirements of international humanitarian law. The Russian military did not subject civil objects and civilians on the territory of Georgia to deliberate attacks.

It is hard to believe that in such a situation any other country would have remained idle. Let me quote two statements:

One: "We are against cruelty. We are against ethnic cleansing. A right to come back home should be guaranteed to the refugees. We all agree that murders, property destruction, annihilation of culture and religion are not to be tolerated. That is what we are fighting against. Bombardments of the aggressor will be mercilessly intensified."

Two: "We appeal to all free countries to join us but our actions are not determined by others. I will defend the freedom and security of my citizens, whatever actions are needed for it. Our special forces have seized airports and bridges... air forces and missiles have struck essential targets."

Who do you think is the author of these words? Medvedev? Putin? No. The first quote belongs to Bill Clinton, talking about NATO operation against Yugoslavia. The author of the second quote is the current resident of the White House, talking about the U.S. intervention in Iraq.

Does that mean that the United States and NATO can use brute force where they want to, and Russia has to abstain from it even if it has to look at thousands of its own citizens being shot? If it's not hypocrisy, then what IS hypocrisy?

Dmitry Rogozin is Russia's ambassador to NATO.

RUSSIANS

THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING! THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING! (1945-1991)





THE RUSSIANS AREN'T COMING! THE RUSSIANS AREN'T COMING! 1980

A few days ago, I met with the gentleman who is making my partial plates

to aid both in chewing and my appearance, a man with the noble name of Victor. I noticed that the magazines in his waiting room were all in the Cyrillic alphabet,
so, not knowing if the language was Russian or Ukrainian or possibly something else - , I asked, politely, 'Are you Ukrainian?' The good Victor burst out laughing and said, 'No, I'm Russian. Why do you ask if I'm Ukrainian.' I explained that my next door neighbour is Ukrainian and he had advised me that if in doubt, always ask if the person is Ukrainian; if the askee is Russian, he'll just laugh at you and tell you he's a Russian, but if you ask a Ukrainian if he's a Russian, you might get assaulted, ie, hit. It seems that my neighbour was right on the money, eh?

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY BE GEOGRAPHICALLY CHALlLENGED ABOUT THIS REGION - and who isn't? - HERE IS A MAP OF THE RELEVANT COUNTRIES:

The Russians and I go back a long way, way back into the dreariest days of the Cold War, when we were still quite nervous about the Soviets, more commonly called the Russians, who, after all, threatened to 'bury' us.

My first memory of Russians was standing outside with my family during a pleasant night in 1957 watching a new star move across the sky, a new star put in the heavens by these wonderful people called Rush-Ins. At least that is how my five-year-old mind saw Sputnik One.

I made the mistake of voicing this thought out loud and was forcefully and physically admonished not to say nice things about Rush-Ins ever again. Nonetheless, this romantic vision of Russians as 'wonderful people who put a new star in the sky' has somehow become part of my psyche.

That was also the birth of my love of space and the space program. I reminisced a bit with the good Victor about Laika, the first dog in space,

Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space and Valentina Tereshkova, the first woman in space, decades before Sally Ride. Indeed, the good Valentina was in space when NASA told a devastated little Me that I should 'be a good girl and go home and bake cookies.' I also learned that my denturist hates Dostoevsky - 'too dark' (hmmm, a little sparse on top, but nice beard. I adore facial hair on men, very masculine)

- whom I adore and loves novels about the American Old West. Next time I see him, I'll ask about Zane Grey and Louis L'Amour.
Nowadays, of course, in the immortal words of the immoral Ronald Reagan, 'the evil empire is no more,' but that Cold War legacy remains. I think of the last stanzas of Bob Dylan's With God On Our Side.

I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.

But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.

In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss

But I can't think for you You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.

Copyright ©1963; renewed 1991 Special Rider Music

Whoa. Come to think of it, that particular war never happened. We keep trying though.

Georgia, The Republic of Georgia, formerly the Soviet Socialist Republic of Georgia, tough little Georgia has decided to face down Russia over the disputed territory of Ossetia. I think of this line.

Our captain has a handicap to cope with, sad to tell.
He's from Georgia, and he doesn't speak the language very well.

Oh, sorry, wrong Georgia.


Bad idea, though, little Georgia. Let a friend/adversary, from Dust My Broom explain:

Would you poke a sleeping bear with a sharp stick?

Written by Krazy
Saturday, 09 August 2008
I don't know what it is about bears - but I for one have a healthy respect for their territory and their ability to tear me limb from limb. I wouldn't even think of poking one with a sharp stick

Mikheil Saakashvili - the western puppet president of Georgia has done just that. By attacking the Russian peace keepers and Russian citizens in the break away republic of South Ossetia he has awaken a rather large bear who would like nothing better than to sink its teeth in such a clown.

Prime Minister Putin has returned from the opening cerimonies of the Olympics and headed strait for the area.

Don't mess with bears, eh, little guys. George W., of course wants to use his usual method of settling disputes to settle this dispute: Send in the troops! What else. Again I think of Tom Lehrer:

Fortunately in times of crisis just like this America always has this number one instrument of diplomacy to fall back on. Here's a song about it.

When someone makes a move
Of which we don't approve,
Who is it that always intervenes?
U.N. and O.A.S.,
They have their place, I guess,
But first send the Marines!

We'll send them all we've got,
John Wayne and Randolph Scott,
Remember those exciting fighting scenes?
To the shores of Tripoli,
But not to Mississippoli,

What do we do? We send the Marines!

For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
'Till somebody we like can be elected.

Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war,
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
O we hate that expression.
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt,
Send the Marines!

Hey, two Tom Lehrer references in one post. I ought to win some award, eh?

I have no idea how this will turn out. I'm no psychic, just a proKhalistan dissident, of sorts. (Somebody I respect called me a political dissident today. Love it!)

I don't like Putin, that slimy old KGB head,

Yeltsin was just another drunk, I dislike Gorbachev, that slimy old traitor, too. The new President, wassisname, Medvedev, I think, is just Putin's lapdog; I won't bother with an opinion of him. Russia is a rising economic power, soon to be a rival of the power of the United States of America. I have no doubt that for quite some time, this country will remain the biggest bully on the block, but at least it won't be the ONLY bully on the block. I think that would be a good thing. Inside me, I have discovered that there still lives that little girl who sees the Rush-Ins as those wonderful people who put a new star in the sky.