GEORGIA

I wouldn't call the Russians the "good guys" here, Bob, but the fact remains, as you say, that the elected president of Georgia ordred a unilateral attack on South Ossetia then, when Russia responded, had the audacity to cry "FOUL!"

What's more disturbing to me is President Bush - who should know better, but apparently doesn't - used the phrase "disproportionate response" about Putin's military response. (Mr. Bush actually pronounced "disproportionate" correctly.)

You have to put that phrase in context to understand how idiotic it is.

In 1990, in response to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, we put together a multi-national force of more than 600,000 troops to run him back to Baghdad. "Proportionate response?" You're kidding, right? It was not a proportionate response. But it was perfectly justified under international law.

Let's put it in everyday terms. If you walk up and sucker punch me, I will respond. Now, according to the "proportionate response" theory, I am allowed to hit you back ONE TIME - one punch in exchange for one punch.

No. If you sucker punch me, I will hit you until you clearly understand that hitting me was a bad idea. It may take one punch. It may take repeated punches to your thick skull before the message actually sinks in. You may even lose consciousness and spend a day or two in a medical care facility. But your act of throwing the first punch in a surprise attack eliminates my obligation to respond with anything "proportionate." It's called "self-defense."

Georgian forces attacked South Ossetia. Russia not only sent forces to that tiny province, but also used a show of force, probably to convince the Georgians that future attacks may not be such a good idea. I mean, you may get by with poking a sleeping bear with a sharp stick once, but if you do, count your blessings and don't do it again.

We can discuss the complex politics of that region if you'd like, but but why re-invent a wheel that's already working, sort of? The bottom line is that GEORGIA started it, and RUSSIA has apparently finished it. It's a minor event (although we should always be mindful of the fact that World War I started over rabid nationalism, a misunderstanding over sovereignty and an assassination.)

And if anybody really thinks having Georgia as a member of NATO, as they've requested, would have made any difference, they're wrong. NATO exists to provide mutual defense of fellow members against an unprovoked attack from outside forces. No NATO member is obligated to provide mutual defense to any of its members that picks a fight on its own.

The United States returned about 2,000 Georgian soldiers home from Iraq when this happened. That should be the total extent of our military response. The Georgians are our allies, but we are under no moral obligation to protect them from themselves.

Noeline, having grown up in the 1950s, when we would have drills in elementary school that had us hiding under our desks for safety from Soviet nuclear attacks (yeah, that would have saved us), I can assure you that if I were going to try to deliberately "slant" something one way or the other, IT WOULDN'T BE IN FAVOR OF THE RUSSIANS.

In fact, my Dad didn't trust the Russians when he was fighting in WWII and they were our allies. He never trusted them, and I'm not inclined to take them at their word, either.

But in cases like this one, I just call 'em as I see 'em, regardless of where that leads me.

Issues involving Georgia and other countries within the old Soviet sphere of influence (like Chechnya, remember that one?) are highly complex and can't be reduced to 30-second soundbites.

My observation was simply that GEORGIA invaded South Ossetia and, in response, RUSSIA invaded GEORGIA. How tough is that to understand? Other than the activities of our diplomats in the State Department and political rhetoric from our leaders in the White House and Congress, we need to stay out of it unless it turned into a broader conflict. And it can't broaden to the south at least - our NATO ally, Turkey, is there. We can discuss that when the time comes.

Mexico has already invaded Arizona ... and California ... and New Mexico ... and Texas. And those invaders already have Mexican citizenship ...

Hmmm. Maybe Putin has the right idea.

Actually, Zn, this would be more like if, say, the Dominican Republic decided to invade Haiti in an effort to unite the island. You do know we still have American troops serving as "peacekeepers" in Haiti, I assume. (What's our "exit strategy" there, by the way?)

In response, let's say the United States sends more troops to Haiti to drive the Dominicans out, then drops a few bombs on the Dominican Republic as a message to them: "Don't do that again."

If the Russians, who have no troops in either country and no strategic or national interest in either, expressed outraged at our actions and demanded we stop immediately, what do you think the United States' response would be? That's right. We'd tell them to go pound sand.

I'm having a difficult time here trying to figure out why we would expect a different response from the Russians to our request. Besides, the latest reports I've seen say Russian troops are withdrawing from Georgia and the military action is over (for now.) If they had intended to OCCUPY Georgia, that would be one thing. PUNISHING them for attacking South Ossetians is a totally different animal.

(I'm also not addressing any possible "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide" allegations, either. Reports along those lines are unverified at the moment. And as already stated, the geopolitical issues involving South Ossetia and that entire region are complex and longstanding. All I'm saying is, Georgia started it, Russia resopnded. Whether they overresponded is still subject to debate.)

Russia certainly has a strategic interest in Georgia. We don't.

We have a strategic interest in Haiti (at least, Bill Clinton said we do, although it's beyond my ability to see.) Russia doesn't.

That was my comparative point, Zn.

I'm looking at the map, Zn. I got good grades in georgraphy AND history in school. I even have Armenian friends.

Our strategic interest in Georgia is .... what? We have all the access we need to the Black Sea through NATO ally Turkey. If either Russia or Georgia wants to use naval power to threaten us via the Black Sea, we can bottle up the Bosporus Strait with a couple of ships, rendering that body of water nothing more than a place for us to shoot ducks on a pond if we want to.

Georgia does nothing to give us access to the Caspian Sea (as if we need it.) And with Iraq and Afghanistan flanking Iran, we have about 180,000 troops and all the firepower we need as far as Iran is concerned at the moment.

Now, NATO may have a strategic interest in Georgia. In fact, Georgia wants to join NATO. But that formerly meaningful alliance has been rendered all but useless by the all the Euro-weenies except, possibly, Great Britain. NATO is toothless, thanks to the European liberalism of the past four decades. Besides, if, say, FRANCE has a strategic interest in Georgia, let Sarkozy send in some troops (assuming, of course, they've gotten the dirt out of their rifles since the last time they dropped them and ran.)

There is that oil pipeline that supplies Western Europe, but it's not their only source. But our strategic interest in Georgia is simply to help assure this little blow-up doesn't spread into a wider conflict. For the U.S. to get involved militarily in any way AT THIS POINT would be counterproductive to that effort.