A Coast Guard that guards everyone else’s coast
One would think that a coast guard vessel has a fairly straight forward task: patrol the littoral waters surrounding the country.
However, it appears that the US coast guard, like the national guard, has a history of being used in imperial warfare. For instance, the USCGC Dallas, the largest coast guard ship currently in commission, has just made a pit stop in Georgia. Not the Peach State, but rather in the Black Sea near the Caucasus.
And while the federal government officially states that the ship is conducting humanitarian aid, based on its previous history (active in the Vietnam war theater as well as Kosovo in 1999), one could surmise that its appearance is more than coincidence.
To give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt, it should be noted that numerous coast guard vessels are perpetually deployed in forward stations across the globe. However, this again illustrates the vast geographic expanse that the imperial state attempts to command and control.
Or are there a lot of Cuban refugees attempting to ford the Bosporus? Is the Dallas practicing hurricane relief techniques from tropical storm experts in Asia minor? Is someone really arguing that the USCG is actually protecting the shores of Corpus Christi and Mertyl Beach by tacking around in Russia’s bathtub?
See also:
Who Started Cold War II?
And None Dare Call It Treason
Is Not Western Hypocrisy Astonishing?
Does Bush Want War With Russia?
Johhny Walker
August 27th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Your a complete idiot who does not understand the history of our Coast Guard and our roles and missions to enforce not only US law, but international law, and humanitarian efforts. You think the Coast Guard should be just guarding the coast? what about Katrina and Rita effort, what about brining hatians back to Haiti, what about high seas pirates, and the high seas driftneting that goes on over near China. What about all that? What about the coast guard works for the navy in a time of war, and the navy ordered us over there. If you hate bush, thats one thing, but get your facts straight, the coast guard has maintained a presence in forgein waters for years…Persian gulf, etc. liberal idiot. its this imperial nation that GAVE YOU the RIGHT (and me for that matter) the ability to write such an article, but your still an idiot.
Mike Morris
August 27th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
The ‘imperial nation gave all of us the right’ to free speech? Interesting argument. Bogus, but interesting in a lunk-headed sort of way.
Mike
August 27th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
“its this imperial nation that GAVE YOU the RIGHT”
WRONG! We are born with our rights. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are supposed to guarantee that they aren’t infringed upon. But the OP is correct. The USCG should be used to protect the coastal waters of the USA. In the Navy we used to call them “knee-deeps” since they weren’t supposed to go out deeper than that. The fact that they have been used/misused in other capacities in the past doesn’t negate the fact that they should stick to defending the coast. And before you start calling names, let me inform you that this country was founded as a constitutional republic. Unfortunately, we have a government that constantly oversteps its constitutional authority and butting it’s nose where it doesn’t belong to grow the “empire”.
RT
August 27th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
The only point the writer is trying to make is that there is no reason for Coast Guard to be patroling foreign shores. I have hard time understanding your point but I suppose you’re entitled to it. Please in future be more civil in your arguments. Most importantly the nation didn’t give us the right to speak our minds we did. Many fought and died for that right. The moment we become grateful for what the powers that be decide is our god given rights is the day that we start to lose them. If you don’t believe me just read the patriot act sometime. Also if one wants to carry on intelligent discourse on topic please avoid insults. It is petty and childish. One last point what makes you assume he is a liberal, I happpen to agree with him and I am about as far right politically as you can get (i.e. Pat Buchannan is someone I aspire to).
Eugene Costa
August 27th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
The US Coast Guard, as many don’t know, was deeply involved in the war in Vietnam.
That that effort, and the others mentioned above, were ill-conceived is true enough, but the reasons why are complex.
One reason that has not been widely mentioned is that the Coast Guard is a peculiar entity, a hybrid of police, patrol, and custom functions, mainly involving civilian vessels, internally and externally, and with some small military force and duties.
This is difficult to talk of without developing a whole new vocabulary. To say that the Coast Guard has become increasingly “militarized” would not be quite right or easily understandable, but it has become increasingly made a department of the Navy, for example, both in the training of its higher officers and in some of its functions.
An analogy would be the senseless “SWATification” of local US police forces during and after Vietnam.
In this context, what has happened to the Coast Guard is another subset of two trends, increasingly converging to a singularity, that I distinguish as the “militarization of police” and the “policification of the military.”
Corkey
August 27th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Is that Johnny Walker Red since you are in favor of protecting pseudo-Communist nations rather than our own ? The US Coast Guard has no more business being in Eurasia any more than this knucklehead from Texarkana chasing beer trucks across state lines:
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=43946521
lear K
August 27th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Russia should then send its ships to enforce international laws in the US coastal waters!
Ali
August 27th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
The American coast guard is part of the American armed forces and as such can be used in any way that the armed forces command sees fit. So to say that their mandate is only to guard the littoral waters of America is not anywhere near the truth. Their mandate is being an armed forced obeying orders. That is about it. On what the American coast guard is doing in the Black Sea, one can only give the answer that the Russians are giving, which is who cares. They are an armed unit of the enemy, and that is what counts. In a conflict they will shoot and will be shot back at.
Perhaps it is time to take America as it is, not as it was, which never was by the way. America was officially a racist apartheid country until some fifty years ago. Most people on this site talk of American imperialism as if it is something relatively new and it started with Wilson or Roosevelt or communism pushed it into becoming an empire. That is not true at all. The American central government first practiced the art of imperialism in its own territory. Pat Buchanan is right when he traces America’s imperialism back to the American civil war. Some states, essentially sovereign countries wanted to go their own way and the American central government made them remain in the fold by force. Then the American central government started to look outwards and became what it is today. Interestingly the defeated states aspired to attack the countries south of America to expand their colonies. So, it would not have mattered in anyway who which side won. It was going to be empire one way or another. After all why give up the way of life that had given them America in the first place. And they have been at it ever since.
If you want the coast guard to operate in American littoral waters, you will need an imminent danger right next to your littoral waters. Even then there will be someone who will shout, “What is my Atlantic fleet doing in my littoral waters”.
Eugene Costa
August 27th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
The Great One! With pencil mustache looking like an overweight Wayne Newton, or the latest Godfather one ran into (in a Board Room of all places).
On the topic of “militarization of police” and “policification of military”, which pertains indirectly to the Coast Guard, it occurred to one visiting the link that were there any historian with the requisite experience and sensitivity, it might be useful task to chronicle how police and military functions have been so long and closely conflated.
This essay might range from the use of the US Army on the frontier to the number of veterans of the World Wars who, for want of anything else to do, and sometimes experienced as MP’s or with Occupation duties, but more often not, went into police work.
But what is the connection really?
Is the hidden eidos in the American use of “force”, as in “Armed Forces” (military) or “on the force”(member of the police) more subversive than it might seem on the surface?
A peculiarly American aspect, however, might be more technological and concrete–in the Left and Right apprehension of firearms as something eminently military, or as a technology somehow most adeptly mastered by soldiers, who thus become somehow models for police.
All of this is mythology, even viewed from the perspective of American history and the Constitution–a mythology recently acted out, in different if equally nasty fashion, both at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
But if the Coast Guard is increasingly used wrongly abroad, how does an outfit like Blackwater so facilely persuade the unwary that the special “military experience” of their contractors has pertinence to training local American police forces?
In fact the Blackwater mercenaries, and Prince himself, are as incompetent and vicious at training State’s supposed diplomatic “bodyguards” as they are training private security guards and local police.
The most important resource psychologically of the local policeman or sheriff has never been the gun, or the uniform, but is, and has always been, the connection to the local community, with the badge as a sign of that connection, not of some self-important flunky at the bottom of an official “quasi-military” hierarchy that somehow reaches upward to the Federal Government and the President himself as final an ultimate “Commander-in-Chief”.
Eugene Costa
August 27th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Very precisely, you are wrong. The United States Coast Guard, though part of the Armed Forces, has special statutory authority to operate domestically, among other things exempting it from posse comitatus legislation.
Ali
August 27th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
“authority to operate domestically”
Illusions dear, namely that other parts of the armed forces do not have “authority” to operate domestically. At best they will get authority and at worst they will just claim it before you can say Jeb Bush. It is the same all over the world. Why should America be an exception? Because Americans are exceptional? :)
Eugene Costa
August 27th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Not illusions at all, dearie–if in fact distinctions, once observed, more and more obfuscated by the Right Wing, and by many on the Left as well.
At any rate, the following:
The American coast guard is part of the American armed forces and as such can be used in any way that the armed forces command sees fit.
is wrong. You can avoid that point in whatever fashion, Neo-Conesque or Trotskyite, you choose.
andy
August 27th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
The only idiot here is you Mr. Walker.
andy
August 27th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
The U.S. “coast guard” like all other branches of the militray-industrial complex, just wants to get in on the action and get its share of the pie. Heaven forbid it doesn’t grow and expand like all the other services. If I were the Russians I would be checking those ships cargos just to MAKE SURE it really is humanitarian aid (not that the U.S. government would ever lie, of course)
Johhny Walker
August 27th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
typical liberal argument with no merit. Of course it gave us the right for free speech, you think the bill of rights existed when adam and eve were born, we were not born with rights, we were not born with the capacity to make the correct decision based on experience. those rights we have now were fought for by our forefathers…remember that from history? or did your professor tell you how to think? Secondly, you do not even know what a constitutional right is…your not born with the right to drive a car…
Eugene Costa
August 27th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Your ignorance is showing, including ignorance of the Constitution members of the military are sworn by oath to protect.
The US Constitution is unique in acknowledging that the rights of its citizens precede the right of any government to restrict them.
“Freedom of speech”, for example, is not a right accorded by government, as it is in the Canadian or European Bills of “Rights”.
It is a pre-existing right that the Federal Government (now any unit of government) cannot legally abridge.
Eugene Costa
August 27th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
“your not born with the right to drive a car”
John Yoo spells better, but you have obviously studied in the same school.
The authority of any government to license “driving an auto” is complex, and hinges mainly on the use of public roads. However interpreted, one does have a right to drive on private property with permission of the owner.
Moreover, whether one is born with it or not, one has a pre-existing right to ride a horse or a burro or bicycle or scooter or walk or rollerskate or skateboard or ski or hop skip and jump, again limited only by regulations that apply to public and private ways.
Your contortions suggest a particularly virulent and unsubtle variety of the usual lunatic Neo-Conservative sophistry and ignorance.
Ali
August 27th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I am not avoiding any point. It is you that is doing that. The American coast guard ships are and have been all over the world. They do not have a mandate to do that? Who says? You?
“in whatever fashion, Neo-Conesque or Trotskyite”,
Now you are loosing your religion. Chill.
Eugene Costa
August 27th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
The US Coast Guard is governed by different statutory authority than the rest of the “Armed Forces.”
Your statement is wrong on its face.
You compound ignorance with stupid mulishness. Or is that an insult to mules?
Ali
August 27th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
“your not born with the right to drive a car”
Actually you are. It is just the right can be taken away permanently or temporarily. That is the whole idea of the law. It does not give rights, it takes away rights. Sometimes it gives them back, and most of the time it does not as in the case of killing and stealing which are the most obvious examples. More laws, less rights. That is also the whole idea of a society. To think that the rights are “given” to people by the law is totally immoral, as if those rights were the property of the government in the first place.
RT
August 27th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Johnny once again your ignorance is showing through.
What exactly do you mean by the following
we were not born with the capacity to make the correct decision based on experience.
I suppose we weren’t but then again we grow and mature with the guidance of our parents and community. In the end we are all born free, unfortunately some grow up and choose to be slaves.
Sean
August 27th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Johnny Walker,
If I was not born with it, please exlain how I can get it from somebody else? Whether the Bill of rights existed at the time of Adam and Eve, or at the time of Lucy the Ape-Eve or whenever, is irrelevant to whether a right is innate–in political or ethical terms innate means knowable a priori. In somewhat different terms it involves a theory of axiomatic knowledge. I am doubting you know what this means. Try reading Kant or Aristotle or Ludwig von Mises or Murray Rothbard (or hundreds of others). These rights were fought for by our forefathers? Okay, so you admit that these rights existed in somebody’s mind before they were fought for? You are assuming that they fought for something (our rights) that they had already imagined in their minds and left to us. But if they fought for them did they learn them from elsewhere. And from where? And if they didn’t learn them from elsewhere, the discovery of the idea of rights must have had an endogenous factor. If they learned them from somebody else, where did the somebody else get them?
Along the same lines, you say that we aren’t born being able to make correct decisions. First, this is not the same as asking if a thing is innate. There can be innate processes or facts which only appear in the course of development (ever hear of puberty?). Second, if we need your Neo-con fascistic government to teach us right from wrong, where did the great leader aquire the knowledge of right and wrong? Did he have it revealed to him on a mountaintop? As with all poitical theories that deny the reality of natural rights Neo conservatism simply places them implicitly in some elect group of leaders, such as the Leader or the Proletariat, who then are given the authority to do whatever they want. It makes me think of one of the myths of Zeus raping a young woman and then proclaiming, “it is good”. Oh, and by the way, I am certainly not a ‘liberal’.
Ali
August 27th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
“You compound ignorance with stupid mulishness. Or is that an insult to mules?”
Now you really are loosing it.
This if from wikipedia:
“The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is a branch of the United States armed forces and one of seven uniformed services. In addition to being a military branch at all times, it is unique among the armed forces in that it is also a maritime law enforcement agency (with jurisdiction both domestically and in international waters) and a federal regulatory agency. It is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security.
As one of the five armed forces and the smallest armed service of the United States, its stated mission is to protect the public, the environment, and the United States economic and security interests in any maritime region in which those interests may be at risk, including international waters and America’s coasts, ports, and inland waterways.”
The capital letters are for your thick head:
AS ONE OF FIVE ARMED FORCES
ITS STATED MISSION IS TO PROTECT… SECURITY INTERESTS IN ANY MARITIME REGION … INCLUDING INTERNATIONAL WATERS … .
“The five uniformed services that make up the Armed Forces are defined in 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(4):
“ The term “armed forces” means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. â€
The Coast Guard is further defined by 14 U.S.C. § 1:
“ The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in the Navy.”
THE COAST GUARD SHALL BE A SERVICE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, EXCEPT WHEN OPERATING AS A SERVICE IN THE NAVY.
Eugene Costa
August 27th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Merely as an aside, and for the benefit of those who might follow, rather than cling to some misminded ideological formula like a teddy bear, a similar misunderstanding is under Hamilton’s argument against the Bill of Rights.
Hamilton argued, in my opinion disingenuously, that in acknowledging this or that right, the Constitution would in effect be disallowing others not delineated.
I say “disingenously”, because I suspect Hamilton’s real intent was actually to make sure no pre-existing rights were acknowledged constitutionally, specifically or generally.
Even if not treated specifically by the Constitution–which it is–the absurdity of Hamilton’s reasoning is clear, to wit, that in putting up a sign, “Keep Off The Grass”, one is actively authorizing someone to burglarize one’s house.
joey
August 27th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
If you’re going to call somebody an idiot you should at least spell it “you’re” instead of “your”.. because then you might have a chance, however slight, that you won’t look like the bigger idiot.
Eugene Costa
August 27th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
You are very dull. The point is not that the Coast Guard is not part of the “Armed Forces” but that the Coast Guard has special statutory authority that distinguishes it, and its proper uses, from the rest of the “Armed Forces”.
The Armed Forces are not homogeneous, as you aver.
You obviously did not know that, having gone to Wikipedia, now you do–so, naturally, you argue that you knew all along and change the point to something else.
Very boring and Neo-Conesque indeed.
andy
August 27th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
What does any of this have to do with the needless presence of the “U.S coast” guard in Georgia? Should it be called the Georgian coast guard?
GAB-1955
August 27th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
“If I were the Russians I would be checking those ships cargos just to MAKE SURE it really is humanitarian aid (not that the U.S. government would ever lie, of course)”
Why don’t you simply ask the Coast Guard? They’re straightforward about what they do.
The Russians can’t demand to inspect cargo delivered from a warship because of a very old principle of international law that states that a warship carries the sovereignty of its nation with it and it cannot be stopped or searched without its consent. After the Kudrikas incident of the 1970s, where two Coast Guard admirals were Article 15′ed for letting Russians take a defector of a cutter off the U.S. coast, it’s not very likely. Knowing the Commandant, Admiral Thad Allen as I do by reputation and by personal meeting, the response wouldn’t be “No” but “HELL NO!”
Now, why would a Coast Guard cutter be in the Black Sea? Simple: the Black Sea is in international waters. The Russians may wish it were a private lake, but their sovereignty stops 12 nautical miles outside the Russian coast, and the Russian coast doesn’t extend to Georgia. The cutters of the U.S. Coast Guard go everywhere as part of their missions, which include law enforcement on the high seas, marine safety, and disaster relief among others.
A Coast Guard cutter is a specialized vessel, with experts on aids to navigation, harbor maintenance and safety, and medicine aboard. It would be a good ship to go on a humanitarian relief mission. Since the Georgian coast guard facilities at Poti were systematically destroyed by the Russians who still occupy the port, the technical aid of the Dallas will help reestablish that nation’s coast guard facilities.
The Dallas is one of the 12 370-foot Treasury class cutters, which has the range to go worldwide. Most Coast Guard cutters have shorter range; the 110-foot cutters in the Persian Gulf were piggybacked on other ships. Even smaller ones are no bigger than 66 feet.
Another feature is that a Coast Guard cutter doesn’t have the firepower of a Naval vessel of the same size; it’s less of a provocation.
Russian warships have sailed to within the limits of U.S. territorial waters, and Russian planes have flown near (but not over) American territory. We let them because they have the right to go there. They have to concede us the right to go anywhere we like in international waters. If they don’t, the race for the Arctic is going to get very, very, interesting.
Eugene Costa
August 27th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
The Russians can easily declare all of Georgia a war zone if they chose, and according to accepted canons of international and diplomatic practice.
They were attacked first, and all that is in place is a cease fire.
Some of the leveler heads in the USN seem to realize this.
GAB-1955
August 27th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
One can argue that the Russians were not attacked first; the Georgian actions were on the territory of Georgia. I won’t argue that it isn’t a war zone, though.
However, the Russians have not declared a blockade of Georgian ports nor of Georgian airspace, nor do they have the ships to constructively enforce a blockade. This means that neutral vessels (and the U.S. is a neutral in this war in the sense that we are not shooting Russians or Georgians) can visit the ports of either belligerent.
Eugene Costa
August 27th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
True enough.
But the Russians don’t have to declare a blockade, though they could. Neutrals in territorial waters of the other belligerent, Georgia, are subject to boarding and search. And certainly their cargoes are subject to search when then are unloaded in port.
The Georgians attacked Osetia in a sneak attack and against an agreement they signed with the Russians and the Osetians.
In the process they killed, not only a large number of civilians, but Russian peace keepers who were there by formal agreement.
That is a legitimate cause of war by international standards.
One seriously doubts that, whatever Bush and Cheney and the more lunatic of the NeoCons want to do, the saner heads in the USN or in the Coast Guard want to endanger US neutral status by aiding one of the belligerents.
GAB-1955
August 27th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
The Russians have to control the port to search the ships. They can’t search a warship without the consent of the ship’s government. Period. They can search civilian vessels, and they have already seized military equipment at Poti belonging to the US (Hummers) as contraband of war. However, the U.S. already outguns the Black Sea Fleet, even considering the Dallas isn’t as well armed as the McFaul.
The Georgians might have started the war, but the Russian response is incommersurate.
Eugene Costa
August 27th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
U.S. already outguns the Black Sea Fleet
Your definition of “outguns” is obsolete, along with much of the USN surface fleet.
The Russians do control Poti.
The two belligerents have agreed to a cease fire only.
No warship of a neutral need be allowed in the territorial waters of the other belligerent if they don’t consent to boarding and search, and certainly not into a port controlled by the first belligerent.
“Incommensurate response”? One will not counter with analogies, like the Southrons firing on Fort Sumter, but the phrase, as with so much in this administration’s cant, does not have much meaning, diplomatic or otherwise.
One might inquire, however, how it squares up with the “preemptive” so popular with the Bush administration and the Israelis, among others.
One may have to add it to one’s list of trendy “official sounding” legalese and other nonsense, like, also recently, “aspirational”.
knowthefacts
August 27th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
The USCGC Dallas is not the largest ship in the CG. There are three classes of ships which are larger. Don’t hate the US, we didn’t shoot anyone.
Andy
August 27th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Shouldn’t the U.S. coast guard be “guarding” the U.S. coast and not the Black sea?
PCBDZNR
August 27th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Geez…take it easy ya’ll (or as we say in NYC: ‘youse-all’). This is the finest thing that the USCG does…the Dallas ain’t loaded with armament but it is loaded with humanitarian aid. How do I underline that??. Why the hell would ‘we’ send anything else in there? Has anyone seen the people suffering? This isn’t freepin Halliburton. The reason this old DC ‘liberal idiot’ joined the USCG was becuase it has an altruistic mind-set. Is that not obvious to anyone? Feck psuedo-comminist bull-dreck and SWAT-ification horse-pucky and the farkin politics…people need help and dam me if the Dallas doesn’t make me proud… Wilson USCG DC Adak, Gov Island, New Orleans
Ali
August 27th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Eugene Costa,
Anyone who goes to Wikipedia is neo-conesque? Brilliant. Of course I am an Iranian, and you are American, and you are supposed to know better about USCG. Yet, it is obvious that you do not. As Wikipedia says, and you are free to correct them, USGC is unique in the way that it has law enforcement duties within the American borders as well. That is in addition to the mandate it has as part of the armed forces of America. Still, it is part of the armed forces of America and it can be used in exactly the same way that the rest of the armed forces are used.
Instead of resorting to insults, try to get your facts right. So far what you have said points to nothing but universal stupidity, neo-conesque or libertarianesque or antiwaresque or whatever.
Eugene Costa
August 27th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Marcuse, a new type of Marxist, was a brilliant and prophetic thinker. As early as 1964, for example, he was using the term “Neo-Conservative”, though for a slightly wider grouping than what the term is identified with now.
In One Dimensional Man he examined, by way of analyzing acronyms, the change from conceptual to operational that occurs when, for example, North Atlantic Treaty Organization becomes repeated and concretized as NATO.
Doesn’t the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have something to do with the “North Atlantic”? NATO as an operational entity does not, observed Marcuse–it simply becomes what it does.
The United States Coast Guard? My dear fellow, you are so old-fashioned. Don’t you see, it’s strictly NATO and the USCG in the Black Sea.
Bill Rood
August 27th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Ali, you cite Wikipedia that the Coast Guard is an agency of the Department of Homeland Security. That means it’s not in the Department of Defense.
Historically and until the formation of DHS, the Coast Guard was an agency of the Department of Treasury. Until Vietnam, it was not much closer to the military than the Merchant Marine, which I’m sure followed military orders when under convoy during WW II.
Eugene Costa
August 27th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Wikipedia is a valuable resource, though varied and hinging much on who writes the articles.
It is also useful for quick reminders or refreshers online.
The Neo-Conesque part is not knowing what you are talking about and changing your point in retrospect. Please consult above–did not I say that the USCG is part of the Armed Forces?
That is not the point at issue. You put the USCG into one category, “Armed Force obeying orders”, and conclude that is all it is and it is the same as any of the rest of the Armed Forces.
That is not accurate. The Coast Guard is governed by different statutes from those that govern the other US armed forces, and has different functions, including many civilian and domestic ones that are not armed, or only incidentally armed.
Abroad you are correct–the USCG acts more and more like an adjunct of the U.S. Navy.
Domestically, however, what is called the “Coast Guard” in the United States deals mainly with civilians, and it was not formed, for example, to make war, offensive or defensive.
This is likely very different from what the Iranians consider a “coast guard”.
But this is a problem across the board. Among the Germans, for example, the Border Guards are military and part of the armed forces, as I recall, while in the US the Border Patrol are police, though here again the Right Wing, and some of the left, have tried to militarize that function too and also use the military to patrol the border.
Incidentally the Coast Guard Cutter sent to Georgia, which as just reported avoided Poti and landed at a different smaller port, was likely dispatched mainly for PR reasons, exactly because, among Americans, the Coast Guard has almost a “civilian” flavor, and is seen as not an arm of war.
How the Russians see it, or the Iranians, is a different story, and it is all PR nonsense, for benefit perhaps of both the Georgians and the Americans, in terms of support or provocation.
Bill Rood
August 27th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Our forefather didn’t fight to obtain our rights. They fought to defend them. They were ethically theirs from the get-go.
Beyond that, the fact that our forefathers fought to defend their rights before there was a Constitution or even a Declaration of Independence certainly demonstrates that our rights were not bestowed by the largesse of some government. They existed before the government, and the government was created with the express purpose of preserving them.
christian
August 27th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
If the Russian response is “incommersurate”, what could be said of USA “response” in Afghanistan, a country that didn’t attacked or threatened the USA ?
Eugene Costa
August 27th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
An interesting point–dispatching a Coast Guard Cutter to Georgia, which some Americans see as diplomatically less provocative, certainly plays on the ambiguity of “warship” in English, which in one understanding the Coast Guard vessels are not–that is, they were not designed to wage war, offensive or defensive, nor even for logistics, but for domestic coastal patrol, among other things.
Abroad however, and internationally, and because part of the US Armed Forces, they remain warships in any sensible meaning that can be given that term.
So Bush and Cheney and the Neo-Cons, or perhaps the U.S. Navy, or perhaps Chertoff in his position as Proconsul of All Borders, provokes with a warship that they tell the Russians is not a warship, but is still a warship in the Georgians’ eyes.
The nonsensical game continues with both losses and gains in translation.
Squirrel
August 28th, 2008 at 12:11 am
“Don’t hate the US, we didn’t shoot anyone.”
Comedy Gold.
R. Nelson
August 28th, 2008 at 1:28 am
With trepidation I drag my non-expert opinion into this, but the following seems likely to me:
a) We already have a blue water unit for such things as sailing into the Black Sea: it’s called the Navy.
b) The reason the Coast Guard is called the Coast Guard is because typically it’s meant to guard our coasts. We can reasonably believe that authorization to enter international waters is merely to allow the Coast Guard to intercept any incoming threat before it reaches American waters, not to set up skirmish lines halfway around the world.
c) Relatedly, just as the Constitution’s “common defence” only applies to America and not the world, so too it seems likely that the “Coast” in Coast Guard refers only to our borders, not the world’s.
d) Past abuses of the Coast Guard, like previous tramplings of the Constitution or the robbing of banks, do not justify ongoing abuses or crimes.
But what the hey, why not? The National Guard fights a half world away, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which should have dissolved by 1991 has spread itself across the world in true bureaucratic resolve, so why not have the Coast Guard filling an overseas military mission too? When the empire calls, everyone should respond.
wojteq
August 28th, 2008 at 1:49 am
i don’t understand why you dont support actions like this …
your ship is transporting humanitarian aid which is most needed after russian agression.
i hope nato and UE will do sth and make russia go back to its territory.
you dont like us ships on gregorian waters but what about russian war ships blocking gregorian ports and occupaying gregorain territory.
ps. i was always amazed why in us and europe pacifist protest against us but never against russia ….
Eugene Costa
August 28th, 2008 at 1:57 am
Oh yes, pure humanitarian aid. Then why a warship at all, which a Coast Guard Cutter happens to be in foreign waters?
Eugene Costa
August 28th, 2008 at 3:32 am
The Coast Guard Cutter Dallas unloads its humanitarian cargo at Batumi–”38 tons of bottled water, baby food, soap and other supplies”.
Russian deputy minister: “This humanitarian aid could be bought at any flea market.”
The Russians still don’t understand US and Neo-Con PR.
Can’t say that I blame them.
Eugene Costa
August 28th, 2008 at 3:35 am
Another interesting dimension–the Bush and Cheney administration seems to be doing much more for Georgia in the way of “humanitarian aid” than the same adminsitration did for New Orleans.
Perhaps Louisiana should declare itself independent and join NATO.
InTheKnow
August 28th, 2008 at 3:52 am
The Coast Guard Cutter Dallas was on a joint mission with the Navy to help foster good relations with several nation in Africa. They were doing this by working with and training the local governments coast guards/navy. The crews also spend time working with in the local communities providing everything from medical assistance to labor in fixing/building schools, health care centers, and other buildings used for public service. The fact that the Dallas was in that part of the world, and that it was attached to the Navy made it a perfect platform to provide the service of delevering the much needed supplies to a nation that has been friendly to the US, but has also picked its self up by its boot straps, and tried to make somethin of its self out of the post cold war mess that was the former soviet union.
The Coast Guard has a proud history of providing humanitarian aid and invaluable training to other nations around the world. It has done this in countries ranging from Mirconesia to Iceland, from South America to Africa. the white boat with the red striped is just a little less frightening to the countries of the world, than the Navy grey, maybe that is why the Coast Guard is respected around the globe and welcomed into the hearts, homes and ports of the countries of the world.
Michael Cosper
August 28th, 2008 at 4:36 am
In my four year hitch in the CG we “patrolled” on an ice breaker from Prudoe Bay in northern Alaska to McMurdo sound in the Antarctic breaking channels in the ice for resupply ships. Although this duty may not be kosher in the Libertarian world it has been SOP for a very long time. A look at the history and mission statement of the USCG would be in order.
I too would like to see a drastic cutback in the forward military presence of the United States armed forces and would be willing to accept the resulting diminished “influence” that this would bring our country. It would also bring a diminished (simpler) life style that most of my countrymen would see as failure.
Elaine Meinel Supkis
August 28th, 2008 at 4:51 am
9/11 showed the world, the US military and other organizations is so focused on patrolling the entire planet, no one is protecting America. After 9/11, our desire to patrol the entire planet has done two things: left the US utterly unprotected and bankrupted our government.
The dilly-dallying about the planet with our forces scattered to the winds is the usual thrashing around of a dying empire. When England went bankrupt during WWI, they continued to expand their empire afterwards [including a disastrous war in Iraq] and they scattered their forces even more across the planet.
All this, knowing that their home base was totally vulnerable to a frontal attack. So of course, this happened a second time. Unlike WWI, in WWII, the attacks were directly on England and England nearly collapsed. As it was, the rolling up of the English empire was so easy, soldiers on bicycles in Asia were able to overwhelm the bedraggled last strands of the British Empire in Southeast Asia.
The US is using up all available tools at hand in a wild, last attempt at securing our empire. We foolishly imagine, if we have token troops in 130 different countries, this will control all potential rivals. To do this, we have handed over our sovereignty to dire rivals who have only one goal: the termination of the US empire.
China and Russia hold very significant amounts of US debts. Both did this thanks to wild US misspending on global domination systems. Both intend to use this as a way of toppling US international power. The fact is that the US ships are madly trying to muscle so many distant shores has weakened US power which cannot be brought into action anywhere due to this. If we send the vast majority of our fleets into three cul de sac water systems surrounded by hostile powers, we should not be surprised if we lose all our fleets at once.
The truth is, Russia and China can sink our entire navy in a flash if our navy is trapped in these dead-end seas. In WWII, Britain was very lucky that Germany didn’t have enough subs to sink all British ships in the Mediterranean. Since the US was supplying Britain, the Germans concentrated on the North Atlantic instead. Otherwise, the Brits would have had virtually no navy outside of the one attached to the US empire.
The US foreign policy fools who have driven the US right off the cliff should be arrested for treason. Sending our local as well as overseas navies to these obvious traps is treason. Even if nothing happens to them—this time—the trap is still set, jaws opened wide. This level of irresponsibility is as great as the 9/11 levels. The Pentagon and White House sat idle during a long multi-level attack because they wanted it to succeed.
They intend to do this again with our navies as ‘bait’ to Russia and China. Then they get the Cold War back. But this is stupid because it will bring us WWIII instead.
richard vajs
August 28th, 2008 at 5:02 am
When it is said that brave people died to protect our freedom of speech, it should always be understood that these brave people were usually fighting their own government at the time.
As far as the Coast Guard goes, they have a humorous way of looking at their own role – The Coast Guard works for the Treasury in peace time and when war comes it serves as the nucleus for the Navy.
Corkey
August 28th, 2008 at 5:46 am
The Empire truly has no clothes. Our leaders are a combination of greedy, self-absorbed traitors and idiots. For example, I watched the Dem convention for a few minutes. Biden, Pelosi and Hillary are totally delusional about what is going on in this country. They talk about change but all they really want is Power, for themselves.
I will not vote for McCain or Obama. They are awful.
Swami Barmi
August 28th, 2008 at 6:14 am
“it is unique among the armed forces in that it is also a maritime law enforcement agency (with jurisdiction both domestically and in international waters)”
Question: who authorizes its jurisdiction in international waters?
TR
August 28th, 2008 at 6:33 am
I got off another 378 (like DALLAS) just about a month before it went to Iraq to enforce the embargoes in the mid-90′s. I was so glad. I can’t say many people are excited about such deployments, but only this class of ship does them, excepting polar ice breakers. That’s 12 ships, built in the mid 60′s. Nothing much is automated and a lot breaks. The gas turbines are equivalent to Boeing 707′s, I was told.
A lot of people are defending the use of the CG in this way. I think it is a horrible use and would prefer that such deployments are eliminated. As a platform for delivering humanitarian aid, what a crock! A cargo ship would be a much better deliverer. A 378 can’t really hold much (34 tonnes is not much; the ship is ~3000 tonnes).
Vassili
August 28th, 2008 at 7:30 am
This ship is the target of both Russian Navy and Shore Anti-Navy artillery. There are hundreds of very advanced missiles. One wrong step and these USCG ships may share the fate of Georgian “Navy”, which was all destroyed recently, most of it from the shore by Russian tanks.
Now, is the US really ready for a global nuclear conflict?
Or is the US ready to REALLY loose face?
Now, do I really want a global nuclear conflict? I mean – it’s better to die standing then live kneeing – I’m not sure if many people in the US share that idea, but in Russia they do.
Nmjoker
August 28th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Warship??? the cutter Dallas, is not really a warship. Its lightly armed but packed with aid supplies. If the US wanted to send a warship,they would of sent a strike group over there with a carrier, subs, and some DDG’s. Not a USCG Cutter.
Ali
August 28th, 2008 at 8:16 am
As it says, Coast Guard is an agency of the Department of Homeland Security when it is not operating as a service in the Navy. The Navy Service was not created with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. It was there. Or just look at the military adds on American TV. It always includes the Coast Guard. It always has.
Please note that I am in no way suggesting that what America is doing is right. Interfering in the affairs of other countries in the world with bogus claims of support for freedom and democracy is the root cause of the problems that we see around the world. America claims that it has an interest in controlling the world and dictating its will on the rest of the world. Well, theoretically that can be anyone’s greatest interest. I am sure, deep in their hearts, all the people of say Haiti or any other country believe that if they had the world in their pocket, their interests would be much better served. Of course they never mention that publicly, as no one else in the world does. Yet America, along with some natural born thieves like UK, is such vile creature of fortune that it insists that that desire can actually have a material equivalence in the real world and hence claiming it with such vehemence that there inevitably will be some like Sakashvilli who actually fall into the trap of believing it.
Coast Guard or Navy or any other American ship, should not be in the Black Sea, preparing the next act of the tragedy that America is inflicting on the world.
Johnny
August 28th, 2008 at 8:28 am
A bigger question might be: why is the U.S. “officially” having a showdown with the Russians while we contract Russian cargo planes to airlift MRAPS to Iraq and Afghanistan?
Johhny Walker
August 28th, 2008 at 8:33 am
for the record, i have trouble typing as I only have one arm so eat me. spelling does not mean the point cant be taken correctly, but your so hung up on me being right you just hit my spelling…you cant argue the point, just my spelling. as for who your voting for…no one gives a crap..only you care about what your voting for…you voted for the war by electing the republican guard into power 8 years ago…so get over it…yeah dont vote, thats the answer. moron
kirk hayes
August 28th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Johnny Walker needs an education other than the “education” provided by the gulag system in amerika misnamed and mischaracterized as “public education”. On the other hand, “graduates” such as Johnny Walker, ably display the characteristics DESIRED in public school graduates that enable the continuation of the CORONATION of leaders and EXPANDING the empire. With citizens like Johnny Walker…
Vassili
August 28th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Although not directly related to USCG ships…
I want to draw attention of at least antiwar.com audience, to the following news, not even mentioned on cnn.com:
Russia performed *successful* test of Topol-M ICBM (a.k.a. SS21), delivered test warhead with improved anti-ABM capabilities to a distance of 6000km, for the purpose of making sure that these missiles operate properly, in spite of their old age.
About 400 of these missiles are aimed at the US.
I have read that US people would not accept a foreign war that would result in a loss of more then 2% of US Army (that should be 10,000 killed).
What about 10% of total population of the US, assuming only 10 Russian missiles would hit densely populated areas of the US? Is Georgia worth it? Are territories unjustly occupied by NATO since 1991 from Germany eastward worth it? Well – it’s no big deal after all – only every 10th person killed, but it’s gross IMHO. Russia is much less densely populated.
I mean – of course – if Russia would take over US soil that would make sense. But to die for EXCESS ???
DJ
August 28th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Tell me, Johnny, why there is a distinction between the navy and the coast guard? Could it be that one is supposed to be dealing with domestic issues, while the other is supposed to wage war? Or do the two services exist just to give high ranking officers fleets to manage? Sort of an aquatic redundancy of force project to keep old navy guys busy.
I. Susanin
August 28th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Forgive me if I disagree. This “Coast Guard” Warship of yours is equipped with a 76mm cannon that can hit air and land targets from 15 to 20km away(it can attack Abkhazia quite easily). It has a massive electronic warfare capacity with at least 10 different radio communications, satellite communications, and radar systems. My opinion this is some kind of Intelligence ship disguised as a “Coast Guard” ship, Russia does not build Border Patrol ships this size with extreme amounts of un-necessary systems, this surpasses the main mission of this type of ship.
And why is your “humanitarian aid” have to be covered with military covers and resembles a weapons shipment?
http://s54.radikal.ru/i144/0808/b8/c090ec6d294f.jpg
Lazar
August 28th, 2008 at 11:14 am
If war ensues, would it be possible to volunteer for the Russian war effort? I’m a US citizen and I support the Russians. Would it be possible to join them in some capacity? I am fully aware of the possible consequences.
Johhny Walker
August 28th, 2008 at 11:46 am
so your worried about the soil, and NOT the peoples rights? idiot.
Kirk, you assume alot, but what you cant change is your weight. Fatty fat kins
liberranter
August 28th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Heck, you can’t possibly expect that much from a retard who can’t even spell “Johnny” correctly.
andy
August 28th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Interesting commentary. France also had a very large empire in 1939 and her troops and resources were scattered all across north Africa, the mid-east and south Asia. What good were all these scattered garrisons when the German tanks were closing in on Paris? Since the Germans had no overseas empire to drain them, they could pack a mighty punch right where it counted – at home. The empires WEAKENED their owners, not strengthened them. As for the U.S. navy it has always been used as a tool to provoke others and get the USA into mischief. Recall the Maine in Havana. What business did that ship even have being there? How would Americans have reacted if say Japan had sent one of its battleships to San Francisco bay and just parked it there? The sinking of ships in a declared war zone was used by Wilson as “justification” for declaring war on Germany. Likewise the Pacific fleet was moved to Hawaia as bait for the Japanese to allow the USA to manipulate its way into WW2. Later the presence of U.S. ships off North Vietnam was used to create the “Gulf of Tonkin” incident. How would Americans like it if Vietnamese ships were just of the coast of Oregon? The U.S. navy has been “war-bait” for a long time.
Eugene Costa
August 28th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
“”If my guess is right, then it raises the suspicion that someone in the US specially created this conflict to worsen the situation and create an advantage in the competitive struggle for one of the candidates for the post of president of the United States….”
Vladimir Putin (AFP August 28, 2008)
andy
August 28th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Not your countrymen sir. Just those wannabees in Washington who want to get their empire-on.
GAB-1955
August 28th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Blame the phrase “incommensurate response” on all the reading of international law texts I have been following; it’s always been an interest of mine. The Georgians were idiots, but the Russians could have restored status quo ante bellum by pushing the Georgian forces out of Ossetia. They got what they wanted out of the war; it’s time to stop.
The Russians cannot forbid warships of a neutral power from visiting Georgia or vice versa; there has been a constructive blockade in the first two days of the war, but the Russians chose not to proclaim a blockade or declare a war zone. This was, for example, something all belligerents did in 1914 and in 1939.
A cease-fire is not a cessation of hostilities, nor is it an armistice. There haven’t been any formal communications between the belligerents. The Russians can’t forbid the U.S. from delivering supplies to Georgia on men o’war.
As for the U.S./NATO units outshooting the Black Sea Fleet; the reports I saw stated that the Moskva is damaged; furthermore, there are only 5 large surface combatants in total in the Black Sea Fleet, and there are five NATO frigates in the Black Sea (2 US, 1 German, 1 Spanish, and 1 other, not counting the USGCG Dallas). The USS McFaul has better EW and communications than the Black Sea Fleet units. If it were a shooting war just between the ships, I would bet on the US/NATO task force.
Fortunately, that won’t happen. Much of this is diplomatic posturing.
Eugene Costa
August 28th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
“Much of this is diplomatic posturing”.
Indeed, and you add military posturing to it.
Putin is a very careful man. You might want to read closely the quotation I posted below.
GAB-1955
August 28th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
He can say it, but he’s wrong.
GAB-1955
August 28th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
The de facto government of much of Afghanistan, the Taliban, hosted al-Qaeda and allowed them to use Afghanistan as a base of operations to attack the U.S. They did so willingly, knowingly, which is a posture of hostility, or they could not stop them, which is a sign there was no central government in Afghanistan and the right to pursue a criminal group could not be gainsayed.
That and blowing up the Bamyan Buddhas.
Josh
August 28th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
So from what I understand about six months or so back Georgia gave us permission to do something over there in return we promised to back them with anything that comes up right? It’s pretty much just calling in a favor to help them out, and they definately need it, even if a Coast Guard ‘Doomsday Device’ is over there so what, women and children need relief from starvation. Also, the Coast Guard isn’t designed to specifically guard the coast is it? From what I gather it protects US government property, which would of course be mostly our sub-continental borders but on top of that, anything owned by the govenrment “ie military establishments, troops, ships, etc..” would also be protected by the Coast Gaurd, which I think explains it’s role in previous conflicts.
Eugene Costa
August 28th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
That remains to be seen. And you have not read carefully, because the way he phrased it is mostly a matter of direction.
One wonders what safety deposit boxes in Switzerland and elsewhere Saakashvili may have containing items more precious, and dangerous–at this juncture–than gold?
Who is that Ajarian in Moscow again?
These Georgians, from Stalin, on down, have a reputation for trickiness, from the time of Colchis onward.
RP
August 28th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Hello troll. Have you need fed today?
Vassili
August 28th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
There is really no indication that Georgia is “starving”. At any rate – why may they be starving – because they don’t have access to Abhazia and Osetia? Or because the military bases are destroyed? Or because military equipment is expropriated from them? Or because few dozen buildings have been damaged in the city of Gory (on Georgia-proper Osetia border)?
Or because Georgians can’t work any more, due to emotional stress, caused by loosing rebel provinces? The latter is true. Also, generally Georgians are not capable of productive work. If people from Ukraine and Moldova and Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are coming to Russia to do useful work – construction, fast food places, supermarkets personnel – the ONLY place where I can see Georgians are expensive BMWs in the streets. Lots of criminal activity. Of 5 millions Georgians 1 million is in Russia, and the were sending up to 1 billion dollars per year to Georgia) are marketplaces – yet not so many.
It would be nice to send them back to Georgia they love so much (remotely though). Another good alternative idea, since all americans are georgians now – why not agree on deporting all Georgians from Russia to the US? I guess Russia can even pay for their tickets.
Every 5th citizen of Georgia lives in Russia and that “country” is so hostile towards Russia – yet loves US so much – this is “democracy” in action? Is 20% a sort of minority that should affect the actions of truly democratic Govt.? Democratic, yet “elected” with use of tear gas and marshal law (2007)…
Eugene Costa
August 28th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Washington has now ordered the USS Whitney, flagship of the Sixth Fleet, to the Black Sea area “to deliver humanitarian supplies”.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/-Russian-warning-on-Nato.4439182.jp
My word, the United States has a remarkably humanitarian Navy and Coast Guard. Why weren’t any of these indomitable humanitarian vehicles present at New Orleans?
On the other hand, consider the Russian Federation’s opportunities for surveillance and targeting in their own backyard.
Eugene Costa
August 28th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Perhaps the US state of Georgia is interested in Russia’s Georgians–imagine the duplication of paperwork saved.
No doubt some Americans, after completing US geography courses, think the Russians have attacked Savannah, and that is why the USCG Cutter Dallas has berthed there.
Is this McCain’s “Southern Strategy” perhaps?
wojteq
August 29th, 2008 at 12:03 am
to Vassili
“Is Georgia worth it?” — the same were asking themselfs english and french people in 1939, why to die for gdansk ( in poland ) and how it ended ????
“Are territories unjustly occupied by NATO since 1991 from Germany eastward worth it?”
— eeee ??? occupied ?? east from Germany ??? what the f…. are talking about ?????
R. Nelson
August 29th, 2008 at 12:43 am
I’m writing this note with just one hand, and my spelling is fine. Maybe your problem is a little higher up?
I. Susanin
August 29th, 2008 at 5:47 am
What an egotistical pile of rubbish.
<>
What the hell are they doing in our waters, that is my question. America is 7,000km to the west.
<>
Then say hello to the fishes.
<>
The Black Sea is under the strict jurisdiction of the nations of the Black Sea, under specific international agreements only Russia, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, and Georgia have a right to navigate the Black Sea as they choose, all others must state their intentions, and must keep all ships under 45,000 tons. Any foreign ship in the Black Sea longer than 21 days is in violation of the local maritime laws and can face action by the local maritime powers(this includes Russia).
<>
You understand the word “hypocrisy”? WHO MADE THE US OVERLORD OF THE PLANET? YOUR SOVEREIGNTY ALSO ENDS 12 NAUTICAL MILES OFF YOU COAST, YOU ARE IN OUR WATERS. AND SINCE THE US HAS NO INTERNATIONAL JURISDICTION IT CAN KINDLY GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR WATERS.
<>
I REPEAT, GEORGIA IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
I. Susanin
August 29th, 2008 at 5:51 am
THERE IS NOTHING TO ARGUE!
Georgia’s US supported, armed, trained, and led Military ATTACKED AND KILLED RUSSIAN CITIZENS IN SOUTH OSSETIA!
Is that difficult for you to understand?
Ships? Who the hell do you think you are dealing with? Who needs ships? You enter the waters off Georgia and you are sunk by Coastal Missile Forces.
DON’T EVEN TRY TO PRETEND THE US, WHICH IS THE DIRECT BENEFACTOR OF MR. SAAKASHVILI, IS “NEUTRAL”!
I. Susanin
August 29th, 2008 at 5:55 am
The US “out guns” the whole Black Sea Fleet of some 30 Warships(plus 50+ Support ships and Russian Border Guards Ships) with 1 Frigate, 1 Guided Missile Destroyer, 1 Command Ship, and 1 oversized Gunboat? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Russia could erase your ships in minutes without sending in a single Ship, that is what X-22 missiles on Tu-22M3 bombers are for.
I. Susanin
August 29th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Cut the rubbish. The “Moskva” returned to Sevastopol without a scratch and is now off Georgia, it alone could erase the whole NATO fleet without moving from its current location. Your ECM systems were useless against Iraqi relics of the 1950′s and you think your defenses can do anything about “Moskva’s” Bazalt Supersonic missiles? Don’t get too over-optimistic.
Elaine Meinel Supkis
August 29th, 2008 at 6:01 am
When Germany paid bankrupt Russia to remove troops from East Germany, one of the major promises was that Germany would not shove NATO forwards in classic German fashion to the doors of Moscow.
But Russia was too weak to stop this. Now, with the Germans rebuilding their empire within the European Union, they have assembled the world’s biggest collective economy on top of enabling the world’s biggest military power to expand right up to Moscow. This, in turn, triggers the obvious reaction in Russia all such invasions create: Russia wakens and fights ferociously.
Germans will probably have a very unhappy winter this year. Perhaps this will cause older Germans to remember the rationing of coal during WWII.
I. Susanin
August 29th, 2008 at 6:03 am
Nice little propaganda speech.
The Coast Guard HAS NO BUSINESS BEING OUTSIDE OF ITS OWN BORDERS.
I. Susanin
August 29th, 2008 at 6:13 am
We left, the US stayed, and moved to our borders, THAT IS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. THE BACKSTABBING US BEHAVIOR TO UNDERMINE ANYONE WHO HAS AN INDEPENDENT VIEW OTHER THAN THE US GOVERNMENT VIEW.
Sorry that I have to write in capital letters, but I have to make a point to these people.
wojteq
August 29th, 2008 at 6:27 am
and i thought that a country becomes a member of NATO from it’s own will .. so you say poland,hungary etc where made ( by force ) to join it ??
“Germans will probably have a very unhappy winter this year. Perhaps this will cause older Germans to remember the rationing of coal during WWII.
”
wait till EU gets resources from other directions ( not only russia ) than we will be talking .. you will sell it belarous ;P
if russia cuts transport of gas and oil It will show its real “face” , and its credibility will fall down as a bizness partner for example.
Elaine
August 29th, 2008 at 7:53 am
I would like to point out that the author made a mistake in his third sentence. The DALLAS is not the largest Coast Guard ship “currently in commission.” The BERTHOLF was commissioned on August 4, 2008. She is 418 feet long. The HEALY, 420 feet long, was commissioned on August 21, 2000. She is currently underway in support of Arctic West Summer 2008. The POLAR SEA is 399 feet long and was also recently deployed in support of the Arctic West Summer 2008. These facts can be easily verified by a quick internet search.
The Coast Guard, despite operating under the Department of Treasury, Transportation, and Homeland Security, has ALWAYS been an armed service and a part of the military. The Coast Guard was originally created to enforce customs laws…a mission that the CG still supports, though no one would presume it to be its primary mission. The Coast Guard’s diverse missions have changed and evolved over the years, always with Congressional oversight.
It seems many of the commenters here want to believe what they want to believe, and are not interested in hearing out anyone else’s point of view or learning how past events have led to the present state of being.
Nmjoker
August 29th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Yes it is equiped with a 76mm cannon and a mk 15. Both of which are for defense. And yes it is equiped with radio communications. Not for spying, or intel. I should know with being in the CG. You damn hippie
I. Susanin
August 29th, 2008 at 8:15 am
The “Dallas” is a Hamilton Class “Cutter”(size of a Frigate).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/WHEC-378.jpg
It is armed with -
1 – MK75 76mm Gun (anti-air capable)
2 – 25mm Machine Guns
1 – MK15 20-mm Phalanx, Close-in weapons system (CIWS)
2 – 50 Cal. machine gun
12 – Super Rapid Blooming Offboard Chaff launchers
Only the 76mm cannon presents a major threat(targets on land, sea, and air can be destroyed within 15-20km), but in Georgia’s small territory it is sufficient. It is like a Trojan Horse it tries to be something it is not. It is part of 4 US ships, and it may be joined by 8 more according to Russian Intelligence sources. And together with other NATO ships in the area would make up 18 ships.
Will Blalock
August 29th, 2008 at 9:04 am
It was a provocation and a tease.
Yes, it was a misuse of the USCG but how does
it compare to sending the National Guard to Iraq?
AJ
August 29th, 2008 at 9:14 am
You obviously are named Johnny Walker because that is what you drank while writing what you wrote. It isn’t a question about Liberal vs. Conservative…it’s common sense! What would George Washington and the Founding Fathers say if they knew the Coast Guard, and for that matter ANY AMERICAN agency was involved in overseas operations of imperialism?
It baffles me that people are PROUD to be Americans and then forget the fundamentals of how and why America was built the way it was. American foreign policy should be exactly that–not catered for some client states. What the US is now doing is no different that what the USSR did…creating client states and patrolling and arming them.
little guy
August 29th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
“…the United States has a remarkably humanitarian Navy and Coast Guard. Why weren’t any of these indomitable humanitarian vehicles present at New Orleans?” Excellent question Eugene!
Why isn’t the media asking these kinds of questions? Don’t answer that. :/
Rights
August 29th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
This country did not give us our rights, as the Constitution so states we are born with them. But it is nice to see the Coast Guard cheerleader (Johnny Walker) showing his true Gestapo mentality. You see folks when the Department of Homeland Security was created, the floodgates were open to allow these closet thugs like Johnny Walker to come out and think of new ways for them to benefit from abuse of power.
Josh
August 29th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
“My word, the United States has a remarkably humanitarian Navy and Coast Guard. Why weren’t any of these indomitable humanitarian vehicles present at New Orleans?”
Maybe they couldnt navigate their way through all the CG Helos that were hovering over their rooftops picking ppl off of their flooded homes? hmmm…..
Josh
August 29th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I find it interesting in the first place that so many individuals know how to run our country so much better than the people who are doing it already. Too bad your political genius hasn’t been recognized yet so you can quit your burger king night manager positions and focus on foreign diplomacy haha
andy
August 29th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I couldn’t agree with you more. Washington is just following its usual policy of fishing in troubled waters.
andy
August 29th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Why can’t the USA just mind its own business? Why? Such a simple and easy thing to do too. And yet the USA just can’t seem to do it.
Eugene Costa
August 29th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
And the Blackwater snipers picking off New Orleans police.
Eugene Costa
August 29th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Given the total disaster that the Bush and Cheney administration has led the US into both at home and abroad, that is not a bad suggestion at all.
The pool of Burger King employers is a varied lot. Choose one at random and the chances are he or she would do much better at diplomacy and foreign policy than Bush or Cheney or Rice, or any of the Neo-Cons.
How do much worse is the question–short of, say, leading the country into nuclear war, which may be on the way?
It never ceases to amaze me that the same Right Wing elitists, who live off government and corporate welfare, are always quick to criticize any social service for those in need, tell them to get a job, and then abuse those who work, even for low pay.
Eugene Costa
August 29th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Misposted the comment above: “And the Blackwater snipers picking off New Orleans police?”
Eugene Costa
August 29th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Correction: “employees”.
Steve
August 29th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
I Missed that one.
I thought it was ‘Wanker’ that he couldn’t spell.
Simon Tregarth
August 29th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Internet ‘rumor’ that the Russians disabled two Georgian military airfields that the US and Israeli centgovs were to use against Iranian targets (with Georgian permission). Any truth to this rumor, and if so are there any updates? ST
Hrebeljanovic
August 29th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Yo, Wojteq, you are on the wrong site. MSM propaganda BS such as “Russian aggression” does not work on antiwar.com, it rather makes you look silly. On the other hand, I do understand you are scared because of your government signing that “missile shield treaty”.
I. Susanin
August 30th, 2008 at 2:09 am
I am not a hippie(try finding a Soviet “hippie”). In Vietnam your Coast Guard used its Gun Armament against Vietnamese targets not for “defense”.
I. Susanin
August 30th, 2008 at 2:13 am
That would be unlikely considering the lack of a border with Iran, and Armenia is allied with Russia and would not allow overflights.
I. Susanin
August 30th, 2008 at 2:19 am
Who is threatening Poland and Hungary? Russia?(Ha!)
Who is sending these country’s children to die in Wars they did not start, answer this!
Russia has no reason to be hostile to Poland(and Hungary) if these countries don’t do anything hostile to Russia, like placing Missile Bases and Missile Launchers on Russia’s border which is not very friendly.
These countries had no reason to join NATO, but for the US, that BRIBED the leadership of these countries and established puppet governments of US citizens, it is important to have more CANNON FODDER to deploy against Russia, the destroyer of Empires.
NATO is a racket, every new member is bombarded with debt after being forced to “adjust and integrate” into Western Military Industrial Complex schemes of buying Multi-Billion USD armaments.
News & Analysis: Best of the Week « DetainThis
August 30th, 2008 at 2:20 am
[...] 28 Justin Raimondo ∙ Foreign Lobbyists and the Making of US Policy ∙ August 27 Tim Swanson ∙ A Coast Guard that guards everyone else’s coast ∙ August 27 Ran HaCohen ∙ Occupation by Another Name ∙ August 27 Philip Giraldi ∙ The Evil [...]
I. Susanin
August 30th, 2008 at 2:23 am
That is an interesting idea. Once Hurricane Gustav hits the US coast Russia’s Border Guards should deploy their ships to US waters and start helping victims by delivering small and irrelevant aid in the form of water bottles to a potentially flooded city while not leaving.
Vassili
August 30th, 2008 at 3:09 am
I’m asking not the US people – majority of them are either disinformed or ignorant.
I’m asking the US/UK/Zionist Elite – are you ready to handle the situation when 10% of US population would be killed instantly, and another 30% die in a year, to handle the country devastated after a full scale nuclear war with Russia? I don’t mention the Europe, but the same applies to it.
Is seems to me that you (Elite) find this option acceptable, or even desirable. Delusional.
But is not that US creates systematically – just look at Iraq – this is the test ground for the future of US and Europe.
Vassili
August 30th, 2008 at 3:15 am
I’d be asking another question – with Putin/Medvedev and Russian people squarely behind them – would full blown nuclear strike against US/NATO countries be considered “incommersurate”? Will it make you feel better that is was “incommersurate”?
International Law is simple now days (as shown by Serbia/Iraq and many others) – “RIGHT IS MIGHT”
I wonder if US/UK/Zionist elite simply WANTS the full blown nuclear war… i.e. they are in fact provoking Russia.
Vassili
August 30th, 2008 at 3:36 am
US will not do “something”, unless the nuclear war is what they are willing to accept.
I doubt very much about NATO’s Army ability to fight, since the countries of Europe are under US occupation now (some since 1945, some since 1991), I simply can’t see them as good soldiers.
Russia will use nuclear weapon in case it’s conventional forces can’t achieve quick and decisive victory over NATO forces in combat in Europe – that is clear part of new Russian military doctrine.
Therefore, the only force that prevents Russia from taking back the territories, that were agreed to NOT be part of NATO – is the goodwill of Russian Govt and people. And theat goodwill was consistently damaged by the actions of US/UK/Zionist Elite (a.k.a. World Govt.) over the last 17 years.
Recent events show that we’re so tired of it.
Dear World Govt. PLEASE BRING YOUR PROTECTORATES UNDER CONTROL, unless you really want huge war. MAKE them behave with Russia, you KNOW how to mind-control people, let them never talk and behave the way they did recently. If that is not done, and your puppets continue to annoy Russia, they would be handled in a way similar to Georgia. And FORGET about ABM setups in Eastern Europe, or else that territory will be retaken.
wojteq
August 30th, 2008 at 5:04 am
To — I. Susanin
“Russia has no reason to be hostile to Poland(and Hungary) if these countries don’t do anything hostile to Russia, like placing Missile Bases and Missile Launchers on Russia’s border which is not very friendly.” hmm russian borders ?? dont forget about ukrain,belarous,lituania , they have borders with russia not hungary ;) Poland has a small one but with kaliningrad ( bid russian army base ).
Missle bases are to be defensive weapon, russia targets us with nuclear weapon, not we it..
Maybe you know from history that eastern europe was under occupation by russia till 1990 ??
russia is not hostile ? they shut or lower resources transport or place embargo on eu products ?? its the same for me as hostile attack.
“These countries had no reason to join NATO, but for the US, that BRIBED the leadership of these countries and established puppet governments of US citizens..” — omg, learn history, joining nato was one of the most important decisions polish goverment did ( gov. which was eleceted < what the are you talking about bribing them ? if you dont have any idea dont write this bullshit …)
“Who is sending these country’s children to die in Wars they did not start, answer this!” we are … i support attack on afganistan, nato action in yugoslavia etc..
other thing is attack on iraq, but only because of the lost possibilities to normalize situation in this country .
Adolph
August 30th, 2008 at 5:59 am
johhny walker, GET HELP you NEED IT.Insulting people shows your lack of culture and 2-3 grams of brain in the pumpkin that stands on your torso…….LUNATIC, you are REAL DOSTOYEVSKI….
Eugene Costa
August 30th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Even were only ten percent of the US population killed outright in a nuclear exchange with Russia or China, within six months pretty clearly at least two hundred million would be dead, by my calculations, due to climate change and the destruction of infrastructure, and that too may be a vast underestimate.
The idea that some American Dr. Strangeloves still seem to have that, given such disaster, an entity identified with the US Federal Government might emerge from its submountainous foxholes and reimpose by force an American national “state”, with everything from the Internal Revenue Service to “No Smoking” in the work place, and with irradiated wage slaves working its farms, is a hilarious fantasy only a member of the utterly lunatic and incompetent elite is moronic to indulge.
In fact there is a good chance that the Strangeloves would not reemerge at all, and the cynic now and then contemplates the idea that is a goal almost worth the death of ninety percent of the American population in a year, and living hell for another century at least.
Hrebeljanovic
August 30th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
“i support attack on afganistan, nato action in yugoslavia etc..” After this statement you can be sure that I will support Russian action in Poland you Slavic scumbag!
(I apologize to the rest of the antiwar readers but I had to give this guy a straight answer)
wojteq
August 31st, 2008 at 12:17 am
to Hrebeljanovi
can i know from what country you are ??
i would like to know if you know what you are talking about, or you just watch it in tv ??
Eugene Costa
August 31st, 2008 at 12:43 am
Putin, a careful deliberate man, now confirms what was initially reported, apparently by Russian military forces, shortly after the Russian response to the Georgian sneak attack on Ossetia, to wit, that military personnel of other powers, including US military personnel, were fighting in the war zone on the side of Georgian troops.
The initial reports also suggested that at least one US soldier in this category had been captured, perhaps more, and that one at least had been taken to Russia for interrogation.
If the Georgian attack on Ossetia and Russian peacekeepers was an act of war against Russia, which by all international standards it can be interpreted to be, the Russians have grounds to consider that both the US and NATO have participated in acts of war against the Russian Federation and are not, by any stretch of the imagination, neutrals.
Putin and the Russians are playing their cards very close to their vest, but the severe tone of Putin and other Russians to the NATO members in Europe just recently, strongly suggests there are many more cards to be played and that this situation is much more severe than the Americans have let on, not because of Russian belligerence, but because of American belligerence and stupidity.
If this is the case, the PR campaign, so central to the NeoCon program, becomes marginal and incidental.
It would be interesting too if this whole fiasco constitutes another ground to impeach George Bush and Richard Cheney immediately, and remove Rice and others as well.
Perhaps Kucinich and some of those who have courageously joined him in impeachment proceedings may have more to say soon enough.
If there is any doubt this administration is criminal, this latest idiocy should lay any iota of doubt to rest.
There are madmen and criminals in charge of the executive. Will we be hearing from Mr. Paul? Mr. Paul? Mr. Paul? Long since time to put up or shut up on removing Bush and Cheney from office immediately, is it not?
I. Susanin
August 31st, 2008 at 5:22 am
Well it is obvious then where you are from.
“hmm russian borders ?? dont forget about ukrain,belarous,lituania , they have borders with russia not hungary ;) Poland has a small one but with kaliningrad ( bid russian army base ).”
I was talking about mostly Poland, but Hungary is not that far away. Kaliningrad is a city, if you do not know, it is also an Oblast(Province). Since it is Russian territory Russia can place whatever it feels like there, after Russia(USSR) gave you East Prussian land you are simply ungrateful.
“Missle bases are to be defensive weapon, russia targets us with nuclear weapon, not we it..”
Nobody targets you with any nuclear weapons, Missile Bases are Offensive systems because they are aimed for achieving First Strike Capability for the US. Your country is selling itself to the US. You think that this has no consequences?
“Maybe you know from history that eastern europe was under occupation by russia till 1990 ??”
And how long were Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia under Polish Occupation in the past? Maybe we should remind Poland about its War against Russians during Time of Troubles?
“they shut or lower resources transport or place embargo on eu products ?? its the same for me as hostile attack.”
Horrifying!! Maybe if your meat was cheaper and cleaner we would buy it.
“omg, learn history, joining nato was one of the most important decisions polish goverment did ( gov. which was eleceted < what the are you talking about bribing them ? if you dont have any idea dont write this bullshit …)”
You know what Drang Nach Osten was? That is NATO. Becoming a prostitute for the US is NOT what Poland needs. How much money did your government have to pay to the US so that they could send you some old F-16′s? Who makes hostile moves toward Neutral Switzerland? NOBODY! Why is Poland agitating and creating anti-Russian propaganda and demonizing Russian culture? It should be Neutral, which is not the same as Neutered, Switzerland has no Military Alliances with anybody, but its Army has around 300,000 troops, all voluntary for defense of the country. Learn from Switzerland.
“i support attack on afganistan, nato action in yugoslavia etc..
other thing is attack on iraq, but only because of the lost possibilities to normalize situation in this country .”
Really? So why are you not fighting US’s old friends in Afghanistan now?
I. Susanin
August 31st, 2008 at 6:12 am
Well it is obvious then where you are from.
“hmm russian borders ?? dont forget about ukrain,belarous,lituania , they have borders with russia not hungary ;) Poland has a small one but with kaliningrad ( bid russian army base ).”
I was talking about mostly Poland, but Hungary is not that far away. Kaliningrad is a city, if you do not know, it is also an Oblast(Province). Since it is Russian territory Russia can place whatever it feels like there, after Russia(USSR) gave you East Prussian land you are simply ungrateful.
“Missle bases are to be defensive weapon, russia targets us with nuclear weapon, not we it..”
Nobody targets you with any nuclear weapons, Missile Bases are Offensive systems because they are aimed for achieving First Strike Capability for the US. Your country is selling itself to the US. You think that this has no consequences?
“Maybe you know from history that eastern europe was under occupation by russia till 1990 ??”
And how long were Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia under Polish Occupation in the past? Maybe we should remind Poland about its War against Russians during Time of Troubles?
“they shut or lower resources transport or place embargo on eu products ?? its the same for me as hostile attack.”
Horrifying!! Maybe if your meat was cheaper and cleaner we would buy it.
“omg, learn history, joining nato was one of the most important decisions polish goverment did ( gov. which was eleceted < what the are you talking about bribing them ? if you dont have any idea dont write this bullshit …)”
You know what Drang Nach Osten was? That is NATO. Becoming a prostitute for the US is NOT what Poland needs. How much money did your government have to pay to the US so that they could send you some old F-16′s? Who makes hostile moves toward Neutral Switzerland? NOBODY! Why is Poland agitating and creating anti-Russian propaganda and demonizing Russian culture? It should be Neutral, Switzerland has no Military Alliances with anybody, but its Army has around 300,000 troops, all voluntary for defense of the country. Learn from Switzerland.
“i support attack on afganistan, nato action in yugoslavia etc..
other thing is attack on iraq, but only because of the lost possibilities to normalize situation in this country .”
Really? So why are you not fighting US’s old friends in Afghanistan now?
wojteq
August 31st, 2008 at 7:47 am
to I. Susanin
“Since it is Russian territory Russia can place whatever it feels like there ” so we can place mislle batteries on our territory and its non of your bizness …
“after Russia(USSR) gave you East Prussian land you are simply ungrateful.” yee we are very grateful for placing marionet gov. after war and killing our people who didny like russia controling us. Hane you ever heard abouy Katyn and Miednoje ??
“nd how long were Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia under Polish Occupation in the past? Maybe we should remind Poland about its War against Russians during Time of Troubles?” tell how long were Russia under polish occupation ??? i see hou have watched this movie “1612″ ;)
the territories of belarous and ukraine belonged to lituania, and then to us. you took them from us in 18 century. we were given them back after 1 world, and then your army have “libetaed” them in 1939 as you attacked us with hitler …
ps. how many ukrainians died during “big hunger” …
“Horrifying!! Maybe if your meat was cheaper and cleaner we would buy it.”i understand now, your taste is better than the rest of EU, please take into account that our products have passed quality control of EU ( very sharp ). for it was a typical political move made by putin to punish us …
“Why is Poland agitating and creating anti-Russian propaganda and demonizing Russian culture”
hmm check what your country did to all middle european countries since end of 2 world war …
ps. i will make it easier to you,try dates like 1968, 1956 …
“So why are you not fighting US’s old friends in Afghanistan now?” Poland is among countries taking part in NATO operation agains talibs in Afganistan …
Hrebeljanovic
August 31st, 2008 at 11:08 am
I keep wondering what happened to the freedom loving Polaks? These days you are so far up NATO asses your skin must be brown by now.
wojteq
August 31st, 2008 at 1:47 pm
yee what an inteligent reply, are you 10 years old or less ?
learn english first , its Poles for you !
we are still here and fight for freedom of other people like in ukraine.
you didnt answer my question….
your only answer is insultinig me, 0 arguments …
Eugene Costa
August 31st, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Polls
Eugene Costa
August 31st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Polls among Poles are a difficult subject, and one claims no expertise.
One year ago, however, most polls showed that sixty percent of Poles opposed the US missile shield. One recent poll of 500 hundred people supposedly showed that that figure went down dramatically, but other polls show that opposition is holding close to fifty percent, and that almost eighty percent of Poles believe that the missile shield will make relations with the Russian Federation difficult or impossible.
The stupidity here, therefore, may be mostly the Polish media and political leadership.
A whole battery of polls show that sixty percent of the Czechs still oppose the US radar installation, even after it has been approved.
Do they have Burger King in Poland and the Czech Republic? The two countries in question may be other areas where picking a person at random from among the pool of employees to lead the country might mean an improvement in the conduct of domestic and foreign affairs.
With the warm relations between Germany and the Russian Federation (aided partly by the fact that Putin speaks fluent German), and their intense economic cooperation, the Poles seem once more in the hands of a leadership that is politicaly and economically incompetent.
Why in the world this leadership would want Patriot missiles into the bargain is a mystery. The missiles clearly do not work.
The seeming idiocy is compounded by the fact that the Americans, though talking of defending against missiles from Iran or “terrorists”, are clearly still trying to engineer a first strike capability against Russia, thereby intensifying the threat the Russians see.
It must warm the cockles of American Imperialist and Neo-Con hearts that the Poles are so willing to incinerate themselves for the greater good of Israel and the United States.
Eugene Costa
August 31st, 2008 at 9:12 pm
“If NATO suddenly takes military actions against Abkhazia and South Ossetia, acting solely in support of Tbilisi, this will mean a declaration of war on Russia…”
Dmitry Rogozin, RF Representative to NATO
[http://prorev.com/2008/08/moscow-warns-that-nato-military-aid-to.html]
Hrebeljanovic
August 31st, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Because I thought that you call yourselves Polaks I used that term instead of Poles. My intention wasn’t to offend Polish people and therefore I take it back. However, you who support killing innocent peoples deserve every bit of the rest of my comment.
Suggested reading: 2008-31-08 14:37:25
wojteq
September 1st, 2008 at 7:50 am
“support killing innocent peoples” i dont support killing of cilvilians…
but for me thera are conflict like in Dafur which cant be solved without use of force .
Where are you from ??
Hrebeljanovic
September 1st, 2008 at 11:36 am
Are you aware of how many civilians NATO actions murdered? You said you support NATO actions, so which is it mister Wojteq?
I am an American citizen. There, happy now?
wojteq
September 1st, 2008 at 11:57 am
and can you tell me how many people werw killed before NATO operation ?
they stopped killing in Kosovo, and removed Talibs gov.in Afganistan ( or maybe you support the talbs way of ruling ? )
ps. yes i’m happy that you are from USA becasue you have never endured anything you are so opposit, and believe me from history of my country i know that there are situations in which use of power is legitimized …
Hrebeljanovic
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Unfortunately, anyone who supports legitimate murder(what is that?) is a lost cause. No mas discusion.
denk
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Swami Barmi
2008-08-28 06:14:13
**“it is unique among the armed forces in that it is also a maritime law enforcement agency (with jurisdiction both domestically and in international waters)â€
Question: who authorizes its jurisdiction in international waters?**
uncle sham:-
well i dont need nobody telling me what i can or cannot do in those god damned international water
denk
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 pm
wojteq
**i know that there are situations in which use of power is legitimized …**
Let’s go for the big game then
wojteq
September 4th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
ok ,so what now… you know about situation in Darfur ??
ONZ cant do a s**t because china blocks any restrictions against Sudan..
shouldn’t some countries send their forces their to stop the killing ??
wojteq
September 4th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
“Do they have Burger King in Poland and the Czech Republic?”
yes we wre “civilized” and we have it,as a Mc”donalds…dont worry when we ask people we dont ask onlny workers of those companys …
“aided partly by the fact that Putin speaks fluent German)” he was a KGB agent in Berlin ;)
German are not soo keen to cooperate with russia …
maybe except of Schreder but its a deffrent story.