My point is that England and France (and much of the rest of the world) have gotten over their antagonistic histories, so why can't the Russians?

Because Russia hasn't had to cooperate with Georgia, the Ukraine or Poland for it's survival, like Britain and France have had to do. Russia actually did get over some of it's antagonistic histories during various parts of it's history, at least in as much as western countries got over their antagonism of Russia.

I don't accept the "typical liberal position" (not meant as an insult) that if we only "understood" why they hated us, we could all get along.

RWB never said understanding them would let us "get along", he said it would let us defeat them.

I don't accept the "typical liberal position" (not meant as an insult) that if we only "understood" why they hated us, we could all get along. This is what I call "accomodation," which to our opponents is viewed as a weakness to be taken advantage of.

That my friend is a statement based on your view of history ...

"And we cannot allow history to be used as an excuse for unacceptable behavior."

And you are using history as the excuse ( I really mean to use the word "reason", but I will use instead the word you keep using, "excuse" ) for your position. Not easy to get over your view of history, is it?

It is YOUR view of history, it is real to you, and I mostly agree with it; I am just pointing out that THEIR view of history is as real to them and we had damn well better know what that view is. The defeat of Communisim may have happened much sooner if we understoood that much of what we did not like about Russian Communisim was Russian in origin and not Communist. That nature has not changed with their transition to democracy.

My point was that this is not a Putinistic approach, it is the result of 600 years of history. People do not get over that kind of thing easily, even in the face of logic.

My point is that England and France (and much of the rest of the world) have gotten over their antagonistic histories, so why can't the Russians? The difference is, Western Europe is now democratic, while Russia is autocratic.

It has been shown over and over again that modern democracies cannot deal with autocratic beligerents by appeasing and accomodating. And we cannot allow history to be used as an excuse for unacceptable behavior.

And as far as our military, believe me, no one should perceive us as weak. Just think about the percentage of our USAF and USN assets that are tied up in Iran/Afghanistan. Hint: it's very small. True, a land war is not an option at this time. But we are at most "preoccupied," not in any way "bogged down."

it is the result of 600 years of history.

Now why worry about history when you can just beat your chest and make threats?

Also worth noting that Russia and Poland have fought something like 16 wars in the last 1000 years.

Once they contain Georgia, they will be looking to pay us back by irritating one of our raw nerves, perhaps Iran.

Or Cuba.

Houston -
my point was that this is not a Putinistic approach, it is the result of 600 years of history. People do not get over that kind of thing easily, even in the face of logic. It becomes an automatic reation. If we understood how and why they think the way they do, we could contain them; instead we provoked them by touching a 600 year old raw nerve. Once they contain Georgia, they will be looking to pay us back by irritating one of our raw nerves, perhaps Iran.

I got that from how much our military prowess now informs the actions of Russia, Iran, or even the Taliban.

"we're preoccupied with another mission right now." No, we are not preoccupied , we are bogged down. Our mission was to contain Iraqi WMDs. There were no WMDs and we are still there with no exit strategy except that forced on us by the soverign Iraqi government. This is a major failure of the civilian leadership, not the military.

Not being able to open a second front makes us look weak and vulnerable everywhere in the world, and if our enemies perceive us as weak we will be attacked. Russian did not think twice about rolling into Gerogia.

It was true then, and until they move away from the Putinistic approach, so it will remain.

Well please enlighten us, oh sage one, on how you would characterize the Russian government's (i.e. Putin and his fellow former KGB members) treatment of Georgia, Chechnya, private industry (e.g. Yukos), independent media, and dissonant rabblerousers (Kasparov), because to a lot of us it seems like grade A-1 certifiable bullying.

That's how you think, and it's good to know how you think.

But RWB said you need to understand how they think, and I guarantee you that they don't think of it as bullying. They see a justification and an objective in everyone of those actions, and if we don't understand what those justifications and objectives are, then we can not beat them.

I think we understand very well how "the enemy" (in this case, Russia) thinks. Like I said, they're nothing more than an old-school bully.

Sun-Tzu would be proud.

I think we understand very well how "the enemy" (in this case, Russia) thinks. Like I said, they're nothing more than an old-school bully.

It's funny how the second sentence completely contradicts the first.

Well please enlighten us, oh sage one, on how you would characterize the Russian government's (i.e. Putin and his fellow former KGB members) treatment of Georgia, Chechnya, private industry (e.g. Yukos), independent media, and dissonant rabblerousers (Kasparov), because to a lot of us it seems like grade A-1 certifiable bullying.

I think we understand very well how "the enemy" (in this case, Russia) thinks. Like I said, they're nothing more than an old-school bully.

It's funny how the second sentence completely contradicts the first.

Bush has left us militarily weak; we can no longer put Russia in it's place by force of arms.

First off, we are nowhere close to being militarily weak - where do you get that from? If anything, we're preoccupied with another mission right now. However, only a portion of our forces are so occupied, and only certain types of assets - there are plenty of other "military" things that we are more than capible of doing, right now, if we so desire.

I'm not saying that "putting Russia in it's place by force of arms" is necessarily what we want to do. But we certainly don't want to excuse, appease and accomodate either.