> The U.S.'s actions in Haiti or Guatemala don't count because only an
> idiot or an ideologue (which is often much the same thing) would've
> believed that American intervention was justified; built, as it was,
> on the fiction that the United States faced an existential threat from
> these tiny nations and their internal politics.
>
> But in the case of Russia/Georgia, there is a clearly traceable cause
> and effect -- no Edward Bernays crafted propaganda. There were real
> missiles falling on real people. Full stop.
Not to mention, those real people are *Russian citizens*. Now I know there is cause for cynicism over the reasons they are Russian citizens, but that they are Russian citizens is a fact. So US intervention in Haiti or Guatemala simply isn't comparable.
In fact I can't think of any comparable situation involving US citizens but I can think of one here in Ireland. During the pogroms against northern Catholics in 1969 the southern prime minister Jack Lynch made a famous speech where he said his government would not stand by and allow the crown forces kill and maim innocent people. Those innocent people were technically British subjects but identified with Ireland, a situation with obvious parallels to the present one. At this point the analogy falls apart because Lynch's government unlike the Russians did, in fact, stand by, but I have no problem thinking they were wrong to do so and consequently I can't see how it was wrong, as a matter of principle, for the Russians to protect their own citizens under the same (actually, under much worse) circumstances.