In response

The post made previously by Chelsea about the conflict occurring between Russia and Georgia. It is a position the U.S. has found it self in once again because our fearless leaders have decided it necessary to side with our priorities. Mostly resources dealing with oil and the war in Iraq. Seeing as we are already involved in that the U.S. would heed a warning to not get involved other than encouraging both nations to hold peace talks and discontinue Russia's occupation of Georgia. Our nation cannot afford to be enemies with any one especially when our relationships with others have become tumultuous. I would think it more of concern to our Great Nation weather our students can finish their mandatory education or weather the citizens can afford health care. I know this is a far removed subject from the dealings with Russia and Georgia, but it just exemplifies the fact that we have a very skewed idea as a nation as to what is important and who is important. Yes the people of the areas being attacked are in need and as a world we should be worried about them, but we need to reanalyze what we are stating with the commitment to Georgia. 

I find it interesting as I read more about this situation, the more information I get and the better understanding I get. The more confused I seem to be in my position. I just popped onto guardian.co.uk and read that Georgia had signed a cease fire. Which is great and now Russia has to evacuate troops. I'm glad of this, but now there is the mess of dealing with the trampled feat caused by the invasion and now by the U.S. standing with Georgia. Now the country of Georgia stating that they are angry that assistance wasn't given much earlier when NATO denied Georgia membership. They are angry, Russias pissed, all of the citizens living in Ossetia are homeless and hungry. Who do you side with in a situation like this. Was it the right decision to step in and force the two countries to stop fighting(Hippocratic). A big jumbled messssss.