RE: Russia invades Georgia

RE: Russia invades Georgia (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: Russia invades Georgia (8/12/2008 1:27:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Is this military action really about protecting ethnic minorities that are Russian citizens or about Russia regaining control of the region? Ask yourself the same question about the USA in Iraq. Pot, kettle, black, springs to mind. The problem for the west is that it is just as bad and uses any excuse it can for its self serving actions. Russia is probably using the Russian minority in Georgia as an excuse for a different agenda but the west does similar so the west has no moral high ground to occupy.

Thadius -> RE: Russia invades Georgia (8/12/2008 1:27:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Is this military action really about protecting ethnic minorities that are Russian citizens or about Russia regaining control of the region? My guess would be control, to use the arguement of my esteemed detractors.... It's all about the oil. There is some truth to the matter though about protecting the folks that wish to seperate from Georgia, however I do not see how that means a full scale invasion of Georgia proper.

Outlaw85 -> RE: Russia invades Georgia (8/12/2008 1:28:16 AM)
point, but it was a pretty messed up situation in kosovo as well. I admit I'm in favour of provinces in which the majority want to break away being allowed to do so. people should have the right to choose their destiny but governments never see it that way. Though this seems to be much more about russia preventing europe from bipassing russia to get natural resources and wanting to take all of georgia for themselves than anything. And there is one major difference between chechnya, kosovo and south ossetia . this isn't an issue of an ethnic minority in a nation being the majority in a particular province, feeling persecuted and wanting their own country, this is an issue of a bunch of deluded folks who miss the good old days of the soviet union and want georgia to be part of russia again. or have we also forgotten the sacking of cities and murdering of civilians the last time the russians invaded georgia. further more, georgia has called for a ciese fire. the rest of the world has called for it too. this is also different from when the US invaded afghanistan, which was harboring osama bin laden, or iraq, I think we all forget too soon the games saddam was playing with the UN inspectors just days before the US finally called them on what he was doing. course he was just trying to bluff to having wmd just like he admitted to, in order to make everyone feel threatened, but that was his choice to play the games he did. it wasn't like he wasn't given a million warnings before we went in there. and not that I agree with what we did in there neither, though if you look at post american civil war reconstruction, things get a lot worse before they get better too. as most people don't realise the civil war didn't really end for another 10 years after 1865, with a decade of insurgency, terrorism, melitias and gurillas and dirty deeds on both sides of the conflict, and how many blacks had said that they had been better off in slavery. not trying to get off track but citing historical examples as a form of case law. point I'm trying to make is, russia don't give a damn about osseta they're just a pawn in a bigger game. and georgia, being our allies, we should support period, unless we want to make another disgusting an amoral blunder like we did with taiwan when we disowned them just to kiss china's rear end.

Thadius -> RE: Russia invades Georgia (8/12/2008 1:29:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Is this military action really about protecting ethnic minorities that are Russian citizens or about Russia regaining control of the region? Ask yourself the same question about the USA in Iraq. Pot, kettle, black, springs to mind. The problem for the west is that it is just as bad and uses any excuse it can for its self serving actions. Russia is probably using the Russian minority in Georgia as an excuse for a different agenda but the west does similar so the west has no moral high ground to occupy. The only difference in the 2 situations is we plan on giving Iraq back to the Iraqis, we are not expanding the empire....

Vendaval -> RE: Russia invades Georgia (8/12/2008 1:32:41 AM)
I was asking a rhetorical question, meatcleaver. This being a text-based communication, that may not have been clear to you. Hoping for some insight from people more familiar with the region and the history, politics, etc. If you read any of my numerous posts about the Iraq War and other US foreign policy disasters it will be clear that I do not condone much of what my country has done. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Is this military action really about protecting ethnic minorities that are Russian citizens or about Russia regaining control of the region? Ask yourself the same question about the USA in Iraq. Pot, kettle, black, springs to mind. The problem for the west is that it is just as bad and uses any excuse it can for its self serving actions. Russia is probably using the Russian minority in Georgia as an excuse for a different agenda but the west does similar so the west has no moral high ground to occupy.

Thadius -> RE: Russia invades Georgia (8/12/2008 1:52:36 AM)
If you are looking for a little historical reference, I would just say that this is the exact same tactic and excuse they used when they moved into Hungary during the Suez incidents mid '50s. Also, this is the only oil supply from the region that Russia does not currently control. Coincidence? Perhaps, but with the current energy situation around the world, I am a bit cynical.

Vendaval -> RE: Russia invades Georgia (8/12/2008 1:59:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius If you are looking for a little historical reference, I would just say that this is the exact same tactic and excuse they used when they moved into Hungary during the Suez incidents mid '50s. Not surprising, if it worked once why not try again? Also, this is the only oil supply from the region that Russia does not currently control. Coincidence? Perhaps, but with the current energy situation around the world, I am a bit cynical. Being a bit cynical is an essential survival trait in this world, Thadius. There is a proverb in Spanish that comes to mind, "The cloak needs the dagger". And just in case anyone wants to brush-up on events in Kosovo - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/etc/cron.html Thar ye go!

RealityLicks -> RE: Russia invades Georgia (8/12/2008 3:32:22 AM)
It may be that US media outlets have failed to make it clear - Georgia was the aggressor in this conflict. South Ossetia has been independent of Georgia in all but name since the 90s, with its own govt etc. While world leaders travelled to Beijing, US-backed Georgia attacked - not realising they were simply springing a trap set by that redoubtable ex-KGB master of intrigue, Putin. The Georgians were pulverised inside three hours. What would any major power do, faced with an attack on carriers of their passports? This morning, Georgia's communications are sliced in half and the Russians have halted their march south. There is no real need to seize Tbilisi because the Georgian President will virtually certainly be voted out at the next election and a pro-Kremlin candidate voted in. All this demonstrates the superiority of Russian intelligence in the region. For all their US training and support, Georgia had no clue they were being sucked in. An object lesson for former Soviet states and satellites that bi-lateral missile deals, parking arms on the Russian lawn, will not pay. typo.

Vendaval -> RE: Russia invades Georgia (8/12/2008 3:38:56 AM)
What you are saying makes sense, Reality Licks. I just saw the report that Russia has stopped the military advancement and is demanding that the Georgian President step down. Thank you for the back-ground explanation.

RealityLicks -> RE: Russia invades Georgia (8/12/2008 3:55:13 AM)
Cheers, Vendaval. It might also be worth noting that Nato as a whole is still some way off asking Georgia to host radar and missile sites. The drive for them to do so comes solely from the US and it's destabilising central and eastern Europe. Far from bemoaning Russian militarism, the EU states should be leaning on their US allies, urging Washington to stop causing needless crises far from their own borders.

Thadius -> RE: Russia invades Georgia (8/12/2008 4:08:15 AM)
Just out of curiosity, since you claimed that the Georgian attack was US backed... and you seem to want to lay much of the blame for this at the feet of US foreign policy. What responsibility does Europe hold in this entire mess, besides declining US attempts to cause destabilization of the region? Also, isn't it another 4 years until the elections in Georgia, seeing as Saakashvili was just reelected in January of this year?

meatcleaver -> RE: Russia invades Georgia (8/12/2008 4:18:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Outlaw85 And there is one major difference between chechnya, kosovo and south ossetia . this isn't an issue of an ethnic minority in a nation being the majority in a particular province, feeling persecuted and wanting their own country, this is an issue of a bunch of deluded folks who miss the good old days of the soviet union and want georgia to be part of russia again. There is evidence of Georgian discrimination and violence against resident Russians, this has been previously documented by international human rights groups. Under international law the independence of Kosovo was illegal. The problem for the west now is, they can't accuse Russia of taking illegal action when it is only the same action as the west sanctioned in the Balkens. That is why it is necessary for the west to respect international law and why I always bang on about it.

meatcleaver -> RE: Russia invades Georgia (8/12/2008 4:24:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Is this military action really about protecting ethnic minorities that are Russian citizens or about Russia regaining control of the region? Ask yourself the same question about the USA in Iraq. Pot, kettle, black, springs to mind. The problem for the west is that it is just as bad and uses any excuse it can for its self serving actions. Russia is probably using the Russian minority in Georgia as an excuse for a different agenda but the west does similar so the west has no moral high ground to occupy. The only difference in the 2 situations is we plan on giving Iraq back to the Iraqis, we are not expanding the empire.... Under the same criteria the allies used at Nuremburg to try the NAZIs, the USA and UK invasion of Iraq was a war crime. The US might want to give Iraq back but it seems hell bent on making sure the Iraqis privatize their oil industry first and American companies having beneficial contracts. The majority of Iraqis believe the US invasion of their country was for oil, not to help them. This is the importance of adhering to international law, it gives one the moral highground when confronted with actions like what is happening in Georgia now. The west doesn't have any moral legitmacy in its disapproval of Russian action because it has acted illegaly for in its own self interest too.

Thadius -> RE: Russia invades Georgia (8/12/2008 4:36:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Under the same criteria the allies used at Nuremburg to try the NAZIs, the USA and UK invasion of Iraq was a war crime. The US might want to give Iraq back but it seems hell bent on making sure the Iraqis privatize their oil industry first and American companies having beneficial contracts. The majority of Iraqis believe the US invasion of their country was for oil, not to help them. This is the importance of adhering to international law, it gives one the moral highground when confronted with actions like what is happening in Georgia now. The west doesn't have any moral legitmacy in its disapproval of Russian action because it has acted illegaly for in its own self interest too. Please provide proof that the current conflict in Iraq is a violation of international law. Can you provide a link to your claim that "The majority of Iraqis believe the US invasion of their country was for oil, not to help them.". Comparing the Iraq conflict to what is going on in the current Georgia-Russian conflict, neglects another important issue. Regardless of which side of the debate you are on both sides have acted unilaterally. Where as in Iraq, there was a multinational cooperation. I do however agree with your points about the Balkens... and how it set precedent for the Russians to use it as a cover/reason.

RealityLicks -> RE: Russia invades Georgia (8/12/2008 4:55:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Just out of curiosity, since you claimed that the Georgian attack was US backed... and you seem to want to lay much of the blame for this at the feet of US foreign policy. What responsibility does Europe hold in this entire mess, besides declining US attempts to cause destabilization of the region? Also, isn't it another 4 years until the elections in Georgia, seeing as Saakashvili was just reelected in January of this year? The Georgian President's closeness to Bush is no secret, neither is the military training offered to these neighbours of Russia by Washington. The European line has been to humour Saakashvili but its significant that no timetable for Georgia's induction into Nato has been drawn up; he is clearly too volatile. Why enter a defensive pact with a corrupt and crumbling nation, numbering just half the population of my hometown and run by a Bush fanboy with delusions of importance? Europe's "responsibility" is to make wise decisions, not fight wars for political posturing's sake. Russia said they would retaliate against any attempt to invade S. Ossetia, months ago and dispensed passports to the Cossacks to make it stick. As the remnants of a large can of whup-ass are emptied over their gov't, the Georgian public have something else to contemplate: Winters are harsh out there and Georgia is dependent on cheap Russian natural gas to survive. The prospect of an early election to dump their loser Prez might seem awfully tempting.

Thadius -> RE: Russia invades Georgia (8/12/2008 5:18:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Just out of curiosity, since you claimed that the Georgian attack was US backed... and you seem to want to lay much of the blame for this at the feet of US foreign policy. What responsibility does Europe hold in this entire mess, besides declining US attempts to cause destabilization of the region? Also, isn't it another 4 years until the elections in Georgia, seeing as Saakashvili was just reelected in January of this year? The Georgian President's closeness to Bush is no secret, neither is the military training offered to these neighbours of Russia by Washington. The European line has been to humour Saakashvili but its significant that no timetable for Georgia's induction into Nato has been drawn up; he is clearly too volatile. Why enter a defensive pact with a corrupt and crumbling nation, numbering just half the population of my hometown and run by a Bush fanboy with delusions of importance? Europe's "responsibility" is to make wise decisions, not fight wars for political posturing's sake. Russia said they would retaliate against any attempt to invade S. Ossetia, months ago and dispensed passports to the Cossacks to make it stick. As the remnants of a large can of whup-ass are emptied over their gov't, the Georgian public have something else to contemplate: Winters are harsh out there and Georgia is dependent on cheap Russian natural gas to survive. The prospect of an early election to dump their loser Prez might seem awfully tempting. So it's your opinion that because the current Georgian president supports Bush in Iraq, that Europe's responsibility is to just let a sovereign nation be wiped out militarily and be forced to change it's ELECTED officials, so they don't piss off the Russians? You do bring up an interesting point though, what effect do you believe handing out passports to folks in another country would have? Oh, and just one more thing, are you suggesting that the Russians have not been stirring the political rancor in Ossetia? I would also point out that a few months ago Russia refused "outside" mediations offered by the EU to help resolve the issue at hand. Let's also not pretend that Russia did not basicly use its troops to annex the land that had been fairly independant since around '92, when it sent troops in "Lavrov said Russia had only sent in troops to contain "a possible use of force by our Georgian colleagues who were very seriously and quite openly discussing the use of force." There are 3 sides to this story, Russia's , Georgia's and the truth. I am glad to see some of the European presidents traveling to the area to help bring about some sort of peaceful solutions.

RealityLicks -> RE: Russia invades Georgia (8/12/2008 5:41:31 AM)
First of all, if it's a sovereign nation, it is immaterial whether the leader is elected, appointed or inherited. An outside state has no right to depose him/her because they were or weren't elected - that's just imposing your own ideology. (PS some in Florida might have issues here, too) Secondly, it's not Georgia's adventures in Iraq that have heated tensions but their foolish openness to hosting US missiles on Russia's borders. See the parallels? Do the words "Cuba", "missile" and "crisis" ring any bells? This is a provocative step, completely out of line with French, German and UK wishes. And yes, of course, Russia stirred tensions too. But S. Ossetia's recent referendum was 90% in favour of secession from Georgia and federation with Russia. They have been independent in all essentials for nigh on 20 years -so where are their democratic rights? The Russians baited a trap and Georgia - more fool them - sprang it.

caitlyn -> RE: Russia invades Georgia (8/12/2008 5:42:51 AM)
General ... You have to wonder about those that draw linkage between what happened in Iraq and what happened in Georgia, almost insinuating that the latter is excused by the former. Thats about the only excuse President Bush hasn't tried in Iraq. It comes across as using for political gain, something that is really just more people dying. On point, Russia will do whatever it takes to keep NATO out of Georgia, or vice-versa as the case may be. Western anti-ship missiles and air bases would be a lot more than a serious threat to Russia internally, but would also put a cap on the bottle that allows the Russian Navy access to the Mediterranean. Myself, I would give America's seat in NATO to the Georgians in a minute. NATO is a military alliance designed to prevent/fight a war that is long over. Like all useless things, it's now hard at work looking around for way to justify it's usefullness. Given time, NATO will cause the war is was designed to prevent.

Thadius -> RE: Russia invades Georgia (8/12/2008 5:52:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks First of all, if it's a sovereign nation, it is immaterial whether the leader is elected, appointed or inherited. An outside state has no right to depose him/her because they were or weren't elected - that's just imposing your own ideology. (PS some in Florida might have issues here, too) Secondly, it's not Georgia's adventures in Iraq that have heated tensions but their foolish openness to hosting US missiles on Russia's borders. See the parallels? Do the words "Cuba", "missile" and "crisis" ring any bells? This is a provocative step, completely out of line with French, German and UK wishes. And yes, of course, Russia stirred tensions too. But S. Ossetia's recent referendum was 90% in favour of secession from Georgia and federation with Russia. They have been independent in all essentials for nigh on 20 years -so where are their democratic rights? The Russians baited a trap and Georgia - more fool them - sprang it. To your first point... independant studies have already shown that the count would have still favored Bush, and if you want to claim the confussion point at least give credit where credit was due the Dems that drew up the ballot in the first place. To your second point, are you suggesting that it would be okay for the US to invade Cuba, and force the Castro regime out of power? Afterall, history would suggest that those folks would like to leave, and we have this precedent now. And finally, my thinking on this is that there is enough blame to go around on both sides of the issue. However, trying to say it's okay for me to do X because Billy did it, doesn't seem like the position one would want to be making. Just my opinions, Thadius

meatcleaver -> RE: Russia invades Georgia (8/12/2008 6:02:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Under the same criteria the allies used at Nuremburg to try the NAZIs, the USA and UK invasion of Iraq was a war crime. The US might want to give Iraq back but it seems hell bent on making sure the Iraqis privatize their oil industry first and American companies having beneficial contracts. The majority of Iraqis believe the US invasion of their country was for oil, not to help them. This is the importance of adhering to international law, it gives one the moral highground when confronted with actions like what is happening in Georgia now. The west doesn't have any moral legitmacy in its disapproval of Russian action because it has acted illegaly for in its own self interest too. Please provide proof that the current conflict in Iraq is a violation of international law. Can you provide a link to your claim that "The majority of Iraqis believe the US invasion of their country was for oil, not to help them.". Comparing the Iraq conflict to what is going on in the current Georgia-Russian conflict, neglects another important issue. Regardless of which side of the debate you are on both sides have acted unilaterally. Where as in Iraq, there was a multinational cooperation. I do however agree with your points about the Balkens... and how it set precedent for the Russians to use it as a cover/reason. I said under the criteria of the Nuremburg trials, the invasion of Iraq is illegal. a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergIndictments.html You could read it yourself. As an occupying force, the pressuring of Iraq to privatise its oil industry and award American companies beneficial contracts could come under the plundering of property. Multi-national cooperation is irrelevent. The act of aggression is there. Britain's head legal officer said it was illegal under international law before he was improperly put under poltical pressure to change his advice to the British government. I'll look for the poll, it was in the same poll that said 66% of Iraqis didn't want foreign developement of their oil and a majority of parliament was against it. However, my whole point is that it is difficult to criticize such actions as Russia has taken when the west does exactly the same thing when it suits the west.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875