Are the Russians justified in attacking Georgia?
-
Actually, he have a point.
Bassam Saoud wrote:
Actually, he have a point
Hard to spot the point, but assuming it's why should we help stop an invasion where innocents are getting killed, I think my phrasing expresses my opinion. Doesn't matter to me whether it's Georgians attacking Osettians or Russians attacking Georgians, I think France should get up off its ass and help the US and the UK try to stop the bloodshed. Of course, strictly speaking Sarkozy has been trying to do that and deserves props, even though, so far, he's failed miserably.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Bassam Saoud wrote:
Actually, he have a point
Hard to spot the point, but assuming it's why should we help stop an invasion where innocents are getting killed, I think my phrasing expresses my opinion. Doesn't matter to me whether it's Georgians attacking Osettians or Russians attacking Georgians, I think France should get up off its ass and help the US and the UK try to stop the bloodshed. Of course, strictly speaking Sarkozy has been trying to do that and deserves props, even though, so far, he's failed miserably.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Well the French worked out that cease fire right? The French foriegn policy with Sarkozy I would say is more than great.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
against an illegal and unjustified invasion of a sovereign country?"
Well, I suppose it's good that one of us has enough interest in this conversation to look up the quote. And you agree that you answered with a laughter icon, too, right?
oilFactotum wrote:
Any time you want to have an adult converstion, let me know.
So you can start calling me a "tool" and other such adult conversational ploys? Like what-- a "wrench?" a "pencil sharpener?" I'm not sure I'm ready for your brand of adult conversation. Maybe I should go talk to my great niece for practice. . . . "A bottle opener?"
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Since you have shown yourself unwilling to engage in honest, adult conversation - we're done. Good bye.
-
Well the French worked out that cease fire right? The French foriegn policy with Sarkozy I would say is more than great.
-
Since you have shown yourself unwilling to engage in honest, adult conversation - we're done. Good bye.
oilFactotum wrote:
Since you have shown yourself unwilling to engage in honest, adult conversation
Are you upset because I didn't call you a tool?
oilFactotum wrote:
Good bye.
Okay, Okay - you're a tool!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
given how the Georgians have been treating South Ossetians recently.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
No. I don't think for a single second that Putin has any interest in the people of South Ossetia, except as convenient pawns in his latest "game". Make no mistake, that's exactly what's going on in the Caucasus - a return to Cold War style power plays, and sod everyone who gets in his way. He's testing boundaries, knowing full well that Russian support is going to be needed to deal with Iran, the coming reliance on Russian energy and finance in Europe and the fact that Russia has huge reserves of oil. Not to mention the fact that Western governments would seek a diplomatic settlement rather than risk an armed conflict - and the ultimate destruction of Humanity on this planet (anybody actually think nuclear disarmament actually happened?) Just look at the other things he's been up to: Executing Russian "dissidents" on foreign soil. Executing out-spoken journalists on home soil. Chechnya... to name but three and could think of on the spot. If he was interested in protecting South Ossetia he would have gone to the UN and sought international support and condemnation of Georgia. But he isn't, so didn't. In many ways he's far more dangerous than Khrushchev ever was, because he holds more cards in his hand and not just the nuclear deterrent. He's also quite clearly insane.
***The collected future Mrs. Martin Hughes*** Foreign Policy
-
Bassam Saoud wrote:
Well the French worked out that cease fire right?
Now if only the Russians weren't still invading, taking prisoners and destroying property . . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
So its the French fault that Rusians are.... It seems you have a thing for the French
-
given how the Georgians have been treating South Ossetians recently.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
There's no question that 1:1 French soldiers can be equally brave, foolhardy, noble, base, cowardly, effective, or bumbling as any other nation's troops. In WWII they often fought well - more often for the Nazis than for the Allies, but well, nevertheless. However, time and again, The French generals have shown themselves to be vain, pompous, short-sighted, and incompetent. Thus the French has developed a deserved reputation for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The death of any man is to be regretted, unless he is a criminal like Bin Laden. Those ten soldiers who died today were brave men who lost their lives in a strange and unfriendly land. They may have become soldiers for the money, or national pride, or a desire to make the world safer. It does not matter. They deserve respect and mourning. They will be buried with honors but it will not comfort their families much. Does your concern for these soldiers and their deaths mean you will no longer use laughter icons when referring to the invasion of Georgia?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
French generals have shown themselves to be vain, pompous, short-sighted, and incompetent
Yeah but they make great hairdressers!
Mark Brock "We're definitely not going to make a G or a PG version of this. It's not PillowfightCraft." -- Chris Metzen Click here to view my blog
-
No. I don't think for a single second that Putin has any interest in the people of South Ossetia, except as convenient pawns in his latest "game". Make no mistake, that's exactly what's going on in the Caucasus - a return to Cold War style power plays, and sod everyone who gets in his way. He's testing boundaries, knowing full well that Russian support is going to be needed to deal with Iran, the coming reliance on Russian energy and finance in Europe and the fact that Russia has huge reserves of oil. Not to mention the fact that Western governments would seek a diplomatic settlement rather than risk an armed conflict - and the ultimate destruction of Humanity on this planet (anybody actually think nuclear disarmament actually happened?) Just look at the other things he's been up to: Executing Russian "dissidents" on foreign soil. Executing out-spoken journalists on home soil. Chechnya... to name but three and could think of on the spot. If he was interested in protecting South Ossetia he would have gone to the UN and sought international support and condemnation of Georgia. But he isn't, so didn't. In many ways he's far more dangerous than Khrushchev ever was, because he holds more cards in his hand and not just the nuclear deterrent. He's also quite clearly insane.
***The collected future Mrs. Martin Hughes*** Foreign Policy
martin_hughes wrote:
Make no mistake, that's exactly what's going on in the Caucasus - a return to Cold War style power plays....
and just as in the past, as you can tell from the "1" votes on this thread, he has the same useful idiots siding with him. I do have to thank him though, I believe it'll help elect John McCain.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
So its the French fault that Rusians are.... It seems you have a thing for the French
Bassam Saoud wrote:
So its the French fault that Rusians are....
abso-fucking-lutely. The moronic "cease fire" permitted Russia Putin to interpret the language such that he could keep invaders on Georgian land until the French grew balls.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Bassam Saoud wrote:
So its the French fault that Rusians are....
abso-fucking-lutely. The moronic "cease fire" permitted Russia Putin to interpret the language such that he could keep invaders on Georgian land until the French grew balls.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
abso-f***ing-lutely
:laugh: :laugh:
-
No. I don't think for a single second that Putin has any interest in the people of South Ossetia, except as convenient pawns in his latest "game". Make no mistake, that's exactly what's going on in the Caucasus - a return to Cold War style power plays, and sod everyone who gets in his way. He's testing boundaries, knowing full well that Russian support is going to be needed to deal with Iran, the coming reliance on Russian energy and finance in Europe and the fact that Russia has huge reserves of oil. Not to mention the fact that Western governments would seek a diplomatic settlement rather than risk an armed conflict - and the ultimate destruction of Humanity on this planet (anybody actually think nuclear disarmament actually happened?) Just look at the other things he's been up to: Executing Russian "dissidents" on foreign soil. Executing out-spoken journalists on home soil. Chechnya... to name but three and could think of on the spot. If he was interested in protecting South Ossetia he would have gone to the UN and sought international support and condemnation of Georgia. But he isn't, so didn't. In many ways he's far more dangerous than Khrushchev ever was, because he holds more cards in his hand and not just the nuclear deterrent. He's also quite clearly insane.
***The collected future Mrs. Martin Hughes*** Foreign Policy
martin_hughes wrote:
He's also quite clearly insane.
I think not, and not only that, I think he is good for Russia. He is turned it around from being a corpse that western companies and the mafia crowed over as they georged themselves stupid. He stopped that. He has made it increasingly difficult for western companies to operate and taken back a lot that went into private hands after the collapse of comunism. The result is that Russia has no national debt, massive reserves, and a strong confident leader. His mistake is that he doesnt have to behave so ruthlessly at home and abroad since generally he had I would say fairly wide support in both. Suppport that is now fading.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
given how the Georgians have been treating South Ossetians recently.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I find that international politics works on power equations and public opinion in respective countries, not on whether something is justified or not. Georgia (mis)calculated that Russia would not hastily launch a military campaign because of its close relations with the NATO; probably they felt that the resistance could be quenched while Russia works on a diplomatic solution. Local self-governance that satisfies local population is the only alternative to full freedom. Georgia would have done well if they had negotiated autonomous province arrangements with the resistance groups in South Ossetia and Abkhazia instead of moving military in there. Of course, Georgia has offered large degree of autonomy before; but I still feel that military action was irresponsible considering Russian proximity and interest in these regions. My point is that no one will (or want to) take on Russia militarily, and they know that. Even if the rest of the world agrees that Russia is not right, retaliation will be limited to a few stern warnings from USA, NATO etc. When US went into war in Iraq with just a few countries backing it, US also knew that opposition would be just a few statements made by head of states, and that too will subside over time.
-
Rob Caldecott wrote:
How is this different to Kosovo
Lets talk timeline Milosevic sent troops into Kosovo in February; In March (but not one month but thirteen months later)after repeated peace talks are held in Paris and in Serbia but which lead no-where because the Serb parliament refuses to permit NATO peacekeepers in Kosovo, NATO authorised air-strikes -- but no repeat NO invasion of Yugoslavia. As soon as Yugoslavia begins the withdrawal of their troops from Kosovo, the air-strike are ended. So let me ask: Except to a blind, deaf, and dumb bleeding heart, How the fuck are they similar?!!!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Lets talk timeline
OK. The war between Serbia and NATO ended in 1999. As a result, Serbian forces were pulled-out of Kosovo and NATO peacekeepers entered that region. (I'm not asking you here whether on not NATO air-strike was authorised by the UN) The war between Georgions and Ossetians ended in 1992, Georgians were pulled-out and Russian peacekeepers entered South Ossetia region right after that. Now, imagine for a second, that a few hours ago Serbian forces invaded Kosovo trying to gain control of that region and already killed dozen of NATO peacekeepers along with hundreds of Kosovar civilians. So let me ask: how fast would react NATO in this case? Would it wait another thirteen months to start figthing Serbs?
Regards, Nikolay
-
fat_boy wrote:
Putting a soldier in a tank in a foreign country
Not if you have given him orders to withdraw, as the Russians have been claiming they were doing for a week.
fat_boy wrote:
Like wise I am sure the behaviour of some troops in Iraq is not US policy.
If I remember correctly, the majority of Iraqis greeted the US and UK as liberators. (Yes, the situation changed because of the idiotic mistakes made by the US.) Have you seem lots of footage of Georgians greeting the Russians with open arms? Perhaps you could point us to a website showing Russian troops handing out candy bars to the kids - as opposed to running them down with their tanks.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
If I remember correctly, the majority of Iraqis greeted the US and UK as liberators.
Seems like your memory fails you. :)
Oakman wrote:
Have you seem lots of footage of Georgians greeting the Russians with open arms?
Are you kidding? Why should they greet Russians? Or did Serbian kids greet Americans for bombing Serbia? As far as Ossetian kids, yes, they are greeting Russians.
Regards, Nikolay
-
I find that international politics works on power equations and public opinion in respective countries, not on whether something is justified or not. Georgia (mis)calculated that Russia would not hastily launch a military campaign because of its close relations with the NATO; probably they felt that the resistance could be quenched while Russia works on a diplomatic solution. Local self-governance that satisfies local population is the only alternative to full freedom. Georgia would have done well if they had negotiated autonomous province arrangements with the resistance groups in South Ossetia and Abkhazia instead of moving military in there. Of course, Georgia has offered large degree of autonomy before; but I still feel that military action was irresponsible considering Russian proximity and interest in these regions. My point is that no one will (or want to) take on Russia militarily, and they know that. Even if the rest of the world agrees that Russia is not right, retaliation will be limited to a few stern warnings from USA, NATO etc. When US went into war in Iraq with just a few countries backing it, US also knew that opposition would be just a few statements made by head of states, and that too will subside over time.
Well said. Apparently, you take a sober view of things. My respect.
Regards, Nikolay
-
Your entire post reads like it was written by Adnan. You have got even the incoherence down pat.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Attacking ad hominen won't make you right, it only shows you have no real argument. Georgia attacks russian civilians. Russia counterattacks, and then we are supposed to protect Georgia. Tailban's Afghanistan did attack american civilians. USA counterattacked, are we supposed to protect Taliban's Afghanistan?
If you kill a whale, you get Greenpeace and Jacques Cousteau on your back, but wipe out sardines and you get a canning subsidy!
-
Ka?l wrote:
why should we help Georgia, a country which deliberately chose to use force and shell civilians?
remember that. God only knows, no one would expect the French to help anyone.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
no one would expect the French to help anyone.
AFAIK more than 30,000 french troops are overseas: in Lebanon, in Afghanistan, in Bosnia, in Ivory coast and many other places. I know, it's hard for you to go over your racist prejudices, but I would suggest you to get a little more info before making such statements that could only lead one to consider you as an imbecile.
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
-
Ka?l wrote:
Why should they be denied the right to self-determination?
They shouldn't. My point is that Putin used them as bait, but this doesn't make their wish less legitimate. However, as a side comment: is there anything more typically Caucasian, Middle Eastern and Balkan than "consider themselves as different people"? I mean in the western side of the world (the Americas) different people can get along very well. In the Balkans, Caucasus and Middle East they seem to be always on the verge of cutting their neighbors throat just because they have a different language, religion or ethnicity. I think the "Old World" of Europe, Caucasus, Central Asia and Middle East has a lot to learn from us in the "New World", from Canada to Argentina.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
Diego Moita wrote:
I mean in the western side of the world (the Americas) different people can get along very well
Was there no nationalistic war ever in South America?
Diego Moita wrote:
I think the "Old World" of Europe, Caucasus, Central Asia and Middle East has a lot to learn from us in the "New World", from Canada to Argentina.
Exterminating local populations before creating new societies could be a solution, but it would be a little bit too radical.
Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall? Fold with us! ¤ flickr