America telling Russia how horrible it is to invade a country and topple a government etc? Telling them they can't dare do such a thing? I mean, just saying here.
I'm eye rolling and hard sighing every couple of minutes.
Printable View
America telling Russia how horrible it is to invade a country and topple a government etc? Telling them they can't dare do such a thing? I mean, just saying here.
I'm eye rolling and hard sighing every couple of minutes.
reminds me of that saying.."do as i say. not as i do"..
Yeah. I opposed both wars. Not that it matters. I'm speaking for posterity really. I still hope the US and Europe use other levers to back Russia down.
It stoped now... for now...
Yeah, thankfully. Georgia filed for ethnic cleansing charges at The Hague. Ukraine is asking for an interpretation: Russia's Black Sea Fleet stationed on its territory was used for acts of aggression against a sovereign country. The great game begins anew.Quote:
Originally Posted by OliX
I wonder if I can place bets in local bet office.
I would play 1x on Russia - Georgia
Damn me and my black humor.
Yeah, apparently Condeleeza said that if Russia wants to keep good relations with other countries, they shouldn't invade smaller countries like this. I mean, are you shittin' me or what?
Rice is a pathetic russophile. She was a "sovietologist" when there was such an area of study. She would suck Putin's dick if the mood struck him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax Knucklebones
Was surprised how strongly some of the old Clintonites came out against Putin:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081001870.html
oh well, the worlds a very fucked up place but it's the only one we have to live in so might as well learn to love it and accept that everything happens for a reason
since when hasn't it? always has, most likely always will.
But I see this as a positive sign for the future and perhaps a shift in politics toward doing a better job of handling international issues for the US.
I think this situation is in equal to complication as is the situations in Boznia, Serbia, etc. From what I can understand, Georgia as a government is just as wrong to be invading South Ossetia as Russia is for stopping them. I know that the Georgian's have accused Russia of setting up a puppet government for these people, however, a majority hold Russian Passports, and for all purposes seem to want their territory to be Russia rather than Georgia. Or even moreso, a seperate governing body to represent their ethnic group.
The fact is, the situation is more complicated than Russia decided to wake up today and go bomb Georgia for no reason. The stance is that it is an attempt to keep Georgia from ethnically cleansing South Ossetia.
Frankly, if an oil-rich zone wasn't involved, I don't think anyone would get a rats butt.
Thats another aspect that many have not look at, Wickedanima .As you have brought that to the light, that issue combined with Nato pushing into old soviet block nation. That would give Russia enough cause to do what they have done.
I do not think it is about the oil, is more of fact of the old fear of Russia. What ever Russia dose the will care for the most part.
Wickedanima, but Georgia isnt that rick in oil only about 35 million barrels in reserve compared to the proven reserves in the Ukraine 395,000,000. Take one Georgia neighbors Azerbaijan in proven oil reserves 7,000,000,000 . If Russia was going after oil, it would hit nations to east that are very rick in oil like Kazakhstan,Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan just to name a few. between those 3 maybe 10 billion barrels of oil.
South Ossetia is a part of Georgia. It is a breakaway region supported by Moscow. I wish Saakashvili had not taken the bait. To morally equate Georgia's actions with Russia's is simply disguisting, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickedanima
OEC
Also: Could I get an actual citation on who is accusing Georgia of "ethnically cleansing" South Ossetians? An objective source, not a Kremlin spokesperson. The world community is unified (albeit too passive) as to why Russia has invaded half of a sovereign nation and killed thousands of civilians of all ethnicities.
Emphasis mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by One Eyed Cat
So this is the key to all this, then?
To be honest, this does make Georgia's actions of equivalent nature. Any group of people should be able to declare independance of a nation that claims them; being 'part of Georgia' is merely a declaration from some unspoken authority of what the 'real' countries and borders are. This isn't about whether it's a nation invading another nation or a nation invading one of it's 'own' provinces; it's about a group of people invading another group of people that didn't want anything to do with the first group.
That argument is ridiculous. Within South Ossetia, there are Georgians and others who wish to remain citizens of that country. A group of rebel fighters killed civilians. Georgia responded. Russia then responded by taking over half the country of Georgia, Your argument may have some semblance of logic had they simply remained in South Ossetia. They did not. They are in control of most of the country. I would appreciate citations to Georgia's actual actions in the future. They do not stand accused of much of anything by anyone. Russia does,Quote:
Originally Posted by Raza
Thankfully, the world community has been more prudent. The situation dictates a response to Russia.
OEC
My argument is perfectly valid; you're just taking it to mean things it doesn't. I'm not arguing some generic 'pro russia' side in this; I'm making a specific point with specific implications to the nature of 'invasions' and the initiation of violence, resulting in the conclusion that in one specific respect the actions of Russia and Georgia are equivalent.
Now certainly, the fact that people occupying a certain area cannot agree on which country to be a part of makes the matter of drawing borders complicated - but again, that's a matter of drawing borders. As an anarchist I find those meaningless, so I don't. What matters is that we have a bunch of people seeking autonomy - where they do this is quite irrelevant - and a government looking to refuse this through violent force.
Certainly, if specific 'rebels' killed uninvolved 'civilians', this might warrant action by local collective security efforts against those individuals, but invading a locale to reassert your previously rejected jurisdiction is an entirely different matter and in no way justified for being preceded by such events. Russia then does the same thing on a larger scale, looking to 'right' a wrong simply by enforcing their 'justice' on the entire area through superior violent force.
We'll have to agree to disagree. The inviolability of territorial borders is a fundamental concept of international law. If you are an anarchist, you would reject this premise. I do understand this now that you've stated that fact. I can respect that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raza
You do seem to agree that Russia's actions were disproportionate. That is basically the consensus of the world community.
OEC
I should mention: While I staunchly opposed the Kosovo war, the U.S. did have U.N. Resolution 1244 as a sanction for the attack. Russia did not. Georgia also does not stand accused of much of anything akin to that conflict. There was a U.N. Resolution regarding Iraq, but no real sanction. That would be a better argument regarding U.S. hypocrisy.
I respect the fact that some may not recognize the validity of borders.
OEC
K.Quote:
Originally Posted by One Eyed Cat
This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_warQuote:
Originally Posted by One Eyed Cat
And very much I cannot tell you weather there is a Non-Russian sourse for this information. The fact is, from what I understand, there are just as many South Ossetian's that hold Russian Passports as those that want to be Georgian.
I understand your passion about the subject. ^_^ My Russian friend has been combing through YouTube to try and get better stories about what has been going on, and I'm afraid that in my opinion, you cannot credit Russia with being the BIG BADDY FROM HELL that one would want to believe. Georgia has made its fair share of blunders in this area, and frankly any situation like this is going to continue to be a huge mess.
I'll see if I can get a link, but she told me a story about this young soldier. As you know, young men get 'drafted' into a two year term into the Military. He was under the impression he was going to training for his term, but instead, he had a gun shoved in his hand. He wasn't even taught how to use it before he was ordered out into a town less than twenty miles from his home... and ordered to start shooting.
He and his platoon ran away and turned themselves into the Russian Army.
The bottom line is that there is NO good guy in war.
True! I have backtracked into my reading since then, and realized that the importance of oil was much more in the fact that Georgia is a main rout for oil to the West. My bad!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacchus88
My contention is more with the Russian invasion into Georgia proper. I don't see Georgia as unequivocally good or Russia as unequivocally bad. I appreciate the clarification though. I understand where you are coming from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickedanima
OEC
don't see the problem it wasn't the us who toppled a government it was a coalition and we had permission since iraq was breaking international rules
what did georgia do to russia?
to me it looks like more liberal baloney stretching things to try to make a weak point when the analogy is extremely weak
One could even make a similar argument for Russian hypocrisy. Chechnya wishes to be independent of the Russian Federation. Dagestan and Tatarstan may also. To solve this crisis: If the Russians are indeed for self-determination, why not allow a referendum in *all* their own provinces under international auspices. Each province could choose to remain in the Federation or become independent. A similar referenda could be held in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Will it happen? No. We may wish to ask ourselves why, however. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by bohoki
OEC
PS: To answer your question: UN Resolution 1441 did not give anyone the right to a military attack on Iraq. The exact wording was "serious consequences". 1244 gave direct permission in Kosovo/Serbia. I opposed both wars. While everyone knew Iraq would be invaded, there was never an unequivocal declaration of support by the UN or any other international body.
never been to russia or georgia, so can't really form an opinion
Actually I agree with you, in theory. But you seem to make a lot of idealogical cases, that don't match up very well with the pragmatic solution. The problem with anarchism is that it doesn't work very well for people that don't believe in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raza
I said before that it would be an entirely different situation if S. Ossetia was merely seeking independence, but it's more complicated than that.
the problem is that you have three different groups claiming that they have the right to the land.
So who really has the right? and if no one has the right, then which actions are justified? and if no actions are justified, then what is the solution?
No system will work for populations that don't understand and support it at least to the degree that they are required to participate; yet all currently popular systems overcame that in order to rise to popularity in the first place. I can only presume that this happened at least partially because people promoted them before they were well-known enough to be practical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
Right actions and wrong actions can be distinguished through interpersonal ethic without requiring the people involved to sit sorted in little metaphorical boxed of land. Simply ignore any borders that may or may not be there by whomever's reconing and see what the people are doing to eachother. My system would be that actions are right by default, and injust on the condition that they forcefully intervene in another individual's freedom to make use of actions that fall under the default of right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
No one has a 'right' to land (I find it a rather silly notion that us humans aught to go and divide the rest of the universe up between ourselves), although arguably they may each have a right to a proportional amount of space for their living needs. This should be easily taken care of merely refering to standard interpersonal ethics though, considering the place isn't all that densely populated.
If this has been an attempt to "test the waters" of the possibility for future defections of regional territories, I'd say that it's a pretty clear message what kind of fight they will have ahead of them. the response has been to mitigate things back to more or less the status quo, but hasn't really addressed the underlying issue, which I suppose is the point.