Excellent analysis of Putin's moves in Georgia

[GG]

? The issue in contention (which you raised in the first place) is not whether or not Russian troops were inside Georgia (they are) but whether or not they entered Gori (even the Georgians now admit they didn't).

Your original quote:

 

Go ahead and fight the semantical battle of whether Russian troops moved another mile or two within the Georgian sovereign property, the facts are - they bombed Gori, whether or not there was physical presence of foot soldiers inside Gori, they occupied other towns inside Georgia, they opened another front in Abkhazia, which to my recollection is nowhere near S Ossetia, and they blockaded Georgian ports. Call it what you want, but Russia got its war in Georgia.

[Fan in Chicago]

Go ahead and fight the semantical battle of whether Russian troops moved another mile or two within the Georgian sovereign property, the facts are - they bombed Gori, whether or not there was physical presence of foot soldiers inside Gori, they occupied other towns inside Georgia, they opened another front in Abkhazia, which to my recollection is nowhere near S Ossetia, and they blockaded Georgian ports. Call it what you want, but Russia got its war in Georgia.

 

Its over:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7555858.stm

 

According to a statement, Mr Medvedev told his defence minister and chief of staff that "the goal has been attained".

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announces the end of military operations

"I've decided to finish the operation to force the Georgian authorities to peace. The safety of our peacekeeping forces and civilian population has been restored," he said.

----------------------------

I am pretty sure the 'goal' was to clearly establish who the dominant power in the region is and to dissuade its neighbors from provoking Russsia in the future. Standard bullying tactics.

[finknottle]

I'm sure it has plenty to do with the pipeline. None of which changes the fact that it was stupid of Georgia to think they could attack South Ossetia without this sort of response from Russia. Did they think that Putin was so busy watching the Olympics that he wouldn't notice?

 

Agreed that they were probably ill-advised. But I want to nit-pick on wording. 'They mounted an offensive in South Ossetia, bringing in extra troops. As an area of Georgia, they had limited troops there under terms of a cease-fire (being violated by the insurgents). That, after all, is why there were Russian troops there too - they were obstensively 'peace keepers.' Attack South Ossetia suggests that this was an invasion rather than a civil war. They were attacking insurgents in South Ossetia.

 

If Pakistan moved regular army troops into the tribal areas to support their frontier forces, would we say it was an invasion or that they were attacking Northwest Frontier Province? No.

[finknottle]

Yeah how'd that work out for Carter anyway?

 

One brief moment of clarity amidst a lifetime of foolishness.

[blzrul]

So explain to me why Russia is any less "justified" to invade Georgia than the US to invade Iraq?

 

Depends on which side of the border you're on I suppose.

[finknottle]

Its over:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7555858.stm

 

According to a statement, Mr Medvedev told his defence minister and chief of staff that "the goal has been attained".

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announces the end of military operations

"I've decided to finish the operation to force the Georgian authorities to peace. The safety of our peacekeeping forces and civilian population has been restored," he said.

 

And this is precisely how you play the appeasers.

 

At the risk bringing up an example which officially marks the end of reasonable discourse in this thread, weren't similar statements issued after the Germans liberated the Sudentenland? Will the west write off Georgia and declare 'Peace in our Time?' After all, it's obvious the with their objectives met, the Russians have no further designs on Georgia, and certainly not on the Ukraine or elsewhere.

[finknottle]

So explain to me why Russia is any less "justified" to invade Georgia than the US to invade Iraq?

 

Depends on which side of the border you're on I suppose.

 

Remind me which UN sanctions Georgia was in violation of? Was it playing games with UN inspections, targeting UN-approved coalition planes? And what was it's track record as an international trouble-maker?

 

The following editorial might very well have been talking about you in their close:

 

The Russians have sized up the moral bankruptcy of the Western Left. They know that half-a-million Europeans would turn out to damn their patron the United States for removing a dictator and fostering democracy, but not more than a half-dozen would do the same to criticize their long-time enemy from bombing a constitutional state.

 

The Russians rightly expect Westerners to turn on themselves, rather than Moscow — and they won’t be disappointed. Imagine the morally equivalent fodder for liberal lament: We were unilateral in Iraq, so we can’t say Russia can’t do the same to Georgia. (As if removing a genocidal dictator is the same as attacking a democracy). We accepted Kosovo’s independence, so why not Ossetia’s? (As if the recent history of Serbia is analogous to Georgia’s.) We are still captive to neo-con fantasies about democracy, and so encouraged Georgia’s efforts that provoked the otherwise reasonable Russians (As if the problem in Ossetia is our principled support for democracy rather than appeasement of Russian dictatorship).

 

From what the Russians learned of the Western reaction to Iraq, they expect their best apologists will be American politicians, pundits, professors, and essayists — and once more they will not be disappointed. We are a culture, after all, that after damning Iraqi democracy as too violent, broke, and disorganized, is now damning Iraqi democracy as too conniving, rich, and self-interested — the only common denominator being whatever we do, and whomever we help, cannot be good.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDcwY...Yjg=&w=MA==

[chicot]

Remind me which UN sanctions Georgia was in violation of? Was it playing games with UN inspections, targeting UN-approved coalition planes? And what was it's track record as an international trouble-maker?

 

The following editorial might very well have been talking about you in their close:

 

 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDcwY...Yjg=&w=MA==

 

Remind me again whether or not the US invasion of Iraq was UN-approved. All this huffing and puffing about "UN sanctions", "UN inspections", "UN-approved coalition planes" but when the UN refuses to let the US have it's stupid war, it's to hell with the UN.

[erynthered]

It was only a matter of time before the retards switched this thread over to Iraq.

 

It was a good read for a while.

[blzrul]

It was only a matter of time before the retards switched this thread over to Iraq.

 

It was a good read for a while.

Now THERE's a well thought-out and articulate response. Characteristic of you of course. Poor, poor wingnut. If it's not black and white the exploding head comes into play. KaBOOM! And then we lash out.

 

And how typical once more that you use the label of handicapped person to denigrate people with whom you disagree. You some something against retarded people? It's not their fault. What about people with CP? MD? Cystis fibrosis? Do people in wheelchairs also disgust you? What about amputees - lord knows your President's helped create a whole bunch of them. Cancer patients? Lepers?

 

A sovereign nation invades a sovereign nation.

The invader thinks they're right. The invadee tends to disagree.

The invader has what they think are good reasons to invade. The invadee begs to differ.

[Joe Miner]

A sovereign nation invades a sovereign nation.

The invader thinks they're right. The invadee tends to disagree.

The invader has what they think are good reasons to invade. The invadee begs to differ.

 

What an incredibly ignorant way to look at both situations.

[GG]

A sovereign nation invades a sovereign nation.

The invader thinks they're right. The invadee tends to disagree.

The invader has what they think are good reasons to invade. The invadee begs to differ.

 

Welcome to the age old relativity test. Because you sleep soundly at night knowing that there's zero difference between a US invasion and a Russian invasion. It's all about criminal soldiers killing innocents, right? There's absolutely no compass of right & wrong, because everything is relative.

[erynthered]

Now THERE's a well thought-out and articulate response. Characteristic of you of course. Poor, poor wingnut. If it's not black and white the exploding head comes into play. KaBOOM! And then we lash out.

 

And how typical once more that you use the label of handicapped person to denigrate people with whom you disagree. You some something against retarded people? It's not their fault. What about people with CP? MD? Cystis fibrosis? Do people in wheelchairs also disgust you? What about amputees - lord knows your President's helped create a whole bunch of them. Cancer patients? Lepers?

 

A sovereign nation invades a sovereign nation.

The invader thinks they're right. The invadee tends to disagree.

The invader has what they think are good reasons to invade. The invadee begs to differ.

 

I like when you come calling after hearing your name. Kind of like a pet. Here retard!! Come're girl, Atta girl. Thanks for blowing a nice thread with your barking!! Here's a woofie!! Atta girl!!

 

BTW, Thanks for a well thought-out and articulate response. Get a grip.

[/dev/null]

And how typical once more that you use the label of handicapped person to denigrate people with whom you disagree. You some something against retarded people? It's not their fault.

 

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...5012974,00.html

 

Is that Nozzlenut holding a sign?

[erynthered]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...5012974,00.html

 

Is that Nozzlenut holding a sign?

 

 

See!! Its not my fault I used that word. Its Hollywood's fault.

 

 

<Liberal>

[blzrul]

Welcome to the age old relativity test. Because you sleep soundly at night knowing that there's zero difference between a US invasion and a Russian invasion. It's all about criminal soldiers killing innocents, right? There's absolutely no compass of right & wrong, because everything is relative.

 

America the Annointed, is that it?

 

Read much history?

[blzrul]

Remind me which UN sanctions Georgia was in violation of? Was it playing games with UN inspections, targeting UN-approved coalition planes? And what was it's track record as an international trouble-maker?

 

I believe is was the conservatives who stated that "the UN is irrelevant" when the UN objected to the proposed US invasion? So why cite it NOW?!

[finknottle]

Remind me again whether or not the US invasion of Iraq was UN-approved. All this huffing and puffing about "UN sanctions", "UN inspections", "UN-approved coalition planes" but when the UN refuses to let the US have it's stupid war, it's to hell with the UN.

 

An argument can (and was) made that the authorization stemmed from 1991; after all, that war had never been officially concluded, it was only a cease-fire. The UN never refused the US to have its stupid war - or can you point me to a resolution which says otherwise?

 

But regardless. You seem to be saying that all wars that are not explicitely UN sanctioned fall into the same moral equivalence, and that circumstances (the huffing and puffing about breaking sanctions, thwarting agreed-upon inspections, and past behavior) do not matter. As a logical consequence, no action or sanction of any kind against Russia, China, the US, or any other veto-wielding power can be deemed moral.

 

Good luck with that worldview.

[finknottle]

I believe is was the conservatives who stated that "the UN is irrelevant" when the UN objected to the proposed US invasion? So why cite it NOW?!

 

Because actions in defiance against the UN are still relevant in judging the behavior of a nation, just as are their actions in defiance of, say, the WTO or even the international copyright forum.

 

Luxembourg is irrelevant. But if another nation cheats on their agreements with them, it is still reasonable to use that fact to draw conclusions about the other country's behavior.

[finknottle]

Here's a interesting factoid I wasn't aware of:

 

McCain and Hillary Clinton nominated Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005.