War in Georgia

A place to relocate messages and threads that should be deleted.
Locked
Uli
Enthusiast
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: U.S.

Re: War in Georgia

Post by Uli »

Yuri wrote:
phylo_roadking wrote:
Every country that Russia lands in they end up staying and occupying....Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc....
And that is still happening - the Russian navy in the Ukraine? And did those rusting ships ever come home from Angola and Mozambique after the Cold War?

Regarding the withdrawal - there have AT LAST been significant withdrawals in the last 48 hours - only five days late - BUT what's more important now is the ommissions. The Russians seem intent of creating a permanent security zone for themsleves ACROSS the South Ossetian border i.e. in Georgia...and there are places where there is as yet NO withdrawal. One of these is the port of Poti which is going to be a major issue. The Rusian position is that the French-brokered ceasefire allows them to...whereas the rest of the world's interpretation INCLUDING the French is that the "security zone" the ceasefire talked about was the joint security zone ALREADY in place inside South Ossetia, the one shared previously by Russia and Georgia.
Into my intentions does not enter to offend you. Absolutely is not present. However I am compelled to tell directly, that all that you here speak it nonsense. Thus I clearly understand, that you the person not the silly. All the matter is that you base your judgements about occurring events exclusively under messages of the western propagation. Differently your nonsense is a consequence of the massed influence on your brain of the western propagation.
First, why «after five days»? Whence you it took?
Secondly, safety zones are defined in 1992, that is sixteen years ago. And at the desire of the Georgian party. Difference of a present situation consists that before at these safety zones were present (along with Russian and Osset to peacemakers) as also the Georgian peacemakers. Now (as the Georgian peacemakers discredited, having opened shooting on Russian peacemakers) in safety zones the Georgian will not be.
Before to hurl serious charges towards Russian, you should study thoroughly the nature and history of conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Besides, for objectively judgement it is necessary to consider chronology of events strictly. If it not to observe, will be constantly trapped (differently, you constantly will look a fool).
Please, keep in mind, that Russian have possibility to know all (literally all), that writes in newspapers and shows on TV the western propagation about Russia. On the other hand, inhabitants of the western countries has no possibility to read and see how the Russian propagation shines these events. Differently, Russian see as shine events both parties whereas inhabitants of the western countries are deprived such possibility. Besides Russian have possibility to communicate with witnesses directly.
That is why, yours sincere indignation about "dishonesty" of Russian, for people informed simply ridiculously.



Very good points, Yuri. Praise be, it seems as if your arguments have finally bought the farm, Phylo and Sniper:

The Russians were merely defending their southern border with Georgia, and I'm with them on this one. You can call them untrustworthy until the cows come home, Sniper, but, as Hans noted, you'll similarly need to lay question to American and British dishonesty in countless wars and international conflicts through the centuries, if indeed you're genuinely attempting to be objective on this matter.

Once again, a basic starter course for the two here who can't seem to get their chronology in line:

The U.S. for years has been badgering numerous former Soviet republics and satellites to enter NATO, to entertain the idea of emplacing "defensive" missiles (and, of course, at least a minimal compliment of American 'technicians' and 'advisors' in order to help maintain them). Russia, still trying to rebuild in the wake of the Gorbachev years, has for nearly two decades undergone a tremendous degree of taunting from the West (in this case, the U.S--"We won the Cold War!" "Our way of life is best!! "Live like us or fail!!!" rah, rah, rah....)

I've long been a diehard American patriot, but not the kind that's so blind that I can't look to a former enemy with an outstretched hand. Instead of working to befriend Moscow in the wake of the "end" of the Cold War, we've merely continued to poke our finger in her eye by working to encircle Russia, as if the Cold War had never truly ended.

The Georgians, mistakenly sensing Russian weakness and foolishly believing they had Washington at their backs of late, brazenly attacked Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia rightly intervened on her own terms. The U.S., with egg on our face, attempted threats, cajoling, gentle persuasion and humiliation in order to gain a quick Russian exit, and all to no avail. Instead, Moscow patiently mopped Georgia's floor as we impotently stood by, hand-cuffed by our over-extension in countries wielding no direct impact on our rise or fall. This is precisely what we get for our arrogance and our increasing adventurism in other peoples' business.

I say, chalk one up for the Russians here. The loss of Georgia will have no real bearing on the U.S., outside of a diplomatic black-eye, but it's good to finally see someone stand up to GW Bush and say, "We're here, and there's not but a damned little bit you can do about it."

Even today U.S. newspapers were reporting that the 'loss' of Georgia to the Russians imperils all of Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and the Baltic states. I say to Washington: "How so, precisely?"
Erwin Leibold 26.7.1942
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Re: War in Georgia

Post by phylo_roadking »

Obviously you have neither read my reply to you, NOR my reply to Yuri. But that is par for the course.
you'll similarly need to lay question to American and British dishonesty in countless wars and international conflicts through the centuries, if indeed you're genuinely attempting to be objective on this matter
Do you actually see anywhere on Feldgrau where I for one DON'T question it in past events??? No, i didn't think so.
a basic starter course for the two here who can't seem to get their chronology in line
And it would appear you are referring to yourself and one other, whoever...for
The U.S. for years has been badgering numerous former Soviet republics and satellites to enter NATO
Perhaps it WOULD be a good idea for you to do some checking and find out just WHO made the first diplomatic overtures in the various nations in question? :wink: You'll find in a lot of cases NATO put off decisions on new full members for YEARS, in some cases over a decade.
to entertain the idea of emplacing "defensive" missiles
"Numerous" former USSR republics and satellites? So - exactly HOW many have been officially requested to consider doing so???
The Georgians, mistakenly sensing Russian weakness and foolishly believing they had Washington at their backs of late, brazenly attacked Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Have you seen any disagreement with that?
Russia rightly intervened on her own terms.
That's the first problem - right there. "On her own terms" Right at the very beginning - Georgia made a mistake; they breached an internationally-brokered accord on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. But RUSSIA ALSO made a mistake by breaching the internationally-brokered accord to reply. Russia's actions were NOT automatically rendered legally or morally right by Georgia's. The accord gave them rights of action right up to the South Ossetian border...but NOT over it.
as we impotently stood by, hand-cuffed by our over-extension in countries wielding no direct impact on our rise or fall.
No disagreement with that at all.
the 'loss' of Georgia to the Russians imperils all of Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and the Baltic states. I say to Washington: "
Because there are a WHOLE raft of newly-independent and sovereign nations that the Russian government never wanted to be so. NOW they have taken offensive military action in ONE without any real comeback except opprobium. LOTS of if maybe - but nothing "real".

A number of posters here seem to regard this as the US versus Russia. It's not as entangled AND at the same time not as clearcut as that. It doesn't matter who SHOULD or SHOULDN'T or COULDN'T help Georgia...that is only ONE side of a multi-sided problem.

It's that Russia shouldn'y have done what IT did. On the first day of the incident - they were in the right; but they pushed TOO far beyond any freedom of action the accord on South Ossetia gave them - JUST the same as the US and its allies did with the ORIGINAL UN Resolution on Iraq...in 2001. The accord gave them the right to safeguard South Ossetians who were Russian citizens - it did NOT give them the right to invade another sovereign country to do it. JUST like the US, they chose not to stop where legal provision ran out and "main force" applied.

To say they had the right to do so, and have the right to occupy Georgian territory that is NOT part of South Ossetia or Abkahzia - is like saying - "Your Honour, I had told the kid next door not to come into my garden if he kicked the ball over the fence. He did, and he came to get it - so I was perfectly within my legal rights to go round to my neighbour's garden without HIS permission and beat the living daylights out of his kid...and THEN move the fence five feet over."
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Yuri
Supporter
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:55 am

Re: War in Georgia

Post by Yuri »

phylo_roadking wrote: To say they had the right to do so, and have the right to occupy Georgian territory that is NOT part of South Ossetia or Abkahzia - is like saying - "Your Honour, I had told the kid next door not to come into my garden if he kicked the ball over the fence. He did, and he came to get it - so I was perfectly within my legal rights to go round to my neighbour's garden without HIS permission and beat the living daylights out of his kid...and THEN move the fence five feet over."
Analogies are not present.
In such cases Russian usually speak - it is not necessary to confuse a horse-radish to a radish.
The Georgian army not in a ball played- the Georgian army killed people. And it, you see, things a little various.
If the thief tries to pull out imperceptibly from your pocket a purse you has the right to decorate a muzzle to this mister. It is possible is assured to expect, that the judge will justify you and will not plant in prison for drawing of physical injuries to this unlucky the pilferer. But if the pilferer is started up on has flowed away and you catch up with it and will kill, you are threatened with prison.
On the other hand, if the robber tries to pierce your throat a knife and, to take hold of your car and to clear contents of your pockets you have the right (if, of course, at you it turns out) to start up to it a bullet in a forehead from a pistol (if it at you, fortunately, is). And in this case even the bad lawyer will rescue you from prison.

The Georgian army in our case operated not as your playful child and not as the small pilferer and as the tyrant and the murderer operates. You suggest Russian to apply against well armed tyrants and in murderers of means who usually apply against playful children. You either the naive person or the big joker.
I sharply condemn president Medvedev that it has allowed the order of Russian army to stop, not having caught Saakashvili. Before to disengage armies from Georgia, it was necessary to catch this mister, to result in capital of South Ossetia and impale on the central square of the Tskhinvali destroyed and plundered by the Georgian army. However, Medvedev at the moment the Supreme commander in chief armed forces of Russia and I will obey to its order.
User avatar
sniper1shot
Moderator
Posts: 1438
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:56 pm
Location: Canada

Re: War in Georgia

Post by sniper1shot »

http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=36136

Read the last 3 paragraphes.

Apparently the ceasefire that the Russians signed differs from what the Western, French and Georgian forces signed (or are aware of) I know the Western forces didn't sign anything. Hmmmm
Only he is lost who gives himself up as lost.
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Re: War in Georgia

Post by phylo_roadking »

Yuri, am I to presume from your last sentence that your in the Russian Army?
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Uli
Enthusiast
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: U.S.

Re: War in Georgia

Post by Uli »

phylo_roadking wrote:Obviously you have neither read my reply to you, NOR my reply to Yuri. But that is par for the course.
you'll similarly need to lay question to American and British dishonesty in countless wars and international conflicts through the centuries, if indeed you're genuinely attempting to be objective on this matter
Do you actually see anywhere on Feldgrau where I for one DON'T question it in past events??? No, i didn't think so.
a basic starter course for the two here who can't seem to get their chronology in line
And it would appear you are referring to yourself and one other, whoever...for
The U.S. for years has been badgering numerous former Soviet republics and satellites to enter NATO
Perhaps it WOULD be a good idea for you to do some checking and find out just WHO made the first diplomatic overtures in the various nations in question? :wink: You'll find in a lot of cases NATO put off decisions on new full members for YEARS, in some cases over a decade.
to entertain the idea of emplacing "defensive" missiles
"Numerous" former USSR republics and satellites? So - exactly HOW many have been officially requested to consider doing so???
The Georgians, mistakenly sensing Russian weakness and foolishly believing they had Washington at their backs of late, brazenly attacked Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Have you seen any disagreement with that?
Russia rightly intervened on her own terms.
That's the first problem - right there. "On her own terms" Right at the very beginning - Georgia made a mistake; they breached an internationally-brokered accord on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. But RUSSIA ALSO made a mistake by breaching the internationally-brokered accord to reply. Russia's actions were NOT automatically rendered legally or morally right by Georgia's. The accord gave them rights of action right up to the South Ossetian border...but NOT over it.
as we impotently stood by, hand-cuffed by our over-extension in countries wielding no direct impact on our rise or fall.
No disagreement with that at all.
the 'loss' of Georgia to the Russians imperils all of Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and the Baltic states. I say to Washington: "
Because there are a WHOLE raft of newly-independent and sovereign nations that the Russian government never wanted to be so. NOW they have taken offensive military action in ONE without any real comeback except opprobium. LOTS of if maybe - but nothing "real".

A number of posters here seem to regard this as the US versus Russia. It's not as entangled AND at the same time not as clearcut as that. It doesn't matter who SHOULD or SHOULDN'T or COULDN'T help Georgia...that is only ONE side of a multi-sided problem.

It's that Russia shouldn'y have done what IT did. On the first day of the incident - they were in the right; but they pushed TOO far beyond any freedom of action the accord on South Ossetia gave them - JUST the same as the US and its allies did with the ORIGINAL UN Resolution on Iraq...in 2001. The accord gave them the right to safeguard South Ossetians who were Russian citizens - it did NOT give them the right to invade another sovereign country to do it. JUST like the US, they chose not to stop where legal provision ran out and "main force" applied.

To say they had the right to do so, and have the right to occupy Georgian territory that is NOT part of South Ossetia or Abkahzia - is like saying - "Your Honour, I had told the kid next door not to come into my garden if he kicked the ball over the fence. He did, and he came to get it - so I was perfectly within my legal rights to go round to my neighbour's garden without HIS permission and beat the living daylights out of his kid...and THEN move the fence five feet over."
Wasted talk and energy, my boy:

For several pages you've essentially implied that the Russians are untrustworthy and unfairly labeled them unwarrantedly militarily aggressive. Sniper's done the same, and yet when others (including Yuri) have called you on your opinion of Russian military and diplomatic tactics both past and present, you alternately become angry, insolent, or patronizing. Sure sign of a weak argument.

Correction on one of your latest items:

Russia performed the military operation on her own terms and won handily. Had she not done so--indeed had she relied on the U.S.', NATO's, and international opinion or permission--nothing would likely have been accomplished in neutralizing Georgian aggression against Abkhazia and Ossetia. What likely most rankles the West (in this case, the U.S.) is that the Russians don't put up with the kind of political garbage Western nations live for--that is, Russian troops quickly went in, efficiently did their job, and the book has since largely been closed. Meanwhile, American and British "peacekeeping" forces in the Middle East will waste countless years, blood, and money on operations that often prove only marginally successful at best.

What I find most irritating is American insistence that Russia's move into Georgia was "unlawful," "calculated," "overtly aggressive," "...a sign that the Russian [Soviet] imperialist bear is still out there," and other such nonsense. One, we Americans are no longer in a position to criticize the aggressiveness of others, nor are we fit to moralize on their behavior.

Truth is, the U.S. and Britain since the USSR's collapse have been the two most militarily aggressive nations on earth, and in 1982 the British ventured well beyond Russia's exercise of authority in Georgia when she bloodily re-captured the distant and insignificant Falkland Islands in the wake of foreign invasion. Seldom did any nation have more to lose and less to gain during any campaign than Britain. Granted the British move was very courageous, but for what tangible result?

U.S. condemnation of Russia's military move into Georgia rang hollowly, and Moscow rightly knew it. Instead of limiting herself due to outside pressure, Russia knew what was required in effectively dealing with Georgia, and she took immediate and effective--indeed surprisingly bloodless--action. One can only wish that the U.S. and the West still possessed similar determination. But yet as Solzhenitsyn once famously noted, we don't--as Mid-East terrorists know all too well.

GW Bush would do well to go back to doing what he does best--managing professional baseball teams to mediocre records. And the West should forgo encircling and threatening Russia through our equipping, advising, and otherwise false reassurance her neighbors. Indeed an attempt to undermine Russia's influence in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe aren't what any reasonable observer might call a prelude or pretense to peace on our part.
Erwin Leibold 26.7.1942
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Re: War in Georgia

Post by phylo_roadking »

Uli - you insist on missing the point.
unfairly labeled them unwarrantedly militarily aggressive.
Frankly - there's nothing wrong with being militarily aggressive. But it's a REALLY good idea to do so in the context all any international agreements or regulations pertaining to a specific area or situation....The Russians took warranted military action to keep the peace In the peace-keeping zone in South Ossetia - the moment they invaded another country who's frontiers they had agreeed to respect they were in the wrong.
the Russians are untrustworthy
Russian government and military spokesmen have consistently been proven by events and evidence on the ground to have lied throughout the last two weeks.
she not done so--indeed had she relied on the U.S.', NATO's, and international opinion or permission--nothing would likely have been accomplished in neutralizing Georgian aggression
THAT argument has absolutely nothing to do with the situation. WHY would Russia rely on those? She did in deed prove quite capable of keeping the peace IN South Ossetia. It was the invasion of Georgia that was wrong.
Meanwhile, American and British "peacekeeping" forces in the Middle East will waste countless years, blood, and money on operations that often prove only marginally successful at best.
And they are as wrong being there as the Russians are in Georgia.
American insistence that Russia's move into Georgia was "unlawful,"
I know you're American, and I know everyone else is a second-class human - but, haven't you noticed? It's the rest of the world that's saying it too. This is NOT an "American" vs Russia thing. Remove your blinkers.
One, we Americans are no longer in a position to criticize the aggressiveness of others, nor are we fit to moralize on their behavior.
Quite right - but TWO wrongs do not make one right....
in 1982 the British ventured well beyond Russia's exercise of authority in Georgia when she bloodily re-captured the distant and insignificant Falkland Islands in the wake of foreign invasion. Seldom did any nation have more to lose and less to gain during any campaign than Britain. Granted the British move was very courageous, but for what tangible result?
If you really don't know - ask the Kelpers that...
when others (including Yuri) have called you on your opinion of Russian military and diplomatic tactics both past and present
Actually - I don't see Yuri calling me on MY opinion of those. I see HIS opinion - i think. but I don't see any calling or real challenging of mine - for he like you, chooses NOT to engage me on either my opinions or the relevent points. In HIS case it's BECAUSE of his difference viewpoint, but in your case....?
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Uncle Joe
Enthusiast
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 5:04 pm
Location: Eastern Finland

Re: War in Georgia

Post by Uncle Joe »

phylo, why do you keep insisting on how "world" does this or that? The "world" is not the same as media that walks to the tune of Washington. The true character of Washignton aims were quite clearly revealed by the pig-eyed skank ho Condi who not too long ago made a statement on US aims to "contain" "the Soviet Union"...Indeed, the latter word was used. The Finnish military author Lt.Col. Sampo Ahto wrote recently that US actions in the Caucasus are just another example of classic encirclement strategy. It is also worth noting that the Bush senior´s administration assured the Russians with the mouth of James Baker that US will NOT try to extend its inföuence to former Soviet states.
Uli
Enthusiast
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: U.S.

Re: War in Georgia

Post by Uli »

phylo_roadking wrote:Uli - you insist on missing the point.
unfairly labeled them unwarrantedly militarily aggressive.
Frankly - there's nothing wrong with being militarily aggressive. But it's a REALLY good idea to do so in the context all any international agreements or regulations pertaining to a specific area or situation....The Russians took warranted military action to keep the peace In the peace-keeping zone in South Ossetia - the moment they invaded another country who's frontiers they had agreeed to respect they were in the wrong.
the Russians are untrustworthy
Russian government and military spokesmen have consistently been proven by events and evidence on the ground to have lied throughout the last two weeks.
she not done so--indeed had she relied on the U.S.', NATO's, and international opinion or permission--nothing would likely have been accomplished in neutralizing Georgian aggression
THAT argument has absolutely nothing to do with the situation. WHY would Russia rely on those? She did in deed prove quite capable of keeping the peace IN South Ossetia. It was the invasion of Georgia that was wrong.
Meanwhile, American and British "peacekeeping" forces in the Middle East will waste countless years, blood, and money on operations that often prove only marginally successful at best.
And they are as wrong being there as the Russians are in Georgia.
American insistence that Russia's move into Georgia was "unlawful,"
I know you're American, and I know everyone else is a second-class human - but, haven't you noticed? It's the rest of the world that's saying it too. This is NOT an "American" vs Russia thing. Remove your blinkers.
One, we Americans are no longer in a position to criticize the aggressiveness of others, nor are we fit to moralize on their behavior.
Quite right - but TWO wrongs do not make one right....
in 1982 the British ventured well beyond Russia's exercise of authority in Georgia when she bloodily re-captured the distant and insignificant Falkland Islands in the wake of foreign invasion. Seldom did any nation have more to lose and less to gain during any campaign than Britain. Granted the British move was very courageous, but for what tangible result?
If you really don't know - ask the Kelpers that...
when others (including Yuri) have called you on your opinion of Russian military and diplomatic tactics both past and present
Actually - I don't see Yuri calling me on MY opinion of those. I see HIS opinion - i think. but I don't see any calling or real challenging of mine - for he like you, chooses NOT to engage me on either my opinions or the relevent points. In HIS case it's BECAUSE of his difference viewpoint, but in your case....?
(1) International law meant very little to the Georgians when they opened shelling on their neighbors, my boy. Russia, as I see it, had little recourse but to invade. Nothing too difficult to understand here, I'd say.

(2) The Russians have lied these past two weeks, you say? About what, precisely? Their date of withdrawal? Their casualty reports? Their reports on Georgia's civilian mortalities? I've monitored the situation about as closely as I possibly can these past two weeks, and I'll have to say that Moscow's no more or no less truthful than the Western powers in it's reporting of news of the war. You and Sniper have already exhibited extreme prejudice here, and your opinions haven't been favorable for the Russians. Not once. Nada. I can understand your prejudice to a point, but I can't deal with your foolish, hardheaded intransigence when confronted with reality. If you want to criticize someone, criticize Tbilisi and Sakashvili for making so foolish a decision as to attack neighbors without provocation. Your criticism of Russia is otherwise akin to the ramblings of an angry drunk who rails at a bartender with the announcement of last call. Makes little sense. Very little. No genuine justification.

(3) Again, nothing wrong in the Russian invasion of Georgia. Georgia initiated hostilities--not Russia, not Abkhazia, not Ossetia. Who were the Russians supposed to assault in your opinion, London? Washington? Paris?

(4) I've never argued that anyone here or anyone anywhere is a second-class citizen simply because they're not an American. Such a notion on your part is yet another figment of your imagination. Truth is, I've spent a number of days arguing this war on numerous websites, and I virtually always argue in Russia's favor. I do so because Russia's right in this war--not the U.S., not Britain, not Germany, not France--nor indeed any Western European country. Don't know why you choose to attack me on something I didn't say, unless of course you're still smarting because no one bothered posting a response to your earlier thread regarding so-called American "jingoism." Fact is, everyone likely realized you were simply looking for a silly fight with that thread's introduction, and no one wanted to be bothered with your antics. I can't blame them.

(5) I'd assumed that you'd duck mention of the Falklands. Were I you, I would've done the same.

(6) End of story.
Erwin Leibold 26.7.1942
Uli
Enthusiast
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: U.S.

Re: War in Georgia

Post by Uli »

Uncle Joe wrote:phylo, why do you keep insisting on how "world" does this or that? The "world" is not the same as media that walks to the tune of Washington. The true character of Washignton aims were quite clearly revealed by the pig-eyed skank ho Condi who not too long ago made a statement on US aims to "contain" "the Soviet Union"...Indeed, the latter word was used. The Finnish military author Lt.Col. Sampo Ahto wrote recently that US actions in the Caucasus are just another example of classic encirclement strategy. It is also worth noting that the Bush senior´s administration assured the Russians with the mouth of James Baker that US will NOT try to extend its inföuence to former Soviet states.
Bingo.

Gorbachev was the last man to lead the Soviet Union, and he was very cordial to the West: Still, even he strongly criticized Western reaction to Russia's intervention in Georgia, recently.

Solzhenitsyn, once provided asylum in the West, spoke strongly against American and Western imperiousness in the wake of the Soviet Union's fall. Had he lived another three weeks and been in a position to speak on the Georgian war, he would likely have acidly condemned the West for the way in which it has propagandized the war in it's favor, instead of admitting truth.

The U.S. today introduced material aid to Georgia. While the effort was portrayed as noble, it was also highly emphasized that the aid arrived via the decks of American warships. An American, I'm pretty disappointed that my government chose to flaunt our naval power at a time when we should accept the fact that Russia was right on this issue. Sadly, American diplomacy with Russia right now, is among the poorest diplomacy I've seen our government extend Moscow in decades of Cold War. Right or wrong, I've the opinion that the U.S. seeks a re-heat of the Cold War for ulterior motive. I hope I'm wrong, but time will tell.
Erwin Leibold 26.7.1942
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Re: War in Georgia

Post by phylo_roadking »

International law meant very little to the Georgians when they opened shelling on their neighbors, my boy. Russia, as I see it, had little recourse but to invade. Nothing too difficult to understand here, I'd say.
Two wrongs do NOT make a right anywhere but algebra.
The Russians have lied these past two weeks, you say? About what, precisely? Their date of withdrawal?
The Russian government said directly to the press at daily press conferences in Moscow for worldwide dissemination for five days running after signing the ceasefire agreement that obligated them to withdraw that they WERE withdrawing.

They were not. Not until Thursday. In other words - they lied via the world's press.
Their casualty reports? Their reports on Georgia's civilian mortalities?
AS I said up the thread - the Russian government declared the Georgians had killed 2000 South Ossetians...and later at government-level press conference...reduced it to 164 including military casualties three days later after the world's press getting into Gori and on into South Ossetia itself was confirming the LOWER total.
I'll have to say that Moscow's no more or no less truthful than the Western powers in it's reporting of news of the war
Western journalists reported the REAL level of South Ossetian/Russian casualties at the hands of the Georgians three days before the Russian government reduced their casualty totals.
I can't deal with your foolish, hardheaded intransigence when confronted with reality.
The reality is - if you know how to use a PC you'll be able to see ALL those "stepped" reports in their correct order at the Internet news source of your choice. Go back through the dates. THAT is the reality. The reality of those 12 Noon press conferences in Moscow every day where the Russians said they were withdrawing when they weren't, and they'd suffered 2,000 casualties when they hadn't. ANYONE here can go to the news feed of their choice and check the dates and times on the reports.
Who were the Russians supposed to assault in your opinion
The terms of the original accord ONLY gave them responsibility of ANY sort in ANY circumstance up to the borde between South Ossetia and the rest of gergia. To do the right thing - they should have removed the Georgian forces in South Ossetia to THERE - then asked for a meeting of the UN Security Council to ask for a Resolution asking for U.N. approval to go further. There is a VERY precise set of actions set out by international law and treaty that ALL members of the Security Council should abide by.

The US twisted the rules in 2001; the Russians ignored and broke them entirely two weeks ago.
unless of course you're still smarting because no one bothered posting a response to your earlier thread regarding so-called American "jingoism."
What thread?
I'd assumed that you'd duck mention of the Falklands. Were I you, I would've done the same.
No. The case for the Falklands was self-evident. AND the British recovery of sovereign territory after invasion by a foreign power was made legal by the passing of U.N. Resolution 502 ASKED FOR BY BRITAIN -
Determining that there exists a breach of the peace in the region of the
Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),
1. Demands an immediate cessation of hostilities;
2. Demands an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falk­land Islands (Islas Malvinas);
3. Calls on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek
a diplomatic solution to their differences and to respect fully the purposes and
principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
...and on the NON-acceptance of this by Argentina after wa widespread diplomatic effort to get them to withdraw and hold talks, Britain was made free to take military action by the Argentinian rejection of 502. The British decision to recover the Falklands by force was NOT made until Argentina officially and finally rejected all the various attempts to persuade the Junta to accept 502.

Russia should have done EXACTLY the same; pushed the Gerogians OUT of South Ossetia - stopped - and gone to the UN. If Georgia had THEN ignored a UN resolution to cease hostilities - Russia would have been free to advance. And meetings of the UN Security Council can be called within a minimum of 2 1/2 hours IIRC. It could ACTUALLY have been requested by Moscow within minutes of the Georgian attack, and a result or decision in their hands giving them leeway to proceed conditional on actions by Georgia by the time the Russians were actually in a position to corss into Georgia itself on the Friday.

In an earlier day, under the earlier Hague Conventions - it was called a "conditional declaration of war". If X is not done, a state of war will exist between...perfectly legal AND there's a perfectly legal procedure for getting one in your hands from the UN.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
User avatar
sniper1shot
Moderator
Posts: 1438
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:56 pm
Location: Canada

Re: War in Georgia

Post by sniper1shot »

You and Sniper have already exhibited extreme prejudice here, and your opinions haven't been favorable for the Russians. Not once. Nada.
You forgot Nyet. Without trolling all the posts I thought I had said I was on the Russian side UNTIL they went into Georgia.
Russia should have done EXACTLY the same; pushed the Gerogians OUT of South Ossetia - stopped - and gone to the UN. If Georgia had THEN ignored a UN resolution to cease hostilities - Russia would have been free to advance.
This is the whole point to this thread.
Gorbachev was the last man to lead the Soviet Union, and he was very cordial to the West
I like Gorbachev.
it was also highly emphasized that the aid arrived via the decks of American warships. An American, I'm pretty disappointed that my government chose to flaunt our naval power at a time when we should accept the fact that Russia was right on this issue.
Sent on a warship to ensure the aid was not shot at or sunk I am sure. Not sure on the Flaunt bit. Maybe you are right on this point, maybe not.
You say Russia was right. That is your opinion.
Only he is lost who gives himself up as lost.
Robert Rojas
Supporter
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: Eugene - Oregon - U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: The Love Boat Revisited - (Well Sort Of).

Post by Robert Rojas »

Greetings to both cousin Sniper One Shot and the community as a whole. Well sir, in respect to your installment of Sunday - August 24, 2008 - 10:54pm, the portion of this "discussion" that dwells on the United States Navy's port visit to the Georgian City of Batumi certainly debunks one long held urban myth and legend - the Black Sea is NOT a Great Russian Lake. Given the United States Navy's recent display of "temerity" in the Russian Federation's maritime backyard, one must wonder what Byzantine chicanery old Muscovy has in store for Kiev when the expiriation of the Russian Federal Navy's lease for the use of the port facilities in the Ukrainian City of Sevastopol draws near. In light of the Third Rome's recent approach to "politics by other means" with the Republic of Georgia, should the so-called "International Community" anticipate yet another extensive Great Russian "police action" with a reconstituted and up-to-date version of the Brezhnev Doctrine on the Crimean peninsula? Old yours truly is of the belief that the proverbial powers-that-be in the Kremlin will never brook any manifestation of a European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organization presence on that history rich slice of real estate. AND HOW MANY GREAT RUSSIANS RESIDE ON THE CRIMEA? It's just some sobering food for thought. Chicken Kiev anyone? Well, that's my latest two cents, pence or kopecks worth on this contentious topic of interest - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day up in your corner of the GREAT WHITE NORTH of the Canadian Confederation - EH!?
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee
Uli
Enthusiast
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: U.S.

Re: RE: The Love Boat Revisited - (Well Sort Of).

Post by Uli »

Robert Rojas wrote:Greetings to both cousin Sniper One Shot and the community as a whole. Well sir, in respect to your installment of Sunday - August 24, 2008 - 10:54pm, the portion of this "discussion" that dwells on the United States Navy's port visit to the Georgian City of Batumi certainly debunks one long held urban myth and legend - the Black Sea is NOT a Great Russian Lake. Given the United States Navy's recent display of "temerity" in the Russian Federation's maritime backyard, one must wonder what Byzantine chicanery old Muscovy has in store for Kiev when the expiriation of the Russian Federal Navy's lease for the use of the port facilities in the Ukrainian City of Sevastopol draws near. In light of the Third Rome's recent approach to "politics by other means" with the Republic of Georgia, should the so-called "International Community" anticipate yet another extensive Great Russian "police action" with a reconstituted and up-to-date version of the Brezhnev Doctrine on the Crimean peninsula? Old yours truly is of the belief that the proverbial powers-that-be in the Kremlin will never brook any manifestation of a European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organization presence on that history rich slice of real estate. AND HOW MANY GREAT RUSSIANS RESIDE ON THE CRIMEA? It's just some sobering food for thought. Chicken Kiev anyone? Well, that's my latest two cents, pence or kopecks worth on this contentious topic of interest - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day up in your corner of the GREAT WHITE NORTH of the Canadian Confederation - EH!?
Right you are, my boy: the Black Sea is indeed no "Great Russian Lake," and neither are Portland, Roseburg, Corvallis, or Eugene, Oregon free from Russian submarine observation and quick-strike missile-launch. I'm guessing that the Russians are willing to trade their 'hold' on the Black Sea in return for space off Oregon's coast, in the Pacific Ocean, or in what we once called "The U.S. Navy's Lake."

And, like Phylo and Snipper, you're suggesting that Moscow's response to Georgia's assaults on Abkhazia and South Ossetia heavyhanded, unwarranted? That Russia should respect "international law"? Over the course of decades I've heard a good many in the West claim that Brussels and the U.N. can't be trusted, and yet we're suddenly ready to place full reliance in international law only when we need it against Moscow?

Suppose any or all three of you explain where international law was napping when Georgian troops opened hostilities--and indeed why Russia should observe such law when it was invoked only after Russian forces triumphantly worked their way into Georgia?

I suggest you forgo whimsical quips and instead explain precisely how "old Muscovy" might've initiated Clausewitzian strategy without a Georgian attack on the two independent states? After all, which came first, "The Third Rome's" assault on Georgia, or Georgia's unlawful aggression in South Ossetia?

If indeed you're genuinely seeking input from the "international community," Mr. Rojas, you need look no further than the end of your own nose, and to Phylo and Sniper: For, truth be known, few others seem to care much that Moscow acted so. Intrinsically, we all realize that Georgia acted without legitimate cause in attacking her neighbors, and in large, likely because of the presence and direct support of American troops within her boundaries.

Truth is, we were caught red-handed by Moscow in August 2008, and it stings. It's what we deserve for our own "Byzantine" [sic] military methodology and potentially-deadly arrogance when continually nosing into the affairs of others.
Erwin Leibold 26.7.1942
User avatar
sniper1shot
Moderator
Posts: 1438
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:56 pm
Location: Canada

Re: War in Georgia

Post by sniper1shot »

http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=36157
or in what we once called "The U.S. Navy's Lake."
Funny, I've never ever heard the US call it that?
where international law was napping when Georgian troops opened hostilities-
True. No one has denied this.
For, truth be known, few others seem to care much that Moscow acted so.
Not true. Read the posted link and you will see the EU is meeting 01 Sept to discuss this matter. Nice try on this one. Everyone is still watching even if not front page news anymore.
Truth is, we were caught red-handed by Moscow in August 2008,
No, we were caught red handed by Georgia and the expected Russian response came...and continued well past what was required....and still continues today.
Read the very last line.....Russia knows they are in the wrong but is snubbing it's nose at everyone. Kind of a wait and see what happens situation I think.
Only he is lost who gives himself up as lost.
Locked