Post Reply
Page 17 of 19  •  Prev 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
6 years ago  ::  Aug 25, 2008 - 11:36AM #161
Jstanl
Posts: 5,485
I, too, was unable to access the threads on this site all day Sunday.  I could not get past the discussion board index.

Jim
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 25, 2008 - 12:30PM #162
L.Ann
Posts: 501
[QUOTE=CharikIeia;713204]

Which does not change the fact that the CIS peacekeeping mission, staffed by Russia, was implemented when Georgia still was member of this organisation -- so, while troops must leave Poti and the Georgian mainland, and quickly so, there is no doubt about the legitimacy of these troops in Abchasia and South Ossetia.

Just to reiterate a fact that Saakashvili-fans love to forget:
this war was started by an attack of the Georgian army on Tskhinvali.
Everything ensuing must be viewed against this background.

The unilateral blaming of Russia is not worthy of much attention,
as it reveals a partisan viewpoint, not one of genuine interest in the situation.

[/QUOTE]

Legitimacy of conditional alliance of troops is another issue....

The Georgian army starting a 'war' or legimately reclaiming the sovereign territory w/out Russia's influence?

Russia is involved...and any covert operations will be known....

MSNBC: August 25, 2008

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26385413/

"In the days before the war began, Ossetians seemed aware that something was about to happen. On Aug. 5 and 6, Ossetian officials sent 36 buses to take women and children to Russia."

"The worst violence was committed by the "irregulars" -- South Ossetian militiamen and others who joined the Russians as they came in. "
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 25, 2008 - 5:33PM #163
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,303
No government can "legitimately" make war on its own population, be it in Chechnya under Putin, South Ossetia under Saakashvili, or Iraq's Kurdish provinces sunder Saddam.

Concerning "who commited the worst violence", as I said, this is not a pissing contest.
Reports from Tskhinvali differ from the reports you quote.

Yet you solely quote support for the Georgian stance. Why?
Do you want to re-start the Cold War, and sacrifice objectivity for partisanship?
tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 25, 2008 - 6:00PM #164
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,303
Working myself backwards...

[QUOTE=L.Ann;708972]It appears that the EU cannot dismiss the conflict of Russia's intrusive entry into Georgia.


Nobody has been suggesting so.
What I hope for is that the EU will not pick sides, remember?
Like in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Many countries are affected due to the occupation and it is a direct offense against the sovereign status.  That is the problem!  It is not comparable to Iraq nor Afghanistan, though some may utilize this for propaganda.


LOL! So the invasion by US troops were not an offese against the sovereign status of Iraq, or Afghanistan? You're funny. And the cancellation of oil contracts with France and Russia was negligible, compared to the huge volume of trade with Georgia that France has? Ha ha! Great! :) You're the master! Incomparable, indeed. And propaganda is what others do, yeppo!

The relationship the U.S. has in it's relations to other government s is characterized by the theory and support of sovereignity in democratic governing to each in 'free and equal participation in government or in the decision-making processes of an organization or group."


This is not the case with Georgian political reality.

  This theory may be contrary to your pre-conceived idea  in the establishment of civil society and is a direct pomposity suggesting "that the U.S. dictated Georgia's actions."


You won't  go as far as claiming I ever suggested this here -- or is this obvious to you, too?

...

... what are the true goals of the Russian Military still doing in Georgia by occupying strategic points of interest that will affect -control the economic flow of product and services from Georgia?[/QUOTE]
I'd say, the main goal currently is to humiliate the Georgian leadership, show who has power and who has not. I doubt there is a "true goal", because this war was not intended by Russia -- they'd certainbly have preferred a simmering conflict underneath.

Why do you think such athing as a "true goal" would exist here? Is it stable over time? And if reasonably not, why call it "true" to begin with?

...

[QUOTE=L.Ann;709179]Adding:  Russia's form of communism expressed in Georgia directly affects not only the economy;  but also rules Political, Social and Cultural life ... the re-positioning of  cultural materialism and  non-cultural relativism in theory for society....[/QUOTE]
It is funny how much you equate with communism -- and how genuinely meaningless I find these abstract notions you occasionally use. What in heaven, hell or earth are "cultural materialism" and "non-cultural relativism", except somewhat pathetic attempts to intellectualize a xenophobic gut aversion the Other, the "Truly Evil Commie Russian"?

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 25, 2008 - 7:25PM #165
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,303
More responses to older posts..

[QUOTE=Jstanl;709743]I confess to being a little irritated in making my response.  There is a distinct underlying message here of Russia gets what Russia wants and the USA is expected to get in line.


I know the feeling from the Iraq wars, #1 and #2.
Helplessness, demons and clowns running rampant and tearing my precious planet apart.
Not nice.

There has been, in the history of my cultural heritage, a similar assumption by the French and the British (read English).  The USA did not get where it is today by allowing the current world bully to intimidate us.  If we had we would never have stood up to the British.  We would not have resisted Germany's attempt to dominate Europe or Japan's attempt to take control of the Western perimeter of the Pacific Ocean during the twentieth century.


This is nice patriotic talk, maybe there is some truth to it.
Yet, you may just have overlooked the moment in which "you" became just another world bully,
and intimidate others. But that is a different story for a different place.

The thing that is bothering me about your position, as I understand it, is that if it is typical of the European opinion of an effort to support the effort of other people to create a democratic society; then men like Putin, Chavez, Mugabe, Castro, Saddam, Osama and the Iranian religious junta may already own the world.


Am I understanding you correctly here, that you say (A) that Saakashvili is interested in creating a democratic society, and that (B) an ethnic Georgian's right to self-determination weighs more than an ethnic Ossetian's or Russian's right?

Both are very misguided attitudes, to say the least.

I lived in Saudi Arabia for four years.  I know the difference between democratic political systems and totalitarian political systems.  I find it a little depressing that so many bystanders can look on at what is happening in Georgia and believe that the Russians are not invading and occupying Georgia but actually liberating it from a government that has been determined to be democratically elected. 


(a) This is not happening, Russia will not topple the Georgian government. Why do you think so?

(b) Who - according to you - "believe[s] that the Russians are not invading and occupying Georgia but actually liberating it " ??? I'd love to see some evidence for your claims here. Many people, you say -- so, who exactly, and proven by what evidence?

We don't expect democratic systems in other countries and cultures to look like ours, we do expect them to be voted into office by a majority of the people who live under that system.


Like in Russia and Georgia, you mean?

We know that other culures will not understand democracy the way we do.  They have a different experience than we do.  In fact the experience of the USA, Canada and Australia is very different from what it is in much older societies.  Their concept of freedom is different from ours.  Their democratic goverment is supposed to represent their expectations, not ours.[/QUOTE]
Great. We have no disagreement here.

. . .

Re: "hate to burst your bubble"

Jstanl wrote:

In any case it is a way of leading into a polite rejection of something another person has said.  In a truly hostile situation, the speaker would not bother with this 'nicety'.


Interesting that this is considered polite.
You DO have a weird culture, over there. :)

[QUOTE]PS: I have had people take real offense at my "peace" which is similar to the Arab "peace be upon you" (Salaam al lekum) and is meant to convey a friendly, non-hostile disposition toward the other person.[/QUOTE]
Ha ha!
I would assume, when you tell people "peace" that you insinuate they really need it ;)

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 26, 2008 - 9:54AM #166
Jstanl
Posts: 5,485
[QUOTE=CharikIeia;714313]No government can "legitimately" make war on its own population, be it in Chechnya under Putin, South Ossetia under Saakashvili, or Iraq's Kurdish provinces sunder Saddam.[/QUOTE]

Historians universally label the US civil war a "War".  It is usually called the American Civil War or the War Between the States.  That war killed more Americans (citizens of the USA) than any other we have ever been engaged in, before or since.

British historians refer to the civil conflicts that ultimately led to the removal of Richard III and the placement of Henry Tudor (Henry VII) on the throne of England as the Wars of the Roses.

We are bogging down in semantics here.  "A rose by any other name is still a rose." (Shakespeare)

Jim
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 26, 2008 - 10:45AM #167
L.Ann
Posts: 501
[QUOTE=L.Ann;694841]
Chark:   i have no issue with citizenship, nor passports......However, it appears that the "Russian government believes they have the obligated responsibility to defend all of their citizens no matter where they may be in the world."  Thus, don't you find the free hand out of massive citizenship was a strategic move from the beginning to overthrow the government and an excuse for invasion of territoral rights in a sovereign country?  I think it is quite obvious to most analysts without vowed political alignments....
[/QUOTE]

I do hope that Jim will return to the debate, he writes so brilliantly and is poised with intellectual, philosophical and scientific ability and consideration.....:)

"A fight for the oil pipelines is one answer-By absorbing Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia puts even more pressure on Georgia's BTC pipeline, one of the few that transits oil through the Caucasus that is not under Russian control."

"These three former Soviet republics all have pro-Western and anti-Russian leaders. All three countries signed a preliminary deal last year to extend a Ukrainian pipeline to move Caspian oil from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea, and then on to the West - again, outside Russian control."

"Democracy’s basic ingredients, the freedom to assemble, to speak, to choose - these are like kryptonite in the hands of the Kremlin’s authoritarian mega-capitalists."

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ … 92535.aspx
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 26, 2008 - 11:05AM #168
Jstanl
Posts: 5,485
[QUOTE]So the invasion by US troops were not an offese against the sovereign status of Iraq, or Afghanistan?[/QUOTE]

Iraq, Afghanistan and Georgia all have different facts.  The first two, in different ways, were actually attacking other soveriegn nations outside their own borders.  Georgia was not doing this yet Russia crossed Georgia's international border using military troops and equipment that had been staging on the other side of the border for two years.  The politics of any of these situations is a matter of political opinion but the reality in each case is defined by the reason for crossing an international boundary. 

If we tolerate the ignoring of internationally accepted borders, then we are opening the door to international anarchy.  The acceptance of moving borders, especially unilaterally and based on legendary ideas of ancient borders, will negate the legitimacy of every modern border.  Moving borders based on common ethinic backgrounds will simply lead to an endless procession of border wars.  In history, these wars have proven to be some of the bloodiest and most vicious, invariably resulting in 'ethnic cleansing' and even genocide.

Jim
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 26, 2008 - 11:20AM #169
Jstanl
Posts: 5,485
L.Ann;

Thanks for your support but I'm really not that smart or knowledgeable.  I am just old and have been observing these issues for a long time, probably before you or Char were born.  ;)  One thing about being my age (72) is that one eventually quits thinking in terms of what is possible in one's own lifetime.  That does tend to lead to a more philosophical perspective.  :)

Jim
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 26, 2008 - 11:31AM #170
L.Ann
Posts: 501
OH, he's back...must have been posting at similar time frame....
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 17 of 19  •  Prev 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook