Incorrect. Tanks are remaining within South Ossetian borders. However, there have been air strikes on military bases (well, mostly) throughout the country. Also, a Georgian warship was sunk.

Yes, "mostly". They completely bombed the area around a civilian airport.

Source, plez? Teh infermations available to me (Russian and western sources) didn't bring that information to my attention. They bombed Gori, but that was the only major city which was bombed, and that wasn't particularly serious. I think Russia also bombed military bases near Georgia's capital.

A slight misinterpretation on my part. From Huffington:


Russian tanks had been confirmed to move out of South Ossetia moving toward strategic locations, but withdrew them shortly after they left the province.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/10/russia-expands-bombing-bl_n_117970.html

Civilian deaths at a military base? I guess nothing could be done about that. The Georgains bombed a civilian area (a CITY) at the start of the war resulting in a minimum of 2000 deaths. I'd say that not even the maximum of 200 deaths caused by civilians in military bases can compare with that.

30,000 SO's had to be evacuated and 2000 out of maybe 70'000 died. That's ethnic cleansing, buddy.

Both sides are on the wrong in this war and have caused superfluous civilian casualties.

The side that attacked is always more in the wrong. Especially if they caused significantly more casualties, and more so if they did it specifically against civilian population.

It does not justify a world superpower to blockade and invade two provinces of a country that wish to secede.

One province was invaded, and with the support of the government and people living there, who were under attack by Georgia. No one wanted to 'secede' so far except Georgia, and the territories controlled by it weren't invaded, just harrassed. Really poor argumentation. Why do you say that two were 'invaded'? Abkhazia and South Ossetia like Russia being there. That's not invasion.

Ethnic cleansing. In other words, genocide.

The words of a child. Here's an interesting little factoid for you:
When Israel was founded, there were millions of Holocaust survivors with no homes, no property, no lives. Antisemitism still existed in the home countries of many jews, there were even Pogroms and hangings of people who had survived the entire Holocaust! Gentile peoples in their home countries did not "pity" them, they viewed them with the same eyes that allowed the Nazis into those countries and let them kill whoever they wanted.

You talk as though this is one-sided, bad Jews, bad Americans, good Arabs, good Palestinians. It's not. It's a very complex issue. By the way, a majority of Israel's wars have been... you guessed it... DEFENSIVE. Read a history book sometime, it'll help.

As for the war at hand, I don't think it's one we can win with "freedom fighters" (hasn't worked in the past), as seeing as how it's basically Russia flexing it's muscles, we'd do ourselves little good in backing up a government PURELY to fight the Russians, or pump money into a country and government. However, when have Americans been a people to take a lesson?

Oh, the side that attacks first is ALWAYS more in the wrong? Are you 8 years old? Just because someone "CHEATS HE CHEATED OMFG HE ATTACKED FIRST HE IS BAD" doesn't make them the worse party. I agree with the part on killing civilians and excessive force, but there are times when they are unavoidable, but they can always be minimized. Sometimes attacking first can greatly weaken your enemy before they can invade and thereby reduce civilian deaths and the length of the war.

This doesn't sound like "ethnic cleansing" to me, it sounds like a sloppy, underhanded and brutal way to fight, the old "salt the earth" philosophy. It seems they think they can win if they just blow the whole place to the ground, and they don't seem to care about the people living there.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 11 2008, 2:36 pm by The Great Yam.

Fine, that was poorly worded. Is that all? Are you going to address my other few arguments on the issue? Attacking first is not wrong, since its a superfluous word - rather, it puts the attacker at ultimate fault for the war. Better?

2000/70000 (1/35) dead as of two days ago (in other words, more now) and 30,000 forced out (again, as of two days ago) sounds like the beginning of genocide. Six million jews were killed during the Holocaust - I would expect that that was more then 1/35, but not too far apart, and that's the most extreme case of genocide cited. At any rate, 'they don't seem to care about the people living there' is a good argument for myself. I'll take it.

Are you actually taking a position here, as to whether Russia was right to start the war or not? You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

Yes, most wars have been defensive. Most. A single offensive war, the jews being in other people's lands, is enough to make them the aggressors. The powers of the time took land from the Palestinians and gave it to the Jews. That's the problem. Instead of giving the Jews lands elsewhere, possibly on their own territory, they gave them that of someone else. That problem is still there, which is sufficient reason to be very angry at Israel and Britain. Plus, the US is still supporting them militarily.

While the populace of Abkazia and South Ossetia view the Russians as liberators and may have intentions of joining Russia, they are still technically part of the sovereign state of Georgia, not their own country or Russians. South Ossetia may favour secession and essentially did in the 1990's, but it never received international acknowledgement. The Russians technically invaded two provinces that are technically part of Georgia.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 11 2008, 4:09 pm by WoAHorde.

Put it as technically as you want. Essentially, not technically, what happened is that Georgia attacked another republic and Russia defended it. Your 'technically' completely ignores the opinion of the residents of the conflict zone, which is a rather strange POV from a democratically-inclined gentleman. At any rate, Abkhazia was not invaded by Russia but entered the war on its own right, using its own military forces. While more Russian troops DID come in, they were the same 'peacekeepers' and were just deterrents to keep Georgia from attacking. If that's invasion, then it happened to both SO and Abkhazia 17 years ago.

Also, invasion has no negative connotions rightfully associated with it. NATO invaded Yugoslavia; the US and others invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan, and I rather doubt that 80% of the people in the area they invaded wanted them to be there.

At any rate, I'll be back to the internet in maybe seven days.

I did. Many books. When I wrote a paper on Israel.
It is not America's problem. And it makes more problems for us. Not to mention how we spend more on Israelites per person then we do our own people. And that's not counting military aid, weapons, technology (which they sell to the highest bidder) and wasteful government to government direct funding.

But the whole Israel thing was just a statement regarding hypocrisies. Not really related to the matter in SO.

Condo Rice keeps talking about the issue - thank god no one's listening. There seems to be heavy media bias on both sides - in the US, as well as in Russia. The following is from Wikipedia, you can find more there:

Georgia had reported a bombing of Tbilisi International Airport, and Reuters took it from that - however, Sarkozy went to visit and show the world how important he is and the footage showed the airport, unbombed.

Well, the war's over. Essentially. Now its a media war. This article, found on BBC, explains it nicely and unbiasedly. I like BCC now. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7562611.stm

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 18 2008, 11:12 am by Centreri.

I found an awesome little article on why the US is pissed: this should give everyone a laugh:
http://www.mnweekly.ru/essay/20080821/55343007.html

And, we love him, Jon Stewart on the issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDIjCJVMiu4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wo6-elrcQ&feature=related

Defensive essays by Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's ambassador to NATO.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/01/opinion/edrogozin.php
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/18/opinion/edrogozin.php

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Aug 23 2008, 5:48 pm by Centreri.

I haven't read the whole topic so I'm not exactly "informed", but about 4-5 days ago, the Georgian President stated that:

Georgia was underattack from Russian Soldiers under a code of Genocide. "They don't want us to live in a free Democracy, no, lets all be Communist and be sad and miserable and under a dictator, they don't appreciate the western styles". He later went on ranting about issues regarding the Baltic, how he wants Georgia to join NATO and come under its wing with its protection and requesting that other countries intervene.

Reporter: "How do you think Canada is doing in aiding your releif efforts?"
President: "I appreciate your support, but we are not some undeveloped African country, we are civilized people"
Reporter: "Uh..."
President: "I mean, do not take any offense, but we are modern people with modern things!"

Yay?

okay im wondering who stands to gain from all this.. I know little about what happened but i think if we look at who's benefiting from this it will say a lot.

If everything works out, Russia stands to benefit from this. However, Saak could've greatly expanded US influence over the area by taking over South Ossetia - there's a tunnel that connects North and South Ossetia, and if his forces could've secured it Russia would've had a much tougher time taking South Ossetia back. However, now, it seems that the US's influence over the conflict is weakening and the EU is taking the leading role in communication between it and Russia. Today Sarkozy met with Medvedev, and they agreed on Russia moving it's forces back to within Abkhazian/South Ossetian borders while the EU stations its own peacekeepers in the area. However, though they tried, Medvedev doesn't seem to want to back down on Abkhazia's and South Ossetia's independence from Georgia. Seems it's happenin', and the USA just suffered a major loss in the area. Everyone saw how weak it is in the Caucases, so other states near it won't expect military help in the case of Russian aggression and will strive for better relations with Moscow. Probably. Azerbaijan screwed over Cheney on Saturday, when it didn't let him meet the president or prime minister, and who he did get to meet said 'We're not interested'.

On a related issue, Ukraine's government is on the verge to collapse. I hope Tymoshenko comes out of it as president.

Come on, folks. This is the biggest geopolitical issue going on right now. Moar discussions!

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 8 2008, 10:12 pm by Centreri.

Good to see the Russians withdrawing from Gori and other Georgian areas; it's a sign that the issue may be dieing down.

It's an interesting note that Russia will bow to the EU and not the USA anymore; that's where 8 years of horrible foreign policy gets you.