BS: War in Georgia (2008)

Subject: BS: War in Georiga
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 10:52 AM

While you folks are sniffing about how bad it is in the US, War is breaking out in Georgia.

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11909324

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: irishenglish
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 11:04 AM

Some of us Americans are capable of sniffing about how bad it is in the US while keeping an eye on news elsewhere, including an escalating situation in Georgia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: bankley
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 11:09 AM

I hope Atlanta doesn't get burned again, Miss Scarlet

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 11:12 AM

Obviously Obama's trip to Maui ( to meet with Paris H.?) is a far more significant topic, at least from the news reports.


Is there a Russian General named Shermanov?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: Wesley S
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 11:40 AM

Is there any oil there?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 11:46 AM

One of the main oil pipelines from Azerbaijan runs through Georgia to the Black Sea.

Can't wait to hear how the "usual suspects", aided and abetted by Dennis Kucinich, put this one down to George W. Bush.

Serious? Extremely. Only one outcome that the countries of the region can accept - Russia removes its troops from Georgian soil.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 11:59 AM

Actually, the Ossetians need the Russians there.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: irishenglish
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 12:15 PM

Can't wait to hear how the "usual suspects", aided and abetted by Dennis Kucinich, put this one down to George W. Bush.

That's bull Teribus. But then again, I guess I'm just a stupid American ill informed about the world, and I'm one of those pinko commie types as well, just because I choose to vote and follow policies that are humanity based by and large. Of course, it all makes sense. The usual suspects, Dennis Kucinich and myself all blame George Bush for this despite the fact that Bush probably needs help finding Georgia on the map!

Guess I'm a usual suspect then for actually believing that this is a complex dispute between Georgia and Russia. Guess I'm a usual suspect for hoping this can stop before it gets worse. Another day in the life of a usual suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: jimmyt
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 12:19 PM

Take a deep breath and relax, Irishenglish. I don't think Teribus was singling you out. Also I bet George W can find georgia, just follow I 75 southand right after he crosses the Tennessee border, I will be there to meet and greet!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 12:35 PM

He has been to both, after all. Oddly enough, Georgia is probably the only country in the world absolutely in love with Bush. I politely turned down an invite from a Georgian to watch 6 hours of recroded newsreel from the visit.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: greg stephens
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 12:45 PM

I'd put money on the Georgians. I did a gig with some Georgian dancers once, and they jumped up in the air waving swords, and landed back on the floor on the points of their knees. You try it!
People who can do that can do anything.
(Mind you, perhaps Russian dancers do that as well, I don't know).

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: Wesley S
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 12:46 PM

Besides - We usual suspects all know that everything bad that ever happens is the fault of Bill and Hillary Clinton. And we've been covering it up for years......

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 01:05 PM

The Ossetians dances are even more extreme, Greg, I've seen both.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 01:48 PM

It sounds like a typical regional conflict to me...the kind of thing that was very likely to happen here and there following the breakup of the Soviet Union and the separation of many of its formerly outlying border areas into independent states. I think the Russians and the Georgians have enough issues between themselves that they would be fighting right now even if George Bush had sought a career in baseball instead and the USA was a minor power on the level of, say, Ecuador...and had no influence in the area at all. The Americans will, of course, be interested in playing the situation for any advantage they can, but that's normal in great power politics.

On the other hand, maybe Liechtenstein is behind it all. ;-) They are capable of stirring up anything, those people, and they're rampant capitalists too!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: irishenglish
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 01:58 PM

Damn Liechtensteiners LH! Just remember my take over the world scheme involving St.Pierre and Miquelon awhile back>

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 02:04 PM

They are a constant worry. I think the only reason Bush hasn't spoken of it publicly is that he's so scared of them himself.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 02:18 PM

Irishenglish is right in thinking that this is a complex issue.
Here is some historical background.
The Ossetians are mainly Christians, descendants of the ancient Alans, who once ranged as far as France. Their language is part of the Proto-Iranian group (IIRC). The Georgian language is completely unrelated. Plenty of loanwords in both, because of a long, shared history.
The Alans/Ossetians were frequent allies of the Iberians/Georgians in their struggles against the Roman and Parthian empires, and, later, the Byzantines and Sassanians. They frequently intermarried and the Ossetian nobility was heavily influenced by their Georgian counterparts. This is best seen in the Georgianised surnames.
The Ossetians were the finest craftsmen and blacksmiths in the Caucasus. Ossetian swords and daggers were eagerly sought after, even in Byzantium.   
The Alan kingdom became one of the strongest in that part of the world under King Durgulel the Great. He married off one of his daughters to a Byzantine generral, the other, to the Georgian king. He was strong enough to meddle in international politics, and dictate terms.
After his death, the Georgian rulers and feudal lords attempted to take over the southern part of the Alan kingdom. A situation not unlike the Anglo-Scottish Border developed, with back-and-forth raiding, as well as large-scale campaigns. Douglases and Northumberlands!
Eastern Georgia later fell under Persian rule, but Ossetia manged to keep it's independence, which it fought for tooth-and-nail.
In 1774, Georgia and Ossetia fell under Russian rule, but it wasn't until 1830 that Russia had any real control over them.
Let's skip over to 1917. Georgia became independent and annexed Southern Ossetia. They suppressed Ossetian language and culture, carrying on even under Stalin, who turned a blind eye.

Mind you. I don't think that Russia really is acting with Ossetia's best interests in mind, but rather to show Georgia what they can expect for joining NATO. One can only wonder what lies in store for the Ukraine.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 02:23 PM

The Americans are supporting the Georgians, because they can't abandon them, after convincing them of the benefits of joining NATO.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 02:27 PM

Fascinating stuff, Volgadon. Yes, I've heard of the Alans. They were very fine warriors with formidable cavalry.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 05:23 AM

Only 20 posts?

That must tell us something about somebody somewhere??????

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 05:27 AM

and would somebody please fix the thread title.....in case George can't find it on the map.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 05:43 AM

Give them all a nice hot cup of tea and tell them to go home!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 10:10 AM

Bush will probably send advisors there. They'll get off the plane in Atlanta and wonder what all of the fuss is about!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 10:48 AM

LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 12:38 PM

The lack of interest does seem significant as well as disturbing.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 01:15 PM

I find it interesting that the US supported Georgia's breaking away from Russia (because we believe in freedom and independence, after all), but we don't support South Ossetia's desire to break away from Georgia. I guess some people are more deserving of freedom and independence than others.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 01:17 PM

And before this becomes a debate about US oil interests, oil is not a factor here. The broad picture is that Georgia wants out of the Russian circle of influence. They turned to the USA for their protectors and are joining NATO. Russia can't stomach the idea of a NATO presence on it's southern border. That is a lot closer than Cuba is to the States!
Enter South Ossetia. I've outlined some of the history in a previous post, so suffice it to say that Georgia has been trying to take Southern Ossetia over for centuries. The Ossetians are very independent and don't really want to be Georgian. The situation is a bit similar to Eastern Turkey.
Russia sees Ossetia as not only a good foothold in the Caucasus, but also as an excuse to teach Goergia a lesson about what you get for joining NATO. South Ossetia and Abkhazia both need Russian support to remain independant.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: GUEST,Mike in DC
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 01:50 PM

You can find some background information here
.

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 06:30 PM

Vive Le Québec Libre

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 06:38 PM

Damned eastern europeans, always causing trouble!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: bubblyrat
Date: 10 Aug 08 - 06:23 PM

Apparently, there are some gas, oil, or both,pipelines that pass through Georgia, to western Europe, that are the only ones NOT to pass through some Russian territory. As such, they would,naturally, be of incalculable strategic importance to Nato and the Western Allies, including our dear American ( I mean that sincerely ) friends.Under the circumstances, one can readily see how the Russians would gleefully seize on ANY excuse to invade Georgia in order to hold us all to oil & gas ransom.Rest assured, they will do ANYTHING to get control of those pipelines !! The "Cold War " starts again !! ( maybe even a hot one ) . If ever there was a time for STRONG American leadership, it is NOW !!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Aug 08 - 06:54 PM

Well, south Ossetia already had de facto independence from Georgia since it won a war with that country in 1992. It was Georgia that invaded south Ossetia, not Russia. Russia entered the region in response to Georgia's invasion of it, to defend it from the Georgians. The south Ossetians do not want to be a part of Georgia. But the west apparently wants south Ossetia to be a part of Georgia, and the US has trained Georgia's armed forces, no doubt so that it can use them as proxy fighters for the US' quest to own everybody's oil.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Aug 08 - 10:54 PM

Georgia, whose troops have been trained by American soldiers, began an offensive to regain control over South Ossetia overnight Friday, launching heavy rocket and artillery fire and air strikes that pounded the provincial capital, Tskhinvali.

In response, Russia, which has granted passports to most South Ossetians, launched overwhelming artillery shelling and air attacks on Georgian troops.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080810/world/georgia_south_ossetia


Georgia heavily bombs a civilian population center, killing a couple of thousand people, wounding many more, and rendering thousands of people homeless (after being trained by the US)... Russia responds by targeting Georgian troops, and the US calls Russia the bad guy in this scenario. Hardly surprising, I suppose. In fact, I'd say it's pretty typical.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: Peace
Date: 10 Aug 08 - 11:12 PM

"While you folks are sniffing about how bad it is in the US, War is breaking out in Georgia."


This life is filled with language.

The time of what you call sniffing is just the time of reflection. When it is put on the line, it is scary.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: Peace
Date: 10 Aug 08 - 11:28 PM

Spetsnaz. It means 'Special Warfare Troops'. They are the equivalent of the Canadian "JTF2", American 'SEALS' or British 'SAS'. The attack on Georgia is disgusting. That's my opinion.


I point out that Canucks would decry that type of attack.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: Peace
Date: 10 Aug 08 - 11:38 PM

I hope.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Aug 08 - 11:45 PM

All great powers support independence movements when those independence movements are in line with their larger interests and objectives. They oppose similar independence movements when they are not in line with their larger interests and objectives.

This is true of Russia. It's true of the USA. Neither side is supporting who they are supporting out of altruism, they are doing it out of pragmatism.

For either of them to claim the moral high ground is ironic, to say the least. For the Georgians to claim the moral high ground is equally ironic, if not more so. They attacked South Ossetia first.

As for the Ossetians, I figure they have a right to decide whether or not they wish to be part of Georgia, and they seem to have decided some time ago that they don't want to be part of Georgia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Aug 08 - 11:48 PM

Russia didn't attack Georgia. Georgia attacked a civilian population center in South Ossetia. Russia defended the civilians of South Ossetia from the Georgian military.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Aug 08 - 11:49 PM

crossposted

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 12:34 AM

Still trying to work out how Russia, as an interested party, was appointed the role of "neutral peacekeeper" in the province (that was always "Georgian" under the communists) that it seeks to absorb into Russia? Even to the extent of demonstrating that "neutrality" by handing out "Russian" Passports to the inhabitants. Strikes me as being a clear conflict of interest, but there again whoever could ever put forward the arguement that the UN ever knew what it was doing.

Bet the Ukrainians are feeling a tad nervous, as the spotlight will turn on them once Russia has taken what parts of Georgia it feels it requires to "feel safe". Maybe we will once again Europe will be informed that, "We have no further territorial ambitions".

Odds on increased applications for NATO membership anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:16 AM

Doesn't really matter if Russia is an interested party or not. The South Ossetians gained their independence from Georgia just as Georgia gained it's independence from Russia and the Soviet Union. What the South Ossetians do with Russia is nobody's business except for South Ossetians and the Russians.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:33 AM

Thousands of civilians have fled South Ossetia - many seeking shelter in the Russian province of North Ossetia.

"The Georgians burned all of our homes," said one elderly woman, as she sat on a bench under a tree with three other white-haired survivors of the fighting...

...Tskhinvali residents who survived the Georgian bombardment overnight Friday by hiding in basements and later fled the city estimated that hundreds of civilians had died.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080810/world/georgia_south_ossetia

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:45 AM

Georgian forces were deliberately targeting civilians...

So she gathered her three girls - Ina, 14, Lina, 12, and Marina, 11 - and called a relative to pick them up in his car. They spent the day in a nearby village, watching the fighting grow closer with friends and family. Finally, she said, Georgian tanks started firing into nearby houses.

Those huddled in the house climbed into two cars and started off along a road through a stretch of woods. As they passed through the forest, they came under fire.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080810/world/south_ossetia_refugees

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 04:26 AM

It is complicated.

Russia is pushing for regime change in Georgia. Georgia is the only country that likes Shrub and he is trying to get them into NATO. It looks like a pissing contest between Bush and Putin to me with Georgia and South Ossetia as the urinals.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 05:38 AM

Anyone see the parallel here?

Sudetenland all over again in the East? Payback for the "Bay of Pigs" incident?

First step toward WW3?

Someone needs to put the lid on this PDQ, even if it does mean giving up their immediate goal. Is one new member in NATO worth the cost?

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georiga
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 06:44 AM

You took the words right out of my mouth, Don. It has all the hallmarks. What's the betting that our politicians choose the most stupid course of action imaginable (as they did in Iraq)?

Still it will "all be over by Christmas" (which Christmas, though?). Eventually the newly resurgent Chinese army will be able to march in and salvage anything salvageable from the smouldering (radioactive?) ruins.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Paul Burke
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 08:12 AM

I'm surprised you've got this far in the discussion without mentioning Kosovo. Putin said at the time that the Kosovo independence referendum set a precedent. The obvious outcome is referenda in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which would almost certainly lead to them becoming Russian- controlled republiclets.

I suspect Saakashvili thought the Americans and Europeans would come running to help him. I can't see any other reason why a country with 4 million people would attack the stated interests of a country with 140 million.

The outcome will probably be his replacement by a Russian- friendly government, which will prove useful to Putin by keeping its hand on the tap on the pipeline. Which could have been avoided if the West hadn't sold the Russians a duff version of the market economy back in 1991, if they hadn't lorded it over them when they were struggling, if they had gone in with a serious reconstruction plan instead of attempting to loot the place, if they had condemned the excesses of Georgian nationalists against the Russian minority, and if they weren't so addicted to oil.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 08:21 AM

Paul has it absolutely right. Putin can easily cite Kosovo as a precedent. It appears fairly obvious that self-determination for South Ossetia would result in a similar status to that of North Ossetia--and now that is very likely to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: kendall
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 09:49 AM

I was going to mention Kosovo.
Bush was on CNN this morning complaining about the violence and saying he confronted Putin and Medvedev (sp) I'd hate to have his nerve in a tooth! This after he invaded Iraq on trumped up charges! Iraq is 4000 miles from us, Georgia is just across the border from Russia.
January can't come soon enough for me.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 10:05 AM

Self-determination eh? If that was in anyway desireable to the Russians why was there never a United Socialist Soviet Republic of Ossetia, or the other lump of Georgia that the "neutral" Russian peacekeepers have poured troops into?

The USSR set the boundaries of both Georgia and Ukraine. Interesting to see what those countries will look like once all the dust settles. It won't start WW3, but will definitely start "Cold War 2".

The oligarchs that "looted" Russia were the former "elite" of Russia, Putin knows them well, most of them served with him in the KGB.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 11:39 AM

Where do the 2 presidential candidates stand on this issue ??

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 12:12 PM

"The USSR set the boundaries of both Georgia and Ukraine." ~ Teribus

Well, I wasn't sure until I read that post, but now I would say that Russia should go home and let Georgia make peace with its various ethnic groups. Russia wants to be able to threaten the very important oil pipe line and it is also unhappy at the prospect of Georgia joining NATO. Attacking a NATO member has more consequences. George W. Bush seems to be championing the move for membership. The only leader who is quoted as sayng "Russian troops must leave immediately" seems to be Dick Cheney while most others put a wet finger in the air.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 12:30 PM

McCain calls for diplomatic effort with Russia

Monday, August 11, 2008 3:42:51 PM
By CHARLES BABINGTON

Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Monday called for a multi-pronged diplomatic effort to force Russia to withdraw from Georgia, saying Moscow's actions could have long-term implications for its relations with the rest of the world.

Speaking to reporters in Pennsylvania, McCain said Russia appears intent on toppling the Georgian government rather than simply restoring the status quo in the pro-Moscow province of South Ossetia, which Georgia is trying to keep from breaking away.

"NATO's North Atlantic Council should convene in emergency session to demand a ceasefire and begin discussions on both the deployment of an Other international peacekeeping force to South Ossetia and the implications for NATO's future relationship with Russia," McCain said. He also urged NATO to reconsider its decision to withhold a "membership action plan" for Georgia, saying it "might have been viewed as a green light by Russia for its attacks on Georgia."

McCain said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should go to Europe "to establish a common Euro-Atlantic position aimed at ending the war and supporting the independence of Georgia."

He said the United States "should coordinate with our partners in Germany, France and Britain, to seek an emergency meeting of the G-7 foreign ministers to discuss the current crisis."

"Our united purpose should be to persuade the Russian government to cease its attacks, withdraw its troops and enter into negotiations with Georgia," McCain said. "We must remind Russia's leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world."

He declined to take questions from reporters.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 12:34 PM

'"We must remind Russia's leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world."'

Wouldn't hurt for him to sat that to Bush, also.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 12:38 PM

Thanks BB ... now, now what is Obama saying.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 12:45 PM

McCain and the US media are using weasel wording to try to frame the issue in a way that will serve their agenda (oil). The status quo in South Ossetia is that it broke away successfully in 1992 and has been operating autonomously ever since. Georgia is the one that is trying to upset the status quo and force South Ossetia to be a part of Georgia again.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 12:46 PM

I'm not surprised that the Russians are perturbed about Georgia wanting to join NATO.

How would the USA feel if Quebec left Canada, let's say, declared independence and stated its desire to join a re-established Warsaw Pact, allying itself with Russia?

Or what if Mexico did that? What then? What would the USA say about that?

Georgia borders on Russia. Don't forget that. Now put yourself in Russian shoes and imagine their strategic concerns.

They are playing normal great power politics.

The Georgians are playing normal small power politics and doing the standard thing when an enclave (large or small) decides to leave the nation and declare its independence. They're saying "You can't go, and we will happily kill you by the thousands to prevent you from doing so."

That's what the Serbs said to Kosovo, isn't it? That's what a central government usually says to separatists.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 12:46 PM

Obama vs. McCain on Russia vs. Georgia
Candidates Speak Out on Growing International Crisis
By JOHN HENDREN
Aug. 10, 2008
For Russia and Georgia, the conflict in South Ossetia is now a long-simmering war.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., left, and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
(ABC News Photo Illustration)For Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., it is the first chance for the presidential candidates to demonstrate their response to an international crisis.

McCain has called Russia's Vladimir Putin many things, few of them good. He's called Putin "a totalitarian dictator" and famously said he looked into his eyes and saw three letters "K, G and B," a reference to Putin's former employer, the Soviet spy agency. And when hostilities erupted along the Georgia-Russia border, McCain was characteristically bold and quick to act.

He spoke by phone to Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and White House National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, then quickly rearranged his schedule to make his statement on the crisis his first event of the day. And he didn't mince words.

"Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory," he said in a morning statement.

Obama also condemned the Russian invasion. But he cast a wider net for advice -- including Hadley, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and his foreign policy advisors. When he spoke, he was characteristically circumspect.

"I think it is important at this point for all sides to show restraint and to stop this armed conflict," Obama said. The candidates' responses reveal a stark difference in governing style, and both seem carefully calibrated to appeal to American voters.


"John McCain is going to be saying, 'I know what I am talking about foreign policy, and I'm tough enough to lead," said Norman Ornstein, a political analyst with the American Enterprise Institute. "Barack Obama is going to be saying, 'I know what I am talking about in foreign policy, and I'm nuanced enough that I am not going shooting from the hip the way John McCain does."

The bitter battle over who's performed best has already begun. A McCain aide calls Obama "bizarrely in sync with Moscow." Obama's campaign suggested McCain had a conflict of interest because his foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann, had lobbied for Georgia.


Speaking out carries other risks.

"They must be very cautious in being used by a party in this very explosive situation," said Stephen Hess of the Brookings Institution. "The initial McCain statement seemed very overheated, as not one of extreme caution."


Nevertheless, McCain and Obama, alike, seem to be betting their response to the crisis will help them most in November.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 12:51 PM

Obama's the only one who is calling for both sides to stop. Everyone else seems to think the government of Georgia should be allowed (with the help of the US), to massacre civilians in South Ossetia unhindered. Perhaps it's ethnic cleansing of the South Ossetians that Georgia (and the US) has in mind.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:02 PM

The primary issue here is not oil, it is power. Russia does not want it's greatest rival right on it's doorstep. Georgia, confident that they have USA backing, decided to reassert it's territorial claims when they thought the world would be busy. Russia seized on the chance to teach Georgia a lesson, namely- that the West can't garauntee their safety. Not only Georgia, but the Ukraine too.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:05 PM

"This weekend's fighting was provoked by Russian-advised South Ossetian separatists; Georgia foolishly responded to the provocation; and Russia was ready to roll in with a large armored force. Does Russia now want to advance further into Georgia? Or does it want to keep Georgia's democracy in a perpetual state of tension? Neither is acceptable, and the West should be formulating policies for either possibility.


In the longer term, the West will have to decide whether to continue its effort to soothe and placate Mr. Putin, as if he were a petulant child who could be bought off with candy and words of praise, or whether to rise to the geopolitical challenge his regime poses. Separate European nations (especially Germany) have thought that they could save themselves by cutting separate deals with Russia for oil and gas. They have tried to avert their eyes as Russia cut oil supplies to show its displeasure with European Union members such as the Czech Republic or Lithuania. Will they now unite to strengthen their position?

Meanwhile, as nations on Russia's periphery such as Georgia and Ukraine have turned west for help in safeguarding their independence, the West has responded ambivalently, offering sympathy but often little else. Russia's theory no doubt is that its aggression in Georgia will scare the West further away. Will that theory, too, harden into ugly truth, or will the West understand that it cannot buy peace by tendering the sovereignty of vulnerable nations? "

from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/10/AR2008081001840.html

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:06 PM

That sounds dead right to me, Volgadon. As you say, it's about power. It is also about regional spheres of influence.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: kendall
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:12 PM

What ever happened to minding your own business? We haven't tried that lately.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:15 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/10/AR2008081001870.html

Exactly what happened in South Ossetia last week is unclear. Each side will argue its own version. But we know, without doubt, that Georgia was responding to repeated provocative attacks by South Ossetian separatists controlled and funded by Moscow. This is a not a war Georgia wanted; it believed that it was slowly gaining ground in South Ossetia through a strategy of soft power.

Whatever mistakes Tbilisi has made, they cannot justify Russia's actions. Moscow has invaded a neighbor, an illegal act of aggression that violates the U.N. Charter and fundamental principles of cooperation and security in Europe. Beginning a well-planned war (including cyber-warfare) as the Olympics were opening violates the ancient tradition of a truce to conflict during the Games. And Russia's willingness to create a war zone 25 miles from the Black Sea city of Sochi, where it is to host the Winter Games in 2014, hardly demonstrates its commitment to Olympic ideals. In contrast, Moscow's timing suggests that Putin seeks to overthrow Saakashvili well ahead of our elections, and thus avoid beginning relations with the next president on an overtly confrontational note.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:21 PM

Latvia, Lithuania an Estonia border Russia. Aren't they in NATO? Should they be worried?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:28 PM

"Everyone else seems to think the government of Georgia should be allowed (with the help of the US), to massacre civilians in South Ossetia unhindered." ~ CarolC

Bunk

"They're saying 'You can't go, and we will happily kill you by the thousands to prevent you from doing so.' That's what the Serbs said to Kosovo, isn't it?" ~ LH

Bunk rides again.

Kosovo was taken from historic owners the Serbs (Orthodox) by Muslims who had slowly but intentionally moved into Serbian territory as an expansion move, both by ethnic Albanians and Muslims. Pure expansionism.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:50 PM

Carol, I have said for many years, and from the beginning of this thread, that Georgia's actions were wrong, but Russia is using Ossetia as an excuse to further it's own goals, which are quite obvious even to people who have never been in Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:58 PM

The Washington Post is also using weasel wording to promote its hidden agenda. South Ossetia was already separated from Georgia, and was functioning independently from Georgia (since 1992). Georgia started the fighting by bombing and shelling civilian population centers in South Ossetia in order to undo what had already been done more than a decade before.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 02:01 PM

Certainly the Russians have their own agenda. But calling for the Russians to leave South Ossetia while Georgia is still massacring civilians there is quite obviously wrong. And saying that Georgia had a right to separate from Russia, but South Ossetia does not have a right to separate from Georgia is also quite obviously wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 02:09 PM

"Carol, I have said for many years, and from the beginning of this thread, that Georgia's actions were wrong, but Russia is using Ossetia as an excuse to further it's own goals, which are quite obvious even to people who have never been in Russia."

Dead right again, Volgadon. Like I said, it's normal great power (and small power) politics.

Both Georgia and Russia have acted entirely in their own self-interest...just as the USA always acts entirely in its own self-interest. It is facile to endow any of these national participants with a halo of righteousness, because they are all simply pursuing pragmatic ends to what they imagine to be their own benefit. You listening, pdq? ;-)

The Georgians miscalculated, that's all. They underestimated the dangers of a massive Russian response, and they have probably overestimated the extent to which the West will go to help them out.

I would certainly not start a Third World War with Russia over Georgia or South Ossetia, I'll tell you that. To do so would be idiotic, not to mention futile.

Have the Russians ever started a Third World War over the many USA interventions in Latin America? Nope. The one time there was a real danger of that was in the Cuban crisis, but that was because Russia had installed nuclear missiles in Cuba. The West has not installed nuclear missiles in Georgia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 02:23 PM

"...Moscow's timing suggests that Putin seeks to overthrow Saakashvili well ahead of our elections, and thus avoid beginning relations with the next president on an overtly confrontational note." ~ bb

At least a few people here are thinking clearly.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 02:39 PM

That would be a good strategic move on the part of the Russians. Typical great power politics, as I've said.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 02:40 PM

Carol, I don't think anyone here is saying that Russia should get out of South Ossetia, but they should get out of the rest of Georgia, if the issue truly is about Ossetia. I think the biggest issue here is actualy the UKRAINE. What do these terms tell you:
Donbass. Crimea. Kharkov.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Leadbelly
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 02:42 PM

Thinking of the massacre in South Ossetia for which Saakashvili has to take resposibility it reminds me of another "vili" aka Stalin.
He was a Georgian, too.
Seems to be some kind of tradition to act like this.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 02:44 PM

"they should get out of the rest of Georgia, if the issue truly is about Ossetia."

True enough.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 02:45 PM

On a pedantic note- shvili. A lot of the blame for the current problems in South Ossetia can be laid at his door. Despite the friendship of the nations policy, he turned a blind eye to replacing the latin-based Ossetian alphabet with a Georgian one, to their efforts to replace Ossetian culture and identity with Georgian ones.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 02:52 PM

"Georgia started the fighting by bombing and shelling civilian population centers in South Ossetia in order to undo what had already been done more than a decade before. "


Glad to know that CarolC is a witness to all of this. The reports I had heard were that, IN RESPONSE to the South Ossetian shelling of Georgia, the Georgians responded by the shelling and occupation of South Ossetia, until driven out by the Russians, who are now well into Georgia ( as well as occupying the other enclave).


All tha must be wrong, since it is not what CarolC says is happening.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 02:52 PM

"Kosovo was taken from historic owners the Serbs (Orthodox) by Muslims who had slowly but intentionally moved into Serbian territory as an expansion move, both by ethnic Albanians and Muslims. Pure expansionism."

This is pure, ignorant, prejudiced rubbish and shouldn't go unchallenged! There have been ethnic Albanians in Kosovo for centuries and they have just as much right to be there as the Serbs! If you don't believe me read Noel Malcolm's book, 'A Short History of Kosovo'.

Many ethnic groups in the Balkans have nationalist myths, all of which should be taken with a pinch of salt. A particular Serbian myth is that, at the end of the 17th century, after Kosovo Serbs were defeated by the Ottomans, they were forced to flee to Hungary and Albanians 'flooded' into Kosovo. Dr Malcolm shows this narrative to be largely mythical. And even if it were true, it is no excuse for the vicious practice of 'ethnic cleansing' 300 years later!!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 02:58 PM

Georgia claims Russians have cut country in half
Monday, August 11, 2008 6:34:56 PM

Georgia's president says Russia's troops have effectively cut the country in half by seizing a strategic city that straddles the country's main east-west highway.

President Mikhail Saakashvili made the statement in a national security council meeting on Monday, about an hour after officials claimed Russian troops had captured Gori, about 60 miles west of the capital Tbilisi.

The news agency Interfax cited a Russian Defense Ministry official as denying the reports of the seizure.

But a top official at the Georgian embassy in Moscow, Givi Shugarov, said Russian troops appeared to be moving toward Tbilisi and he alleged Russia's goal was "complete liquidation" of the Georgian government.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 03:04 PM

This ain't nuthin' more than Putin-head doing in Georgia what Bush has tried to do in Iraq...

Colonialism/inperialism is alive and well these days...

I blame this 99% on Bush setting the example with his war of choice and not engaging Putin and Russia diplomatically on a consistent basis...

This war could have been avoided but now looks as if the next president is going to have another Cold War on his hands and I would hope that whomever it is isn't stupid enough to think it can be won with guns 'casue it can't...

Just more reason for US to get the heck outta Iraq and be a better role model...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Leadbelly
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 03:13 PM

Just found this which was written more than 3(!) years ago.

Source: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1335682/posts

"The Saakashvili Stalin-like grip

Posted on Freitag, 04. Februar 2005 09:25:20 by Rezo

The Saakashvili Stalin-like grip

The Saakashvili Stalin-like grip of power is getting tighter with each passing day. The independent observers are comparing the personnel shifts in Georgia to sheer repressions and pointing to the already established dictatorship and obvious signs of authoritarian regime in Georgia. Not only the Saakashvili crusade on non-loyal to him Georgian businessmen testifies to the effect. This is also political and judicial harassment of the ex-officials not supportive of the nationalistic ambitions of their new strongman. This is also lack of any tolerance towards the journalists praising the 'revolution of roses' and the presidential command at every corner. Journalists are taking it for serious that freedom of speech is gravely endangered now. Mass media staffers are banned for instance from zones of disputed status in the framework of Georgia-Osetia and Georgia-Abkhazia stand-offs. Their reports on Georgian soldiers' slaughter towards people belonging to ethnical minorities and articles on human rights abuse in Adzharia are usually shelved. TV outlets' coverage of Armenians of Javakhetia being oppressed is absent at all. Generally, it makes the impression that Georgian revolution forced the country on the totalitarian way. The president of Georgia has got the false idea of his own importance. He is thinking of himself as of the almighty Stalin. The people of Georgia paved the way for Saakashvili to occupy the presidential chair a year or so ago. He doesn't care about that people any more. There is only power he is really after. Saakashvili is intoxicated with power. While most Georgians are hardly making both ends meet he is constantly threatening former autonomous regions with militant statements. But the budget of Georgia is too slender both for wars and social payments. Saakashvili is not on the message. He is crazy with the idea of completely subduing the autonomies. He is after power only and not after control. Power unlike control doesn't entail the responsibility. And again Saakashvili is talking of repressions. According to his voiced plans, when subdued Abkhazia will be left without 70% of Abkhazians destined for other places of living to make 'favorable living conditions' for the local Georgians. But Mishiko seems to be unaware of the fact he is only a puppet in the hands of some far more influential figures towering him. If the new Georgian leadership stays under Soros or Miles influence it'll be unable to secure the integrity of Georgia. The repressions in no way can't solve the problem."

As has been said: more than 3 years ago. Everbody could/should have known...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Leadbelly
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 03:36 PM

Last but not least, that's the new "hero" of George W.,his vice-president and all other people in hate with Russia???

Source: The Guardian,UK. www.guardian co.uk/world/2004/.....

".......In an interview with a Dutch magazine, Sandra Roelofs, the Dutch wife of the new Georgian president and hence the new first lady of Georgia, explained that her husband aspires to follow in the long tradition of strong Georgian leaders "like Stalin and Beria". Saakashvili started his march on Tbilisi last November with a rally in front of the statue of Stalin in his birthplace, Gori......"

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 03:38 PM

I think that Putin is doing this now because he is running out of time to stick it to Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 04:22 PM

Bush couldn't care less, Jack... You see the piture in this morning's paper... He has reverted back to his ol' collage drunk frat boy/cheerleader self... Hey, everyone knows he is in way over head with foriegn policy... Problem is that today he cares alot more about whether or not the kid gets 8 gols medals in swimming than what Putin is orderin' up 3000 miles to the east...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 04:39 PM

In all of the accounts I've read, it was Georgia that started the bombing, and not South Ossetian separatists.

Why would the South Ossetians want to bomb Georgia? They would have nothing to gain by doing so, and everything to lose. They won the civil war with Georgia in 1992, and have been living independently from Georgia ever since. Georgia, on the other hand, which wants to reabsorb South Ossetia (against the will of the South Ossetians), is the only party with a reason for wanting to bomb anyone. The people who are trying to make it look like Russia and South Ossetia started this are lying.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 04:45 PM

And by the way, everyone in power in the US (including the media) is calling for Russia to leave South Ossetia. The reason it looks like they are saying Russia should only get out of Georgia (and not South Ossetia) is because when they say "Georgia", they are also talking about South Ossetia. They aren't recognizing South Ossetia as a separate entity.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peter T.
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 04:46 PM

Actually, I think it is quite easily possible to put the blame squarely on George Bush. He thought he could play the big man, and pump up Georgia against Russia, and now that the bill has come due, he doesn't have the ability to do anything about it. Another diplomatic triumph for the Bush administration.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 04:57 PM

(agree)   (Cheney/Bush)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 05:23 PM

Yeah Heric, Peter, I think it is Bush's Hubris coming home to roost.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 05:23 PM

Just heard Bush on TV. He's aware that Georgia is in Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 05:36 PM

Well, that's a start!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 06:01 PM

Good. Atlanta will breathe easier tonight. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 06:06 PM

Yeah. But it's also in Asia, too.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 06:41 PM

Well, I just watched McCain mispronounced Saakshvili's name three times. So, it's a given. He'll be elected. (Hey, it worked for Bush!)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: skarpi
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 06:52 PM

well saakasvílí started this war , and attacked the russian
peace soldiers , so he gets what he asked for , and who said any way
that Russia cant be like the Americans ??


well I hope it will end soon

ATB Skarpi

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 08:41 PM

"so he gets what he asked for"

The Georgian people get it, not him. Unfortunately, these bastards that start wars send other people's kids to get killed. They seldom do themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Paul Burke
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 03:30 AM

Next step- hope there's not a cold winter, because the Russians will almost certainly "accidentally" turn off the gas pipeline to Ukraine and probably Europe.

As I said before, it serves us right for getting dependent on them. We've already had 35% increases in gas prices announced in Britain- it could reach 100% or more as this develops. Thank you to the far- sighted British politicians who used our North Sea oil and gas reserves to crush the unions and fuel a feelgood economic boom.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 04:50 AM

Teribus--

I deduce from your tone that you don't think that self-determination for the South Ossetians would result in their choosing a similar status to that of North Ossetia.

From Google:   "Before the Georgian-Ossetian conflict, roughly 2/3 of the population of South Ossetia was Ossetian.   25%-30% was Georgian." according to the Permament Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use".   This is before the current hostilities--that is, before any ethnic cleansing as a result of the 2008 crisis.

"By August 2008, more than 70% of the South Ossetian citizens had Russian citizenship.`'--again, Google.

Obviously the South Ossetians want as much autonomy as they can get. They have seen how much Georgia is willing to give them.

It's time for you to provide some actual evidence and logic that the South Ossetians would not now voluntarily choose a similar status to that of North Ossetia, which is officially a part of Russia, rather than the status they now have within Georgia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 06:14 AM

Looks like a cease fire.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 06:19 AM

Would be nice if Saakashvili could be taken for a walk in the woods before the Russian troops leave.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 07:21 AM

"Permanent"

It looks like Peace is right. Russia has decided to stop miltary operations against Georgia,

And it's clear that Bush is the anti-TR.   Speak loudly and carry a feather. Bush had absolutely no leverage to force Russia to do anything--thanks in large part to stupid overextension of US forces by his senseless invasion of Iraq--rather than trying to finish the job he started in Afghanistan.

That's assuming that Bush would have had the power to do anything in the Georgia-South Ossetia affair--in a corner of the world of overwhelming vital interest to Russia-- even without the Iraq war.

But it would still be good to hear exactly why South Ossetia would not choose a situation close to that of North Ossetia if given the opportunity. And it may still happen.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 08:05 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_South_Ossetia_(2008)

So, who are we supposed to believe, Georgia or the South Ossetians? I think that BOTH have a reason to lie.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 08:11 AM

I believe the Russians in this instance. The Georgian leader is somewhat a tyrant.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: bankley
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 08:25 AM

...and Mr Cheney,,,

'if you go out in the woods today,
you're sure of a big surprise'

don't go hunting Russian bear with birdshot in your gun...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 09:05 AM

Washington Post:

The Invasion Continues

The West confronts an unfamiliar sight: a nation bent on conquest.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008; Page A12

IN MOSCOW yesterday, President Dmitry Medvedev gave every indication that Russia was winding up its military operation in Georgia. Meanwhile, his forces continued to advance into that sovereign nation and bomb widely dispersed strategic targets there. The contradiction was consistent with the Russian regime's behavior throughout this crisis: Its words have borne no connection to its actions; its actions are untethered to international norms.

We're pleased to publish on the opposite page today an analysis by former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev. He sees the origins of this crisis very differently from how we do, but he agrees that "hostilities must cease as soon as possible." What he doesn't spell out is that such an outcome rests entirely in the hands of Mr. Medvedev -- or of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, depending on who is really in charge. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has accepted a French proffer of an immediate cease-fire. Russia, by contrast, seems determined to depose Georgia's government because it has not been willing to act as vassal and submit to Russia's resurgent imperial ambitions. "Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people," President Bush said yesterday. "Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century."

Well said, but what to do about it? Of course we support the intensified diplomacy that is taking place, including France's efforts to negotiate a truce. Nations on every continent should make clear that invasion and conquest are not acceptable modes of behavior and that Russia will face long-term and damaging consequences if it persists in occupying parts of Georgia and even more damaging consequences if it extends its military campaign. NATO's plans for the joint defense of members such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland need to be urgently upgraded; the decision to hold the Winter Olympics in a Russian city near the Georgian border should be reexamined; Europe's insouciance about its dependence on Russian oil and gas should be a thing of the past.


But the most urgent need is to see clearly what is taking place. As the crisis deepened, one could hear in Washington the usual attempts to blame the victim, as if Georgia somehow deserved this fate because its elected government had opted for friendly relations with the West. There were also the predictable efforts to score domestic political points.

Fortunately, both candidates for president rose above such temptations, issuing statements that showed they understand the moral calculus and the stakes -- and that the U.S. election will not yield a president any more tolerant of the Kremlin's bullying. Yesterday morning, Sen. John McCain (R) condemned the attacks, outlined a series of policy responses and said, "We must remind Russia's leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world." Later in the day, Sen. Barack Obama (D) said, "There is no possible justification for these attacks" and added: "I have consistently called for deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO, and we must continue to press for that deeper relationship."

That's the right call; but a precondition of a deepening relationship is the survival of an independent Georgia. As we write, Russia has put that survival shockingly in doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 09:17 AM

Russia supports two provinces determined to secede from Georgia. Russia, with aspiring nations within its borders, generally opposes secessionists, as it did when America, which sometimes opposes secession (e.g., 1861-65), improvidently supported Kosovo's secession from Russia's ally Serbia. But Russia's aggression is really about the subordination of Georgia, a democratic, market-oriented U.S. ally. This is the recrudescence of Russia's dominance in what it calls the "near abroad." Ukraine, another nation guilty of being provocatively democratic near Russia, should tremble because there is not much America can do. It is a bystander at the bullying of an ally that might be about to undergo regime change.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102156.html

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 09:18 AM

It would have been an easy thing for the Russians to throw the Georgians out of the two disputed enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia is mighty; Georgia is not. Russia is huge; Georgia is tiny. The whole thing is a mismatch from the word go, and the Georgians -- when it is appropriate to do so -- have to be reminded that you do not poke a sleeping bear with a stick. Little nations ought to know their place.

But the bombing, including areas near the Georgian capital of Tbilisi, is not merely disproportionate, it is purposely, studiously, coldly atrocious. It is meant to punish -- not as a deterrent, the Israeli approach to such things, but as a way to show the world that the old Russia is reasserting itself. This is the Russia that looks at Georgia no differently from the way the czars did or, for that matter, the way of that most infamous of Georgians, Stalin himself. This is a Russia that wants a friendly leader on its border. It wants Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to go.

The Russian invasion of Georgia is a breath of dank air from the rancid past. It reeks of spheres of interest and Metternichian understandings of how the world works and how power is exercised. It is also a refreshing reminder that sprinkling BMW dealerships hither and yon in this or that country does not, in the end, change the culture all that much. Russia, as my grandmother could have told George W. Bush, always fights dirty.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102014.html

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 09:23 AM

All that is so--from one side. What we see are articles that are following the Washington line. Are there any articles about Saakashvili's attacks on Russian peacekeepers and the populations of the two 'states' within Georgia?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 09:31 AM

BP shutters Georgian pipeline
BP says it closed the 90,000 barrel a day Baku-Supsa pipeline that flows through the embattled nation.

LONDON (AP) -- BP PLC says it has shut down an oil pipeline that runs through Georgia as a precautionary measure, but says that it's unaware of any Russian bombings on pipelines in the region.

BP says it closed the 90,000-barrel-a-day Baku-Supsa pipeline earlier Tuesday.

Another pipeline operated by the London-based oil company in the former Soviet Republic, the larger Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, is already out of action after a fire last week on its Turkish stretch.

BP (BP) spokesman Robert Wine says that the Baku-Supsa line had been closed because it runs through central Georgia, where there is greater risk of conflict.

However, he adds that BP has had no reports of damage to pipelines in Georgia.

A third pipeline in Georgia that BP uses to export oil, but does not operate, remains open.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 09:35 AM

A different POV from the LATimes

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 09:47 AM

Georgia: Attacks continuing despite Russia halt claim

Story Highlights
NEW: Georgia says attacks have continued despite Russian halt claim

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev calls halt to fighting, report says

Russian troops had advanced further into Georgia from two breakaway regions

Oil giant BP shuts down two pipelines in the region as a precaution

   
MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Tuesday that he had ordered an end to military operations against Georgia, but Tbilisi reported more attacks after the statement was made.

Medvedev's announcement came minutes before French President Nicolas Sarkozy was to land in Moscow to negotiate terms for a possible cease-fire.

"I have reached a decision to halt the operation to force the Georgian authorities to peace," Medvedev said. "The aggressor has been punished and has incurred very significant losses. Its armed forces are disorganized."

"The statement on the halt of the military action by Russia is the news we had expected. It's good news," Sarkozy said later, according to an Interfax report.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was also involved the talks.

Medvedev's decision would end five days of fighting that began in Georgia's breakaway region of South Ossetia. Watch Georgia's reaction to halt in fighting »

The Georgian government claimed that despite Medvedev's announcement, Russian warplanes struck two villages and military forces bombed an ambulance outside the breakaway province of South Ossetia.

In the Georgian capital of Tbilisi, thousands of citizens engaged in a pro-Georgian rally in front of the parliament building. Watch Georgians rally in Tbilisi »

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who addressed the rally, has accused Russia of provoking the war to justify a full-scale invasion of the former Soviet state. The Russians say Saakashvili attacked first in an attempt to gain control of South Ossetia.

Earlier Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said it wanted a demilitarized zone to be created in Georgian territory before a cease-fire could take effect. Watch Lavrov speak about Georgia »

The zone had to be big enough to prevent Georgia's military from again attacking the breakaway province, Lavrov said.

Russian troops who were already in the breakaway province on peacekeeping duty should remain, Lavrov explained, but Georgian troops who were part of that force should not return.

He said it would be best if Saakashvili stepped down as Georgia's leader -- something the president has vowed not to do -- but that Russia was not demanding his resignation.

"We have no plans to throw down any leadership," Lavrov said. "It is not part of our culture. It is not what we do."

However, Lavrov said Moscow did not trust the country's leadership.

He said Saakashvili's "barbaric and brutal action" had undermined trust in Georgia.

Meanwhile, the Russian military advanced further into Georgia overnight, heading toward cities outside South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

From the flashpoint South Ossetia, the Russian military moved south toward the central Georgia city of Gori, Georgia said. Russia said its troops were on the outskirts of the city.
Russian troops were also in Senaki, in western Georgia, having advanced from the breakaway area of Abkhazia, Russian and Georgian officials said.

Georgia's security chief Alexander Lomaia said Tuesday that Russian troops had left Senaki but remained on the outskirts of Zugdidi and around Gori, The Associated Press reported.

Lomaia said Russian aircraft bombed Gori on Tuesday morning, targeting administrative buildings and a street market in the center, AP reported.

A Dutch cameraman was killed on Tuesday morning in an incident in Gori, the Dutch Foreign Ministry confirmed. He was identified as Stan Storimans, of RTL TV. The correspondent who accompanied him was also injured. There were no immediate details about the incident.

An Georgian Interior Ministry official added that Russian bombs hit one of the three pipelines carrying oil to the Black Sea port of Poti. There was no oil in the pipeline at the time, the ministry official said.

UK-based engery giant BP later said it had shut down two oil pipelines in the region as a "precautionary measure" linked to the security situation.

Georgia, a pro-Western ally of the U.S., is intent on asserting its authority over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, both of which have strong Russian-backed separatist movements.

The situation in South Ossetia escalated rapidly from Thursday night, when Georgia said it launched an operation into the region after artillery fire from separatists killed 10 people. It accused Russia of backing the separatists.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 09:49 AM

"A graduate of Columbia and George Washington universities in law and human rights, Saakashvili won election in January 2004 with 96% of the vote. He vowed to fight corruption at home and to re-integrate the pro-Russian regions of Adzharia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia into Georgia."


No wonder he is so evil!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 09:50 AM

Possibly the field commanders didn't receive the directive to cease operations?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 09:51 AM

Bush was elected by the American people and he invaded Iraq. The fact that someone is elected doesn't mean they can't also be evil.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 09:53 AM

Re his degrees ( subjects and places)

And Bush did not get 96% of the vote running ON attacking Iraq!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 09:54 AM

CHRONOLOGY-Russia orders end to fighting in Georgia

Aug 12 (Reuters) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ordered a halt to military operations in Georgia on Tuesday after five days of fighting.

Georgia entered a conflict with Russia last week after launching an offensive to retake the pro-Russian region of South Ossetia, which broke away from Georgian rule. The issue of South Ossetia's independence has bedevilled Georgia's relations with Russia. Here is a chronology of recent events:

April 3, 2008 - NATO member states at a summit in Bucharest agree that Georgia and Ukraine can one day join the alliance. They stop short of giving them a firm timetable for accession.

April 16 - Russian President Vladimir Putin orders officials to establish semi-official ties with separatist administrations in Georgia's Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Georgia says the order is a violation of international law.

April 20 - Georgia says a Russian Mig-29 fighter jet shot down a Georgian drone flying over Abkhazia. Russia denies involvement. A United Nations report later backs the Georgian version of events.

April 29 - Russia sends extra troops to Abkhazia to counter what it says are Georgian plans for an attack. The next day NATO accuses Moscow of stoking tensions with Georgia.

May 4 - Separatists in Abkhazia say they shot down two Georgian spy drones over the territory they control. Georgia denies any such flights.

May 6 - Georgia says Russia's deployment of extra troops in Abkhazia has brought the prospect of war "very close".

May 30 - Georgia says it stopped flights by unpiloted spy planes over Abkhazia but reserves the right to resume them.

May 31 - Putin, now prime minister, says he backs a Georgian proposal for Abkhazia's autonomy but not full independence.

July 5 - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev urges Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to refrain from "stoking tensions" in Georgia's breakaway regions.

July 8 - Russian fighter jets fly into Georgian airspace over South Ossetia. Moscow says the mission was intended to "cool hot heads in Tbilisi". Two days later Georgia recalls its ambassador from Moscow in protest.

Aug. 4 - Russia accuses Georgia of using excessive force in South Ossetia after the Russian-backed rebels said Georgian artillery had killed at least six people.

Aug. 7 - Georgian troops attack South Ossetian capital after a truce with rebels breaks down, Russia says Tbilisi cannot be trusted and NATO should reconsider its plans to admit Georgia.

Aug. 8 - Russia sends forces into Georgia to repel the Georgian assault. Medvedev vows to defend Russian "compatriots".

-- Saakashvili says the two countries are at war.

Aug. 11 - Russia issues an ultimatum to Georgian forces near Abkhazia to disarm or be attacked. Georgia rejects the demand. Saakashvili says Russia wants to replace his government and control energy routes through the Caucasus. Russia rejects a Georgian ceasefire proposal.

Aug. 12 - Medvedev issues orders to stop fighting in the five-day war in Georgia. Medvedev is quoted as saying that the aggressor has been punished and sustained very serious losses. Russia says its troops will remain in current positions in Georgia. Georgia says it needs more evidence of a Russian halt to operations and will remain prepared for everything.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 10:02 AM

Seems in agreement- but still, who is at fault? NEITHER account makes that exactly clear.




...........
Beginning late on 1 August, intense fighting began between Georgian troops and paramilitary soldiers of South Ossetia, causing the deaths of six people and injuring twenty-one others. Each side accused the other of commencing the fighting.[27] On 3 August, the Russian government allowed South Ossetians to begin evacuation into Russia, which resulted in twenty bus-loads of refugees leaving the region on the first day.[48]

On 4 August, five battalions of the Russian 58th Army were moved to the vicinity of Roki Tunnel that links South Ossetia with North Ossetia.[49]

Sporadic fighting continued throughout the next several days. On 6 August, Georgia said it had lost an APC and that three Georgian soldiers had been wounded.[50] Four people were killed that night and Georgia resumed shelling at daybreak. Residents once again began evacuating areas of South Ossetia and Georgia moved tanks, artillery, and troops to the border.[51] The Georgian Interior Ministry reported that as many as ten Georgian soldiers had died in the clashes throughout 7 August.[52][53]

Saakashvili who had earlier alleged that a sniper warfare was taking taking place [54] later ordered a unilateral ceasefire. Saakashvili called for talks "in any format", reaffirmed the long-standing offer of full autonomy for South Ossetia, proposed that Russia should guarantee that solution, offered a general amnesty, and pleaded for international intercession to stop the hostilities.[26] Georgia reiterated that it was prepared to engage in direct talks with the de facto government of South Ossetia without any preconditions.

During the night and early morning, Georgian artillery was reported to have shelled the South Ossetian villages of Avnevi, Eredvi, Nuli and others.[56] Georgian news reported that Georgian-populated villages of South-Ossetia were first hit, however this contradicts the reports of Information Telegraph Agency of Russia. These reports also stated that the police station in Kurta, seat of the Sanakoyev administration, was hit by artillery fire. Georgia reported that civilians had begun fleeing these villages.[26] Georgian shelling continued, varying in intensity through the night.

Georgia began a military offensive into South Ossetia commanded by Mamuka Kurashvili, which they said was a response the above-mentioned alleged attacks against Georgian villages. However, South Ossetia denied attacking the villages. Kurashvili stated that the purpose of the operation was to restore constitutional order in the region.[57] This caused an increased number of refugees to cross into Russia.[57][58] Interfax quoted South Ossetian leader Eduard Kokoity as saying his forces were confronting Georgians in the outskirts of Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia; he noted that fierce fighting was under way.[citation needed]

At 00:53 on 8 August (local time, 20:53 7 August UTC), Georgian forces began shelling the city, which allegedly included the route along which refugees were being moved.[59] As the day progressed, Russian media reported that at least fifteen civilians had been killed in Tskhinvali.[52]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_South_Ossetia_(2008)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 10:34 AM

I'm with you on that, Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 12:26 PM

"Nations on every continent should make clear that invasion and conquest are not acceptable modes of behavior and that Russia will face long-term and damaging consequences if it persists in occupying parts of Georgia and even more damaging consequences if it extends its military campaign."

Yes they should. Now apply that to the USA's invasions of Afghanistan and most particularly Iraq.

My, how self-righteous yesterday's great power aggressor in Washington is waxing over today's great power aggressor in Moscow! ;-) How droll all this rhetoric is.

And here's another piece of very droll rhetoric, intended to create largely false impressions in the mind of the American reader:

"Russia's aggression is really about the subordination of Georgia, a democratic, market-oriented U.S. ally"

The first part is right, Russia is trying to subordinate Georgia...just like the USA has tried to subordinate Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc...

However, the second part is nuanced bullshit intended to deceive, and to invoke old images of Soviet Russia and the Cold War. The use of the words "democratic" and "market-oriented" is disingenuous and laughable. Russia has itself been market-oriented ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, for heaven's sake! Russia has also been hold western-style multi-party elections ever since the fall of the Soviet Union....so why this disingenuous attempt to pretend that Georgia is any more market-oriented or democratic than Russia?

Well, to sway the mind of American readers, that's why.

I suspect that both the Russian and Georgian governments are far less inclined toward true democracy than their outer show of national elections would indicate, but to cast Georgia as supposedly "democratic" (therefore "good") and Russia as supposedly not (therefore "evil") is just rhetoric intended to deceive domestic American consumption...and ditto for the nonsense about "market-oriented" distinctions.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 12:46 PM

Make no mistake Russia is run by Putin (under a changed office but still boss #1)! He is a cold KGB prick and he rules with an iron fist. He was "democratically elected" as well, as was Hitler at one time,so democracy has little to do with the situation. Georgia rattled Russia's cage and that probably was a stupid thing to do. Now Putin uses that as an excuse to bare his teeth and bite. He is setting an example for all his neighbours to heed. Georgia was sucked in and I hope that the bloodshed will soon end!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 01:05 PM

NATO has 10 members who were once oppressed regions under Russian control:

Czech Republic
Hungary
Poland

(29 March 2004):
Bulgaria:
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia

Note: 7 have been brought in since George W. Bush became president. He strongly supports Georgia's entry as well. Putin doesn't like NATO, Bush, the president of Georgia or anyone else who stands up to the Russian bear.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 01:08 PM

For sure, Russia is really run by Putin. ;-) No doubt about it. The ironical thing, though, is that a large majority of the Russian population likes it that way, so even if they had a totally real democracy right now, they would still elect Putin if he ran for office again. So how about that? Watcha gonna do?

Putin is a highly effective leader, he's no fool, and he's the FIRST actually effective leader Russia has had since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Accordingly he's very popular.

So he was KGB? So what? People who have been CIA amount to the same thing in my opinion, but having been in the CIA does not preclude American politicians from being respected and from serving in other areas of government, does it? Quite the contrary. Your secret service people are regarded as heros and protectors of the country. How ironical! They've caused the deaths of untold numbers of people all over the world with their undercover activities, their coups, and their assassinations of foreign leaders.

I'm not impressed one bit by this hypocritical double standard in assessing the character of Russian politicians and secret agents versus American politicians and secret agents. Both of those great powers are totally self-interested, they are both utterly ruthless, they are both military aggressors, they are both imperialists, and they both invade and subjugate small nations whenever they have a whim and an excuse to do so.

There is little to choose between them and no reason for moral grandstanding on the part of either one of them.

The Georgians have no reason for moral grandstanding either, because their government brought this mess down on itself through its own irresponsible behaviour.

You say they were sucked in? Maybe so...but no more than Saddam Hussein was sucked in when he attacked Kuwait back in '91. (the American ambassador to Iraq assured him before the invasion of Kuwait that the USA had no interest or reason to take sides in any Arab vs Arab conflicts...thus sucking him in...and I have a strong suspicion that that was a deliberate ploy by the USA, and a clever one too).

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Leadbelly
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 01:13 PM

"Georgia rattled Russia's cage and that probably was a stupid thing to do".

STUPID! Nice little word,Sandy. Children might be stupid. Georgias president acted as a criminal and-make no mistake-triggered all of this trouble. That's a fact.

I might be wrong, but I think you are of american origin. And these people should be quite quiet because of Iran. The rest of the world don't need your knowledge about Russia. Clean at your own door.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 01:13 PM

LH,

a. IF the US is wrong for its actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, then Russia is wrong re Georgia.

b. If Russia is right re Georgia, then the US is right re Iraq et al.



OK? Pick one.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 01:17 PM

"Putin doesn't like NATO, Bush, the president of Georgia or anyone else who stands up to the Russian bear."

Naturally. You would feel exactly the same way if you were the leader of Russia, pdq.

You have to stop seeing certain other people (like the Russians) as cardboard stereotypes and realize that just like you or anyone else they:

1. are proud of their country
2. are patriots
3. believe in their country
4. and will defend its interests whenever and wherever they can

Putin is doing exactly what most of his own people would want him to do. If you were a Russian, you'd probably love him. ;-) You'd be cheering his "get tough" stand in regards to the Georgians, because that's how you normally think regarding foreign policy when the shoe is on the other foot and it's American interests that are involved.

Look in the mirror, man. See your reflection. They are just like you. They defend their own interests whenever and wherever they can....and they are not "evil". They're just human.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 01:25 PM

Well said.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Leadbelly
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 01:29 PM

Sorry, but Iraq was meant. Obviously, everbody knows apart from me.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 01:30 PM

"a. IF the US is wrong for its actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, then Russia is wrong re Georgia.

b. If Russia is right re Georgia, then the US is right re Iraq et al."


Heh! You seem to somehow be missing my point, BB. I don't know how....I thought I made it quite clear.

I have already stated that the Russians have a right to defend people in South Ossetia, but NOT to invade the rest of Georgia. My position is the same on Iraq. The USA had a right to eject Iraqi forces from Kuwait in '91, but they did NOT have a right to continue persecuting the nation of Iraq for years after that was accomplished and they did not have a right to launch an invasion of Iraq in 2003...nor any real excuse to either.

They likewise did not, in my opinion, have a right to invade Afghanistan. 911 was not an attack by one nation on another. It was a criminal act by a secret group of conspirators, not an attack by the armed forces of Afghanistan or any other nation. It should have been treated as an international criminal investigation procedure, not turned into an excuse for a war.

Now, Russia has had a totally valid excuse to get involved in defending Ossetia, just as the USA had a totally valid excuse to come to the aid of Kuwait in '91. So far, so good. They are using that valid excuse to take further advantage when they start invading other parts of Georgia. Now THAT I do not support.

*****

What I am trying to convey to pdq is simply this: If he would drop the stereotype of "evil Russians" out of his head for a change and start thinking of them the way he thinks of his own nation...as normal human beings with their own concerns...he would see that they are acting as a nation in their own self-interest just the way the USA normally acts.

That doesn't make everything they do morally right, and I'm not saying it does. But drop the bullshit propaganda, for God's sake, stop dividing the world up into "the guys in the white hats and the guys in the black hats", and face reality for a change.

This isn't some huge confrontation between "good and evil", with us in the West being "good" and the Russians being "evil". This is normal pragmatic power politics in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 01:52 PM

So, what is wrong for me wanting my country to act in its own self interest?


At present, Russia has gone beyond its mandate in Ossetia. Thus, presently, Russia is wrong ( both from a moral sense and from the viewpoint of the self-interest of the country I am a citizen of).


If we did everything based on the self-interste of the MOST people, we would be backing China at all times. And India is 20 times ( at least) more important than Canada...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Leadbelly
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 02:00 PM

Today, german defense minister Jung said, despite of this conflict he is seeing perspectives for Georgia to join the Nato.
"Bundesverteidigungsminister Franz Josef Jung (CDU) sieht trotz des Konflikts Perspektiven für einen NATO-Beitritt Georgiens."

That's unbelievable! The man who caused these troubles is proposed to get a reward.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 02:03 PM

Both sides have traded accusations of genocide.

Russia has accused Georgia of killing more than 2,000 people, mostly civilians, in the separatist province of South Ossetia. The claim couldn't be independently confirmed, but witnesses who fled the area over the weekend said hundreds had died.

Many Georgians also have been killed in the fighting and on Tuesday, the Georgian security council said it filed a lawsuit in the International Court of Justice for alleged ethnic cleansing. The overall death toll was expected to rise because large areas of Georgia were still too dangerous for journalists to enter and see the true scope of the damage.

"It feels like an annexed country," said Lasha Margiana, the local administrator in one of the villages in the Kodori Gorge, where fleeing Georgians said the entire population had abandoned their homes.

http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx?articlepath=APNews\Top-Headlines\20080812\Georgia-Russia.xml&cat=topheadlines&subcat=&pageid=1

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 02:06 PM

...this is a fairly neutral satement from "minorityrights.org/":

"...North Ossetia sent aid to its ethnic kin in South Ossetia to support their struggle with Georgia. There have also been calls for the unification of the two regions, although mainly from South Ossetia. North Ossetian leaders periodically make public statements in favour of the union of North Ossetia with South Ossetia, formally part of Georgia but de facto enjoying a kind of quasi-independence.

 In 1998 Aleksandr Dzasokhov, a former Communist official, became president of North Ossetia; he was re-elected in 2002. Dzasokhov's presidency was associated with the entrenchment of clan politics and corruption, one of the factors contributing to the rise of a rebel movement with ties to the Chechen resistance. Rebels carried out bombing attacks on Russian border guards, passenger trains and military targets in 2002-4.

The authority of the North Ossetian leadership was rocked by the Beslan massacre in September 2004, when a hostage-taking operation mounted by Chechen militants resulted in the deaths of over 300 people, most of them children. Residents of Beslan and regional opposition parties mounted continuous protests against Dzasokhov's leadership after the massacre. He announced his resignation on 31 May 2005. According to some analysts, Dzasokhov had also lost credibility with the Kremlin due to the prominence of corruption and clan politics in North Ossetia. Dzasokhov was replaced by Taimuraz Mamsurov.

Despite its reputation as the most loyal territory to Moscow in the North Caucasus, North Ossetia was also affected by wider instability in the region in 2005-6, suffering a number of attacks that some observers defined as an insurgency. According to reports leader of the Chechen resistance Abdul-Khalim Sadullaev designated North Ossetia a separate 'front' in the struggle against Moscow and appointed an Ossetian as commander of operations in the republic. North Ossetia was subsequently struck by a number of attacks, including an attack on an electricity substation in June 2005, an attempt to blow up gas pipelines supplying Georgia in September, an ambush of transport carrying officials from the Chechen Prosecutor's Office and an attack on Russian Interior Ministry troops in October. In February 2006 three home-made bombs went off in casinos and gambling clubs in the republican capital Vladikavkaz, killing two and wounding 25."

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 02:06 PM

In villages around the South Ossetian provincial capital, separatist fighters reportedly were setting fire to Georgian houses and searching for hidden Georgian fighters.

An AP photographer in the village of Ruisi near South Ossetia saw fresh damage from a Russian air raid that locals said came just 30 minutes before Medvedev's televised statement.

Residents said three villagers were killed and another five wounded when a Russian warplane raided the village. One slain victim, 77-year old Amiran Vardzelashvili, was struck by a fragment in the heart while was working in a field.

The Georgian government said another nearby village, Sakorinto, also was bombed after Medvedev announcing a halt to fighting, as was an ambulance in the Black Sea province of Adzharia.

The U.N. and NATO called meetings Tuesday to deal with the conflict, while Poland's president and the leaders of four former Soviet republics flew to Georgia for a meeting of solidarity with Saakashvili.

"The Russian state has once again shown its face, its true face," said Poland's Lech Kaczynski, who was being joined by counterparts from Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine and Latvia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 02:32 PM

I googled part of that copy/paste, and this is all that came up...

In villages around the South Ossetian provincial capital, separatist fighters reportedly were setting fire to Georgian houses and searching for hidden Georgian fighters

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 02:37 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080812/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia

Ethnic clensing- of Georgians...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 02:40 PM

"And India is 20 times ( at least) more important than Canada..."

Oh!!! I am deeply offended that you would say that, BB. Are you aware, sir, that Canada has the world's largest reserves of untamed beaver? Are you??? I think that makes us just as important as India, if not more so. ;-) Plus, we are way ahead of them in maple syrup.

No, I have no objection to you having your own country's self-interest in mind. That's natural.

I do think that the Russians have exceeded their mandate in regards to Georgia, yes. They will probably go ahead and do whatever they think they can get away with now, and whatever they think will work out best for them. That's what great powers do. (and sometimes they miscalculate badly in that regard too)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 02:43 PM

...and from Wiki...remember that the town of Beslan where the school massacre occurred was in North Ossetia:

"Riyadus Salihiin, later known as Islamic Brigade of Shaheeds, was the name of a shahid ('martyr') brigade of Chechen suicide attackers founded in 2002. Its amir (leader) was the Chechen commander Shamil Basayev, who died in July 2006.

It is claimed that Riyadus Salihiin was responsible for the 2002 Grozny truck bombing which killed 83 people and blew up the Chechen republic's government headquarters in the Grozny as well as the hostake-taking in a school in Beslan in 2004 which resulted in at least 386 casualties."

...another article:

"...It was also claimed that the SNO in Beslan was used by Ossetian militia as an internment camp for Ingush civilians during the 1992 Ossetian-Ingush conflict, and it was chosen as a target because of this connection. According to media reports, SNO was one of several buildings in which North Ossetians had held Ingush citizens, many of them women and children; the hostages sat on the gymnasium floor, deprived of food and water, just as the Ossetians would do in the 2004 siege, and several male hostages were hauled and executed outside. Beslan, like the nearby Mozdok, was also the site of an airfield used by the Russian military aviation for its operation in Chechnya since 1994.

The initial attack took place on September 1, the traditional start of the Russian school year, referred to as 'First September' or 'Day of Knowledge'. On this day, the children, accompanied by their parents and other relatives, attend ceremonies hosted by their school. Because of the pupils and family members attending the Day of Knowledge festivities, the number of people in the schools was considerably higher than usual for a normal school day." {small part of article}

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 02:47 PM

"I do think that the Russians have exceeded their mandate in regards to Georgia, yes. They will probably go ahead and do whatever they think they can get away with now, and whatever they think will work out best for them. That's what great powers do. (and sometimes they miscalculate badly in that regard too) "


Agreed.


"Are you aware, sir, that Canada has the world's largest reserves of untamed beaver? Are you??? I think that makes us just as important as India, if not more so. ;-)"


Yes, I was aware of that- but untamed is the key word.


"Plus, we are way ahead of them in maple syrup."

But they have better spices and teas- so I stand by my assessment.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 03:07 PM

"Carol, I have said for many years, and from the beginning of this thread, that Georgia's actions were wrong, but Russia is using Ossetia as an excuse to further it's own goals, which are quite obvious even to people who have never been in Russia."

True. I can't recall the Russians being greatly interested in allowing Chechnya to secede. Seems to me they bombed the shit out of the place.

Lots of pot 'n kettle going on in that part of the world, and it's STILL all about control of oil, gas, etc. etc. etc.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 03:10 PM

I have nothing but criticism for Russia's handling of Chechnya. What Russia has been doing with Chechnya is precisely the same thing that Georgia is trying to do with South Ossetia. Both are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 03:14 PM

History of Georgia

Since ancient times Georgia has been populated by the ancestors of Kartvelian tribes. They established agricultural traditions: sowed wheat, had highly developed viticulture of endemic species of grapes and developed cattle breeding economy.

In the XII-VIII centuries B.C. in south-west part of historic Georgia (south-east of the Black Sea), existed Diaokh kingdom (later known as Tao, nowadays in Turkey). Kolkhic Kingdom was located on the Eastern coast of the Black Sea since the VI century BC (from Apsarosi to old Psou). Since the end of the IV century and the beginning of III century in Eastern Georgia there formed Kartli's Kingdom, with the capital Mtskheta; the first King of Kartli was Parnavaz. The geographical location of Georgia became the reason of cooperation with different countries and at the same time, chellenged the strong interest of the conquerors, as well. From the ancient times Iran, Rome, Bizanty, Arabic States, Turk-Selchucs, Mongols, Osmals, Russians were trying to strengthen their influence, that caused unfavoirable results for the country, destroyed its unity and turned Georgia into the territory for permanent military operation.

Heathen time left grand ruins of palaces, temples, fortresses and towns, (Uplistsikhe, Armazi, Urbnisi, Vani etc,.). the unique heritage of art, gold-smiting, ceramic works, mosaic paintings, etc.

In the first century A.D.. Georgia was misssioned by first Christians. The Christianity was declared as the state religion in the beginning of the IV century (337) while the ruling of King Mirian, as a result of saint Nino Kabadokieli preaching.

History of Georgian always has always been characterised by the tendency of unification. The Georgian satelites were uniting, separating, and then distributing between the conquerors. Untill the Parnavazian time the ruling period of Vakhtang Gorgasali (the new epoch) was also very important. During this period, while fighting against Iran conquerors, Georgian Church gained the Autokephalia At the same period were built: the stone building of Svetitskhoveli cathedral (the first building of Svetitskhoveli was built during the ruling of king Mirian), the Castle-town Ujarma, Artanuji, Cheremi, etc.

Since the ruling of Arabians (at the end of VII-IX century), unity of Georgia was broke up into several small separate kingdoms: Abkhaz Kingdom (capital Kutaisi) in West Georgia, Kakheti (capital Tianeti) and Hereti (capital Shaki) Kingdoms in East Georgia and South-west Georgian Kingdom (Tao-Klarjeti, capital Artanuji) under the leadership of Bagrationi Dynasty.

Despite of such difficult political situations Georgian culture was gently developing. Were built such brilliant simples of Georgian architecture, as: Bolnisi Sioni(V c.). Mtskheta Jvari (VI c.), Oshki, Bana and other great temples, were translated theological literature and were written Georgian Agiographical stories.

In the 970s Bagrat Bagrationi became the King of the country (975-1014) and by uniting separate Georgian kingdoms, was formed State of Georgia, which later become United Georgian Feudal Monarchy. As the Great United State Georgia existed until the XV century. Despite the hard battles with Turk-Selchuks (1070s and the, beginning of the XII century) 100 year ruling of Mongols (XIII - XIV centuries) The Country was developing . In the XII century Georgia became the strongest Christian State in the Near East, which was laid from Nicopsia (nowadays Tuapse) to Darubandi.

The most powerful Georgia was during the King David IV - Agmashenebeli (1089-1125) and the Queen Tamar (1184-1213). It was the time of strengthening and developing Georgian politics, culture and economy. In that period was written history of whole Georgia ('Kartlis Tskhovreba') and various philosophic tractates, was created the legal basis for jurisdiction, were built Alaverdi, Bagrati, Bana great temples, Gelati monastery complex, Vardzia Cave Town, etc.

The churches and monasteries at the same time were used as cultural and educational centers, where training of young pupils, translation of religious-philosophic literature and origin ones took place. The most popular and well-known Georgian poem Shota Rustaveli's 'Vepkhistkaosani' The Knight in the Tigers Skeen was created.

Since the XVI century Georgia was separated into small kingdoms and surrounded by Muslim countries Kingdom was fighting to save its religion and to survive.

After the Russian Empire appeared at the Eastern political arena, the belief for survival for Georgians was connected with Orthodox Christian Russia. Since the 2nd half of the XVII century the King of Kartl-Kakheti Erekle the II (1745-1798) and the King of Imereti Solomon (1754-1784) were fighting against Persia and Otoman Empire. In 1801 Russian Empire violated the 'Georgievsk Treaty.' They occupied Eastern Georgia and abrogated the Kartl- Kakheti kingdom. In 1803 Russians made anschluss of Imereti and other West Georgian principalities were occupied and Georgia's whole territory and divided as a Tbilisi and Kutaisi Guberny, the constitutive parts of Empire.

In 1864, there was Abolished selfdom in Georgia, which supported to develop capitalism in the country. In these difficult conditions the cultural activities were continuing. There were written historical and philosophic productions, were provided scientific observations, were existing publish-houses, theatres, libraries, etc. Leading Georgian intellectuals was fighting to improve national language and culture.

After the 1917 Revolution, Transcaucasia was separated from Russian Empire. In 26 May of 1918 the Independence of Georgia was declared. In 1920 was sign the agreement between Georgian Republic and Soviet Russia about non-aggression pact. In the 25-th of February of 1921 the 11-th Red Army abolished the agreement between Russia and Georgia and occupied country.

In 1991 After abolishing Soviet Putchi and collapse of the Soviet Union, Georgia gained back its independence (officially declared in 26 May of 1991)."

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 03:33 PM

Georgia conflict
Updated 1h 3m ago
By Jeffrey Stinson, USA TODAY

LONDON — In crushing Georgia, Russia has obtained control over new territory, weakened a neighbor that had closely aligned itself with the United States and sent a message to other neighboring nations that it's a major force to be reckoned with, analysts said.
"This very much shows that Russia calls the shots in the region," said James Nixey, who heads the Russia and Eurasia program for the London foreign policy think tank Chatham House. "It shows that when Russia wants to throw its weight around, it can."

Russian forces have full control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another breakaway province. Both have populations that have acted independently from Georgia and had aligned themselves with Moscow for the last 16 years.

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said as much Tuesday, telling thousands of Georgians in an afternoon speech downtown in the capital Tblisi that his government will declare the two regions occupied Russian territory.

In addition, he said, Georgia will declare the Russians as peacekeepers there to prevent any further conflict

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 03:49 PM

...ah, a normal day at Mudcat:


beardedbruce lays out the facts

Carol says "nay!"

Liberal Hawk goes "squawk!, squawk!, squawk!"

in his nihilistic way

lookey there now


(appologies to Burl Ives)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 03:49 PM

Nice to see BB quoting Chatham House.

He wasn't so keen on them when they gave their assesment of the Iraq War!!

Bruce is VERY selective with his quotes....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 03:52 PM

1. My "Facts" are from sources that I cannot verify ( from both sides- someone is lying, but I do not know who)

2. CarolC and I have and do agree on some topics.

3. LH has given me permission!

"No, I have no objection to you having your own country's self-interest in mind. That's natural."

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 04:11 PM

"But the most urgent need is to see clearly what is taking place. As the crisis deepened, one could hear in Washington the usual attempts to blame the victim, as if Georgia somehow deserved this fate because its elected government had opted for friendly relations with the West. There were also the predictable efforts to score domestic political points.

Fortunately, both candidates for president rose above such temptations, issuing statements that showed they understand the moral calculus and the stakes -- and that the U.S. election will not yield a president any more tolerant of the Kremlin's bullying. Yesterday morning, Sen. John McCain (R) condemned the attacks, outlined a series of policy responses and said, "We must remind Russia's leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world." Later in the day, Sen. Barack Obama (D) said, "There is no possible justification for these attacks" and added: "I have consistently called for deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO, and we must continue to press for that deeper relationship." "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102144.html

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 04:11 PM

The balance of power has shifted and will continue to shift.
You Conservatives had better take note.
The world you want to live in is disintegrating....get used to it ...in fact enjoy it while you can, as the next move, ten fifteen years down the line will be piracy of energy and resources.

Your "democracies" will be swept away, there will be nothing but blind brutal power. The powerful will take from the weak.....Unless we all start to think.......and I don't mean...... think Obama can save America or the West.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 04:45 PM

The thing I like about you, Bearded Bruce, is that you have a good sense of humour* (*Canadian spelling) and an ability to meet someone else halfway and find some common ground. That does a lot to bring some reasonableness into a discussion.

pdq - I have no problem with BB's facts...nor Carol's. They do such a good job providing those that they don't need any additional help from me. ;-) So I don't spend much time on the "cut and paste" routine, because it's already been well taken care of. What I am doing instead is attempting (as usual) to get various people here to be flexible enough to think outside their own narrow political/cultural box for a change. If they did, then they would not be so easily fooled by crass emotive propaganda such as is usually spewed by their political leaders and their media, who couldn't care less about "the facts"...but only about whipping up an emotional frenzy of some kind in which "the other side" (whoever that might be) is made to look evil.

When the Russians do the same kind of things you (Americans) do, you think it's wrong, but you don't think it's wrong when you do it. I find that funny. I think you should become more self-aware.

Do like in the Bible, pdq....check out the beam in your own national eye.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 04:50 PM

We know that Georgia has been lying because they reported that Russia had bombed oil pipelines, but independent observers have said that no pipelines have been bombed.

So I guess I'm the one who is presenting facts with which others are disagreeing.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 04:55 PM

It wouldn't be all that surprising if both sides were lying (either directly or by omission). That's what usually happens.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 04:58 PM

"Georgia has been lying because they reported that Russia had bombed oil pipelines"

And where did you get that tidbit? I've been following this story and that is news tome. You probably got it from the same people who say "Bush blamed the 9/11 attacks on Iraq and that is why we went to war"

In plain words, both statements are bunk. Certainly the disinformation "quote" of Bush is bunk. Please support your claim about the Georgian statement.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 05:02 PM

Oh, this oughta be good... ;-) Carol never says anything she can't back up, pdq. Not in my experience.

What makes you think that Georgian politicians are so pure that they wouldn't stoop to lying and misleading? They're like other politicians. They do things like that.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 05:05 PM

Georgia hosts an important pipeline carrying oil from the Caspian to the West and the fighting has unsettled oil markets, though the pipeline itself has not been touched by the conflict.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080812/ts_nm/georgia_ossetia_dc_93

(Sniping is easy. Finding stuff out takes effort.)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 05:11 PM

1. CarolC will not answer the question. I have asked her several including "did the US and coalition forces have a UN mandate to evict Saddam Hussein's military from Kuwait in 1991or did we not?" She said she had no opinion.

2. Please do not tell other people what they said or guess at what they think. Read their posts and attempt a bit of intellectual honesty.

3. Lying and bombing people's homes are no offences of equal weight.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: bobad
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 05:14 PM

Russia did apparently bomb a pipeline in southern Georgia but there was no damage. Source

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 05:27 PM

...from CarolC's link:

"Georgia hosts an important pipeline carrying oil from the Caspian to the West and the fighting has unsettled oil markets, though the pipeline itself has not been touched by the conflict."

It seems to be intact from all sources. The problem is your disinformation misquote claiming that it was bombed. Saakashvili said no such thing. Please find something to support your clkaim the Saakashvili or a person in his government said what you claim.

"Georgia said several times..."

Who? Where? When? With what governmental authority? I suspect a journalist with an axe to grind. Perhaps the Russian propaganda machine. They do have one of the world's finest, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 05:30 PM

Let's say that someone here managed to win some minor verbal point or other in a lengthy political argument...

Then what?

Would it change what happens in Georgia? Would it change what happens anywhere? ;-)

No. But it would give that person a glorious sense of their own ego reinforcement that could probably carry them, oh, for a day or two...

(sigh) These things are so ephemeral. I won an argument with some guy named Richard back in high school. I can't remember what it was about anymore, but I know this: he didn't have his facts right. Ha! He turned out to be wrong. Wrong, I tell you, wrong! But does anyone remember now (except me)? No. And does anyone care? No. And did it change anything. No.

There's simply no justice! ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 05:43 PM

Oh come on, the Russians must have a go with their 25 year old kit! And they are not going to do it when both the British and US armies are not fully committed, now are they?? Will somebody please ask the Russians to invade Las Malvinas once and for all.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 05:43 PM

Liberal Hawk,

When you said that you are never right, and that statement is correct, that you makes yourself right about that point, nullfying the statement, and unfortunately, making you wrong again.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 05:45 PM

Uhh...yeah... I think...

Could you say that again slowly?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 05:57 PM

pdq, remember this Charlie Brown episode? ...

Charlie Brown is obviously mad as hell. He is yelling at someone in the distance whom we cannot see, apparently as they are walking away. They are evidently ignoring him. We suspect it might be Lucy, but who can say? He keeps yelling louder and louder.

"You think you're SMART, don't you???"

(pause)

"Well, you're not as smart as you THINK you are!!!!"

(pause)

"You're only as smart as I think you are, and I don't think you're very SMART!!!!!!"

(long pause)

"DO YOU FOLLOW ME???"

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 06:19 PM

Russian top military officials have insisted that they have never targeted oil pipelines, though Georgia has several times accused them of doing so.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080812/ts_nm/georgia_ossetia_dc_93

(Sniping is easy. It takes effort to find stuff out.)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 06:27 PM

Dear Liberal Squawk:

You have now contributed 22 posts out of the total of 161. That is 13.66% of the posts.

Facts contributed by you so far: 0.

Nihilistic anti-Bush and anti-American rants: too many to count. Besides, these could all be on any thread you post to.

This is a very important subject. We are having what may be the most serious conflict with Russia since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Do you really have no more to contribute than silly word games?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 06:30 PM

Fuckin' grow up!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 06:38 PM

pdq - Go and look at a new thread Amos started about new war maneuvers in the Middle East. Interesting stuff to ponder.

I agree with you that we are on the eve of what could be the most serious confrontation with Russia since the Cuban missile crisis, we are on the eve of what may be the worst war ever seen, but the thing in Georgia is just a sideshow, in my opinion. The overall crisis in the world now has been provoked by the USA and Britain's attempts to secure control of all the oil in the Middle East and Caspian region...their next objective being to bring down the Iranian regime.

Russia is responding to that, as they must, and China will also eventually respond to it, as they must, but Russia and China have not provoked it. It has been provoked by neocon planners in the USA and Great Britain.

The problem is, pdq, you're living in the country that is the primary instigator and aggressor this time around if a great war happens. I don't expect you to get that. Most Germans didn't get it in '39 either. They thought they were defending Germany. They were naturally loyal to their own land and assumed that their government was in the right. Most people do that and they never question why.

If we happen to live through it, you might be surprised by what follows...

If we don't, well, c'est la vie.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 06:38 PM

This is an important subject that is best left to rational people and grownups. It has degenerated into an expose on the failure of the mental health delivery systems of at least four countries.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 06:45 PM

What exactly are you complaining about? If you want to post long lists of facts here, go right ahead. I'm certainly not stopping you.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 06:57 PM

Leadbelly, you have pegged me wrong. I am not American nor do I support Bush anymore than I do Putin. They are both arseholes but Putin is smarter!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 06:58 PM

Since 2001, Libya has declared an end to its era as a "bad actor" on the international stage, including ending nuclear its weapons program.

Syria has pledged to behave better, although it had no nuclear program that we know of.

North Korea has vowed to give up nuclear ambitions.

That leaves Iran, a country that is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

Perhaps a little show of force is needed? Most diplomatic channels say that the majority of Iranians do not want the dangers that come with being a nuclear bully.

War games? What are they going to hurt?

The Georgia conflict is a real "shooting war" and is an incursion by one of the world's three superpowers. This is a crime. It was carfully planned and is an exercise in extortion. It means that an important group of oil pipelines can be held hostage and that the desire of the state of Georgia to join (and be protected by) NATO is probably over.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Nickhere
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 07:06 PM

It's so depressing and upsetting to see yet more images of people's lives destroyed. What's wrong with our so-called world-leaders? World-class idiots more like. Their solution for everything is 'bomb it'. Putin is a disgrace. After all the hopefulness of Glasnost, the guy seems intent on dargging us back into the worst aspects of the Cold War. Of course we now see anoth side effect of Bush's decision to unilaterally invade Iraq to effect regime change. When the US ambassador and other US officials try and lecture Russia, they are laughed out of the house. The Russians aren't taking any lectures from anyone - they've seen how it works: if you're big and strong enough you just tgrab what you can. No one will try and stop you, though they'll talk tough. The secret is to get your troops to occupy as much and as quickly as possible. Then, whenever the ceasefire comes, you can negotiate to give up a few square kilometres of invaded terroritory as a magnanimous gesture while keeping a whole lot more. No-one's going to re-invade to get you out, as long as you're a big powerful country.

But the Russians are the villians here - what they're doing is totally unacceptable and hypocritical (they pounded Chechnya for years for asking for the same thing as S.Ossetia is demanding of Georgia).

Anyway, you already know all that, I suppose I'm not saying anything knew here. I just wish I knew what we ordinary people could do to stop this madness. I'd go and march and protest if I thought it'd make a difference, but I did that over Iraq and I don't know what it achieved, but not much, I reckon. I suppose the only thing was that it helped prevent the neo-cons from having it all their own way without even a voice of dissent, and that's worth soemthing, but I really wish I could just wave a wand and spare those poor civilans the horrors they must endure.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 07:13 PM

Iran has never claimed to be building nuclear weapons. They have claimed to be building nuclear power plants. This does not equate to having "nuclear ambitions" in the sense that you mean, pdq. They have a legal right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and that is all they have ever claimed to be doing.

It is the USA that claims they are building nuclear weapons, and the USA might be lying about that in order to provide a pretext for an attack on Iran. They were lying about WMDs in Iraq in order to provide a pretext for a pre-emptive attack there. Have you forgotten?

How many times will you be fooled by the same scare tactic, pdq?

Now, if the USA could just provoke Iran into attacking them first somehow...wouldn't that be sweet? I'm sure they are busily working on some way to arrange that. There usually are ways...but it would depend on whether the Iranians could be stampeded into such a foolish action or not.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: heric
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 07:29 PM

I sometimes think you don't give enough credit to the EU, or many countries, Little Hawk. You always say "USA" and ignore the rest of them.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 07:42 PM

"Iran has never claimed to be building nuclear weapons...(t)his does not equate to having "nuclear ambitions"

Some problem here:

You are predisposed to believe anything an American enemy says and, at the same time, call everything the US government (military, politicians, etc.) lies. Your perception does not equal reality.

The US is involved in two huge police actions and has had to stay neutral in Sudan, Mozambique, Burma and other places where our military might (that is might) help. A few selected nuclear targets may be surgically removed in Iran, but it will be Israel who does the dirty part of the job.

Perhaps the slanted news you read does not tell you that Israeli intelligence has knowledge of exact locations of weapons facilities, how much "yellow cake" has been bought and how far along the enrichment process is at each facility.The government also sent a team into Iran and assasinated the leading scientist in the Iranian weapons program. Israel is in danger and a few nutcases in Iran will be delt with.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: heric
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 08:13 PM

The USA has a lot of dupes falling prey to its duplicitous and nefarious scheme:

"Iran should understand one day that it's simply not possible to keep a negative role by continuing the enrichment of uranium. Prospective of Iran making a nuclear bomb is simply not acceptable. This is the Italian position which is very firm. We believe in the double-track strategy; on one hand, putting up a table, a generous offer, on the other hand, standing very firm on confirming that if Iran does not take seriously negotiations with Europe and with the international community, we cannot accept to stay inactive and we will have to implement in full."

-Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini

"I appeal again to the Iranian side no longer to play for time, but to give us a usable answer to our offers: Stop dallying."

-German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier

"We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war"

-French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner

"Iran should now implement relevant Security Council resolutions earnestly, and actively respond to the request and appeals of the international community to create conditions for resumption of negotiations."

-Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Liu Jianchao

"The offer that has been made to Iran on the one hand ... and the sanctions on the other, if they refuse to engage and reply, is exactly the right approach."

-British Foreign Secretary David Miliband
----------------------------------------------

The Soviet invasion of Georgia and the USA plot against Iran are not morally equivalent.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: RobbieWilson
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 08:20 PM

That leaves Iran from whom? the guys with the black hats? The Indians? The guys whose asses we said we would whup so that little countries don't stand against our view of the world?

It seems to me fairly obvious that the only way towards a peaceful future is when the rich and powerful lead us away from flexing military muscles. When we strengthen the UN rather than bully small nations into support and then when we still don't convince enough people there say "fuck it! We are strong enough to go ahead anyway."

When we begin to treat the lives of all the little people in the world as significant and support the principles of law order, human rights and due process.

The concept of teaching the population (as opposed to the military) a lesson wasn't invented by the Georgian Air Force, or the Russians if you think that is what they have been doing, it has been used by the rich and powerful since time began. The march of civilisation is the march away from Shock and Awe, away from torture, detention without trial, arming and training the enemy of my enemy, talking up democracy when they vote the way we like but supporting dictatorships like the Saudi Royal family when they grease our palms.

Yes it's all very well to condemn the leaders of Georgia, South Ossetia or Russia but the real change in attitudes needs to come in the people around us so that those who take decisions in our name know we are bothered about what is done on our behalf. When you throw the big stones it is foolish to moan about the harm the rippples do.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 08:26 PM

Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. As Saddam found out, breaking treaties (in his case, the one he signed at Safwan) can have serious consquences. The Iraniam Islamic terrorist government must be dealt with soon. One Iranian nuke is too many.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 09:30 PM

Well, from the way things are going in Georgia, it looks like they ought to let the president of France deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 01:07 AM

Yes, I get your point, heric, and it's a worthy one. I feel that the main impetus for a war against Iran is coming from the USA and the UK, but undoubtedly there are other voices chiming in as well.

pdq - I am by no means convinced that the Iranians are building any nuclear weapons. Neither am I convinced that they are not. I simply don't know. If they were building any, I would consider it enormously unlikely that they would attack Israel first with those weapons and guarantee their own destruction...because I don't think they're insane. You obviously do think they're insane, and that's why we have different expectations in that regard.

I think that if Iran had 10 or 20 nukes ready right now...and the means to deliver them...that Iran, Israel, and the American fleet and everyone else around there would be a lot safer than they are now, because no one would dare start a regional war under those conditions.

You don't think so, because you think they're insane. Well, it's very convenient to imagine that your "enemy" is insane when you are yourself planning to commit a violent and insane act of unprovoked aggression against him, isn't it? It makes it "okay". What a sad line of reasoning.

Saddam wasn't insane either. He was a criminal dictator, but he wasn't insane, he was quite pragmatic. I think the Iranians are probably pragmatic too. They have to be, because they're outgunned by the USA/UK and Israel. But the USA always loves painting their next chosen "enemy" (victim) as being led by someone who is "insane", because that apparently justifies the USA launching a pre-emptive strike. I regard it as doubletalk, meant to get the American public onside. Scare your people into supporting unprovoked aggression against someone, then do it.

That was the deal in Iraq. I expect that will be the deal in Iran too.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Joy Bringer
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 02:09 AM

Well the message to Georgia must be stop the sniping and winging on television and accept their actions recently caused the deaths of their own nationals. Russia will not be messed around by a dot of a country who run to the west every time they don't get their own way.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Leadbelly
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 05:13 AM

Sandy: I'm sorry...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 06:29 AM

1. Radio reports that the Georgian government was under cyber attack from Russian sources "several weeks" before the present incursion by Georgia into Ossetia.


2. Now who is invading whom?

Georgia says Russian tanks violate truce

Wednesday, August 13, 2008 9:40:39 AM
By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA and MISHA DZHINDZHIKHASHVILI

Georgian officials charged Wednesday that Russian tanks had rolled into a strategic city and seized a military base inside Georgia in violation of a freshly brokered truce intended to end a conflict that had bloodied and battered the U.S. ally and uprooted tens of thousands of people.

The accusation came less than 12 hours after Georgia's president said he accepted a cease-fire plan brokered by France. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said that Russia was halting military action because Georgia had paid enough for its attack on South Ossetia, a separatist region along the Russian border with close ties to Moscow.

Still, Medvedev ordered the Russian defense minister at a televised Kremlin meeting to destroy any resistance or aggressive actions.

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili had gambled on a surprise attack late Thursday to regain control over his country's pro-Russian breakaway province of South Ossetia. Instead, Georgia suffered a punishing beating from Russian tanks and aircraft that has left the country with even less control over territory than it had before.

In the newest development, Georgia's Security Council chief Alexander Lomaia said that Russia had moved 50 tanks into Gori, a strategic town 15 miles from the border with South Ossetia, violating the new accord. The RIA-Novosti news agency cited the Russian Defense Ministry as denying the claim.

Georgian Interior Ministry spokesman Zurab Gvenetadze said that Russian forces seized a military base on the outskirts of Gori, situated on Georgia's only significant east-west road.

Russian troops previously had moved to near Gori, but were not in the city when the truce was announced, Georgian officials said.

Lomaia said that Russian troops also held onto ground in western Georgia, maintaining control of the town of Zugdidi where they seized the central police station and government buildings and saddling the main highway in the region. He said there had been no fresh clashes since the truce.

Georgia said Wednesday its troops have withdrawn from the only area of the breakaway province of Abkhazia they still occupied in the face of a Russian offensive there. Temur Yakobashvili, Georgian's minister for reintegration, said that Georgian troops had left the area known as the Kodori Gorge.

A Russian general on Tuesday asserted the Georgians had been driven out but by separatist forces and not by the Russian military. On Tuesday, an Associated Press reporter witnessed about 135 Russian military vehicles heading toward the gorge.

Saakashvili said Russia's aim all along was not to gain control of two disputed provinces but to "destroy" the smaller nation, a former Soviet state and current U.S. ally.

Russia accused Georgia of killing more than 2,000 people, mostly civilians, in South Ossetia. The claim couldn't be independently confirmed, but witnesses who fled the area over the weekend said hundreds had died.

The overall death toll was expected to rise because large areas of Georgia were still too dangerous for journalists to enter and see the true scope of the damage.

Georgia's Health Minister Alexander Kvitashvili said Wednesday that 175 Georgians had died in five days of air and ground attacks that left homes in smoldering ruins. He said many died Tuesday in a Russian raid of Gori just hours before Medvedev declared fighting halted.

An AP reporter also saw heavy damage inflicted to a Georgian village near Gori by a raid which the villagers said came only half-hour before Russian television broadcast Medvedev's statement. Two men and a woman in the village of Ruisi, in undisputed Georgian territory just outside South Ossetia, were killed and another five were wounded.

"I always hide in the basement," said one villager, 70-year old Vakhtang Chkhekvadze, as he was picking away what was left of a window frame torn by an explosion. "But this time the explosion came so abruptly, I don't remember what happened afterward."

The first relief flight from the U.N. refugee agency arrived in Georgia as the number of people uprooted by the conflict neared 100,000. Thousands streamed into the capital.

Those left behind in devastated regions of Georgia cowered in rat-infested cellars or wandered nearly deserted cities.

Georgia, which is pushing for NATO membership, borders the Black Sea between Turkey and Russia and was ruled by Moscow for most of the two centuries preceding the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia have run their own affairs without international recognition since fighting to split from Georgia in the early 1990s. Both separatist provinces are backed by Russia, which appears open to absorbing them.

Medvedev said Georgia must allow the provinces to decide whether they want to remain part of Georgia. He said Russian peacekeepers would stay in both provinces, even as Saakashvili said his government will officially designate them as occupying forces.

Georgia sits on a strategic oil pipeline carrying Caspian crude to Western markets and bypassing Russia. The British oil company BP shut down one of three Georgian pipelines, saying it was a precaution.

------

Associated Press writers Christopher Torchia reported from Zugdidi, Georgia, and near the Kodori Gorge. Misha Dzhindzhikhashvili from Tbilisi, Georgia. David Nowak in Tbilisi; Sergei Grits in Ruisi, Georgia; Douglas Birch in Tskhinvali, Georgia; Jim Heintz, Vladimir Isachenkov, Lynn Berry and Angela Charlton in Moscow; Pauline Jelinek and Lolita C. Baldor in Washington and John Heilprin at the United Nations contributed to this report.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 06:55 AM

Washington Post

Another Hard Landing for Russia?

By Eugene Rumer
Wednesday, August 13, 2008; Page A15

Russia's victory in Georgia is payback for years of geopolitical irrelevance, for Moscow's retreat from Eastern Europe and from the Soviet Union, for Western finger-wagging at Russian transgressions at home and abroad. Russia is back: Its gross domestic product has increased from $200 billion in 1999 to $1.2 trillion in 2007. Moscow has more money from oil and gas exports than it knows what to do with.

The Russian military is showing off its newfound strength, punishing the Georgians for their sins, the greatest of which is forgetting in whose back yard they live. Moscow has warned Poland and the Czech Republic not to deploy U.S. missile defense components on their territories. The Kremlin has also told Washington that it should mind its own business.

We have seen something like this before, though. Thirty years ago, flush with oil and gas revenue, the Soviet Union was threatening Europe and challenging the United States. In 1979, Soviet tanks rolled into Afghanistan and seemed poised to keep going to fulfill centuries-old Russian ambitions of reaching the warm waters of the Indian Ocean. The West could do nothing to stop Moscow's juggernaut unless it was willing to risk nuclear annihilation.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan drove the final nail into the coffin of detente -- a policy of tentative East-West rapprochement. It also marked the start of one of the frostiest chapters in the Cold War saga, which ended with the Soviet Union's collapse. A decade later, there would be no more Warsaw Pact. Europe would be sending humanitarian aid to Russia. The Soviet military would be defeated in Afghanistan. What caused all that? We are still not quite sure. The war in Afghanistan, excessive military spending, reliance on oil and gas exports for revenue, failure to reform the Soviet economy, and the lack of outlets for domestic opposition are all high on the list of regular suspects.


Fast-forward to 2008. Russia is riding high, making up for all that was lost in preceding decades. U.S. and European leaders are flummoxed by how to punish the rising giant that they also badly need -- to feed our oil addiction, to help us cut a deal with Iran and to go on buying our currency to keep its value from sliding further. But who is to say that Russia's victory in Georgia will not lead to another disaster in a few years?

There is plenty of trouble brewing in Russia, not unlike the trouble to which Moscow turned a blind eye 30 years ago, as its tanks rolled into Afghanistan and caused a break in relations with the West. The vast Russian military can crush Georgia's army of 35,000. But Russia's own North Caucasus region, just across the border from Georgia, has been a simmering cauldron for nearly two decades. The conditions in Russia look different from the conditions of 30 years ago, but Russia's reality is still grim. Moscow may have more billionaires than other European capitals, but the Russian population is still shrinking, the average Russian man is not expected to live past 60, oil still dominates the country's economic future, and the taps are running dry.

No matter how the current crisis is resolved, the consequences for East-West (that Cold War term again) relations will be far-reaching. The stain on Russia's reputation in the West will not be erased for years. It will take a very different -- and most improbable -- Russian attitude to repair the damage.

In the meantime, could it be that Russia, petro-confident and irredentist, seeking to reverse the record of the past two decades, is careering toward another 1989 or 1991? Will it heed the lessons of the Soviet era? What will happen if it does not? Will the North Caucasus break out of Moscow's grip? Will the Far East turn into a Chinese colony? Will the West once again confront the prospect of Moscow's former satrapies suddenly becoming major nuclear powers? Will the specter of Russian "loose nukes" keep haunting the West?

It will take skill and patience to get Russia to a soft landing from its present high. Moscow's record at soft landings is not good. The consequences of it landing hard will be felt far beyond its borders. We should be thinking about that, even if the Russians are not.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 08:52 AM

Russian convoy heads into Georgia, violating truce
Wednesday, August 13, 2008 12:30:51 PM
By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA and MISHA DZHINDZHIKHASHVILI

A Russian military convoy thrust deep into Georgia on Wednesday and Georgian officials said Russian troops bombed and looted the crossroads city of Gori, violating a freshly brokered truce intended to end the conflict.

In the west, Georgia's weakened military acknowledged its soldiers had pulled out entirely from Abkhazia, leaving both breakaway regions at the heart of the fighting in the hands of Russian-backed separatists.

Even as the Russian troops moved deep into Georgian territory from the separatist region of South Ossetia, a few dozen fighters from Abkhazia offered their own brazen challenge, planting their flag on a bridge over the Inguri River -- outside the rebel territory.

"The border has been along this river for 1,000 years," separatist official Ruslan Kishmaria told AP on Wednesday. He said Georgia would have to accept the new border and taunted the departed Georgian forces by saying they had received "American training in running away."

An AP reporter saw several dozen Russian military trucks and armored vehicles speeding out of Gori and heading south, further from the breakaway province of South Ossetia.

Soldiers waved at journalists and one soldier shouted to a photographer takning shots of the convoy: "Come with us, beauty, we're going to Tbilisi." Gori is about a 90-minute drive from the Georgian capital.

The developments came less than 12 hours after Georgia's president said he accepted a cease-fire plan intended to end the fighting that bloodied and battered the U.S. ally and uprooted an estimated 100,000 people.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said that Russia was halting military action because Georgia had paid enough for its attack on South Ossetia, a separatist region along the Russian border with close ties to Moscow.

....

Georgia's Security Council chief Alexander Lomaia said that Russia had moved 50 tanks into Gori, a strategic town 15 miles from the border with South Ossetia, violating the new accord.

"Russia has treacherously broken its word," Lomaia said.

Russia's deputy chief of General Staff Col.-Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn denied any tanks were in Gori. He said Russians went into the city to try to implement the truce with local Georgian officials but could not find any.




So, who is lying? The AP reporters and photographers? Or Russia?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 09:47 AM

No offense taken Leadbelly. I perhaps was not clear on my position. I support none of these leaders and bemoan the cost of human suffering involved. Brinkmanship is game where the leaders are not usually found on the firing line.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 10:52 AM

"Saakashvili said Russia had more sinister aims than to gain control of the two disputed provinces.

"Georgia is the first test case," he said. "It was chosen first because it was a very successful democracy. We had the highest economic growth rate here, we have freedom of press, civil society."

At a rally Tuesday, Saakashvili was joined by the leaders of five former Soviet bloc states — Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Ukraine — who also spoke out against Russian domination.

"Our neighbor thinks it can fight us. We are telling it no," said Polish President Lech Kaczynski"

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 11:09 AM

On "ethnic cleansing"

South Ossetia has always been and remains roughly 65-70% Ossetian and 30-35% Georgian. CarolC made the claim that the South Ossetians had been largely self-sufficient and independent since the early 1990's. Fact is the area and the people are as poor as church mice and no-one has ever really cared two figs about them. Their only source of income stems from customs duties for goods passing through a tunnel on the main trunk road between Russia and Tblisi. Far from being largely self-sufficient they have been subsidised to the hilt directly by Russia. There is absolutely no way on God's earth that South Ossetia could ever be "Independent". Independence is not the desired result incorporation into Russia is the aim. The parallel with the German take-over of the Sudatenland in 1938 is frighteningly similar.

Now Abkhazia is a completely different story:

1926 Census 186,004(Total) 67,494(Georgians) 55,918(Abkhazians) 12,553(Russians) 25,677(Armenians) 14,045(Greeks)
1939 Census 311,885(Total) 91,967(Georgians) 56,197(Abkhazians) 60,201(Russians) 49,705(Armenians) 34,621(Greeks)
1959 Census 404,738(Total) 158,221(Georgians) 61,193(Abkhazians) 86,715(Russians) 64,425(Armenians) 9,101(Greeks)
1970 Census 486,959(Total) 199,596(Georgians) 77,276(Abkhazians) 92,889(Russians) 74,850(Armenians) 13,114(Greeks)
1979 Census 486,082(Total) 213,322(Georgians) 83,087(Abkhazians) 79,730(Russians) 73,350(Armenians) 13,642(Greeks)
1989 Census 525,061(Total) 239,872(Georgians) 93,267(Abkhazians) 74,913(Russians) 76,541(Armenians) 14,664(Greeks)
2003 Census 215,972(Total) 45,953(Georgians) 94,606(Abkhazians) 23,420(Russians) 44,870(Armenians) 1,486(Greeks)

Now as CarolC pointed out both Abkhazia and South Ossetia fought for "independence" from Georgia in 1990-91. Looking at the census figures for 1989 and 2003 reveals what CarolC? Ethnic Cleansing of Georgians, Armenians and Greeks (I can understand why the Russian population of the area would drop after the collapse of the USSR, they simply returned home) What are the "Rights of Return" here CarolC and what would be the result of any referendum if one were held after they had returned?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 11:18 AM

1979 Census 486,082(Total)
213,322(Georgians) 83,087(Abkhazians) 79,730(Russians) 73,350(Armenians) 13,642(Greeks)
1989 Census 525,061(Total)
239,872(Georgians) 93,267(Abkhazians) 74,913(Russians) 76,541(Armenians) 14,664(Greeks)
2003 Census 215,972(Total)
45,953(Georgians) 94,606(Abkhazians) 23,420(Russians) 44,870(Armenians) 1,486(Greeks)


Hmmm... I guess those evil Georgians have struck again.

Comments, CarolC?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: heric
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 11:19 AM

Irredentist: any position advocating annexation of territories administered by another state on the grounds of common ethnicity or prior historical possession, actual or alleged.

Word of the day.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 11:26 AM

Sounds more like ya made the tooth doctor mad.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 11:43 AM

BB, I don't have the time to go into it right now, but those census results aren't quite what you make them out to be.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 02:01 PM

Russian troops and paramilitaries rolled into the strategic Georgian city of Gori on Wednesday, apparently violating a truce designed to end the conflict that has uprooted tens of thousands and scarred the Georgian landscape.

Georgian officials said Gori, a central hub on Georgia's main east-west highway, was looted and bombed by the Russians before they left later in the day.

Moscow denied the accusations, but it appeared to be on a technicality: a BBC reporter in Gori reported that Russians tanks were in the streets as their South Ossetian separatist allies seized Georgian cars, looted Georgian homes and then set some homes ablaze.

"Russia Other Top Headlines Photos

Russian troops roll into key Georgian city
100

has treacherously broken its word," Georgia's Security Council chief Alexander Lomaia said Wednesday in Tbilisi, the capital.

An AP reporter saw dozens of trucks and armored vehicles leaving Gori, roaring southeast. Soldiers waved at journalists and one soldier jokingly shouted to a photographer: "Come with us, beauty, we're going to Tbilisi!"

But the convoy turned north and left the highway about an hour's drive from the Georgian capital, and set up camp a mile off the road. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russian troops were near Gori to secure weapons left behind by the Georgians.

To the west, Russian-backed Abkhazian separatists pushed Georgian troops out of Abkhazia and even moved into Georgian territory itself, defiantly planting a flag over the Inguri River and laughing that retreating Georgians had received "American training in running away."

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 02:03 PM

"Independence (of South Ossetia) is not the desired result, incorporation into Russia is the aim."

Yes, most likely it is. After all, the Russians have issued Russian passports to the Ossetians, have they not? From the point of view of the South Ossetians, it sounds like they would be wise to incorporate themselves into Russia at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 02:08 PM

I'd like to see the source of those census numbers.

The reports I'm seeing are saying that the Georgian government's accusations of ethnic cleansing cannot be independently verified. I think I'll wait until I see some independently verified reports before I comment on that.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 02:09 PM

As an entirely autonomous republic (in internal affairs), like Kalmykia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 02:10 PM

Most of the South Ossetians want to be incorporated into Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 02:11 PM

"I think I'll wait until I see some independently verified reports before I comment on that. "

Did you wait to see verification when you accused the Georgians, based on South Ossetian sources?

Or does this only apply to the side you dislike, as usual?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 02:19 PM

Side I dislike? I never had an opinion about Georgia in my entire life. I was more inclined to dislike Russia for what it has done to the Chechnyans than I was to even think about Georgia at all. I didn't even know about South Ossetia until this conflict broke out a few days ago.

My comment about ethnic cleansing was based on accounts from South Ossetians about the way they were treated by the Georgian military.

On the other hand, I notice that some people pretend to care about human rights, but they really only do so when it helps their agendas.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 02:21 PM

Did you wait to see verification when you accused the Georgians, based on South Ossetian sources?


You insist on verification of the Georgian claims.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 02:25 PM

And by the way, despite what one fiction writer has said in this thread, I have not mentioned Abkhazia in any of my posts.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 02:29 PM

Some keeps saying that I have "accused" Georgia of ethnic cleansing. As usual, this person is lying. I have not accused anyone of ethnic cleansing. If this person would care to go back and actually read the post, they might see what I actually did say. There is a huge difference between raising the possibility of something and making an accusation.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 02:30 PM

*someone keeps saying

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 02:31 PM

"some people pretend to care about human rights, but they really only do so when it helps their agendas."

Yeah. ;-) That is the standard routine just about everywhere and with just about everyone (specially politicians and political commentators). It's an old story. If drawing attention to crime and injustice serves their cause, they will yell about it all the livelong day. If it doesn't, they will either ignore it or deny that it is even happening or make excuses for why it should be happening.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 02:36 PM

For both sides to stop would obviously be the wise (and humanitarian) thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: gnu
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 02:51 PM

Yo.... GUEST... re your post :

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 02:34 PM

If you don't provide details in that post like I just did for yours, piss off.

It's just common courtesy and common sense. I don't have your kind of time. Be a little more thoughtful, please.

Of course, if you cannot, yer just an asshole troll.

Oh yeah, could you at least pick a name so we know who is... you know.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 03:03 PM

Perhaps it's ethnic cleansing of the South Ossetians that Georgia (and the US) has in mind.

As I said, There is a huge difference between raising the possibility of something and making an accusation. I'll explain how it works for those who don't understand English. "Perhaps" means that something is possible. An accusation would be someone saying someone did do something or is doing something. Raising the possibility that someone might be doing something is not an accusation. It is only speculating about the possibility.

This is why I haven't commented on Russia's accusations that Georgia has committed genocide, and I won't unless I see independent verification of it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 03:07 PM

I was watching a video of a Russian government official that I found rather interesting. He was saying that the government of Georgia and western countries like the US are trying to draw comparisons with the Russian government of today and Stalin. He found that highly ironic in light of the fact that Stalin and one of his top generals were both Georgians.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 03:16 PM

This may sound like a repeat but here goes: North Ossetia, South Ossetia and Abhkazia are internationally recognised as regions within the sovereign country of Georgia. These areas were part of the old Soviet Union and the boundries were freely negotiated around 1990. Russia signed the agreements as did the newly-created government of Georgia.

If changes in these territorial boundries must be made, they will be made by free negotiations, not by military force of subversion. Russia: go home.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 03:24 PM

John McCain's accomplice has ties to Georgia's oil. Scheunemann Helped U.S. Firm Win Georgian Energy Deals While Lobbying For Georgia's NATO Membership
Randy Scheunemann is a registered representative of the Government of Georgia in the United States. Accordingly, Mr. Scheunemann has developed a very close relationship with President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili and many senior Georgian officials. The WSE team has also begun negotiating possible deals with the Georgian state-run oil company, National Oil Company of Georgia, to assist in the development of Georgia's hydrocarbon industry.

It's about oil again! Bush is there.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 03:31 PM

South Ossetia fought a civil war with Georgia and won. I think the South Ossetians have something to say about whether or not they are a part of Georgia. They want Russia to help them maintain their independence from Georgia. If they want Russia to remain in South Ossetia for this purpose, that's their right. Nobody has a right to force them to remain a part of Georgia if they don't want to, any more than Russia had a right to force Georgia to remain a part of Russia.

People who deny the right of South Ossetia to break away from Georgia, but who uphold Georgia's right to break away from Russia are engaging in hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 03:49 PM

...from a reasonable authority:


"The independence of South Ossetia is not recognized by any other international organization or country, who regard the region, formerly an autonomous oblast within the Georgian SSR, an integral part of the Georgian state. The previous independence referendum, held by the South Ossetian separatists on January 19, 1992, failed to gain any international recognition, since it occurred in the atmosphere of post-war chaos and violated the territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia recognized by the international community within the borders of the Georgian SSR."

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 04:08 PM

It doesn't matter whether or not South Ossetia's independence from Georgia has any international recognition. What matters is what the South Ossetians recognize.

And by the way, what the South Ossetians want is to unite with North Ossetia, which is an automomous republic in the Russian Federation. They have every right to do this if that's what they want.

If some people think that only some peoples have a right to independence and others don't, they are engaging in hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 04:16 PM

You're arguing like a lawyer, pdq. A lawyer argues for the written letter, but not the spirit of the law. This is okay if you think that laws written down by someone on a piece of paper are more important than people's real concerns and human rights, and more important than reality. It's hypocritical in the extreme.

It is the foundation of most political chicanery and hypocrisy.

The reality, regardless of who the hell in the world officially recognizes what about South Ossetia, is that the South Ossetians do not want to be part of Georgia, they have fought for independence from Georgian and won it, they have been openly attacked by Georgia now, and Georgia is in the wrong to have done that. If the majority of the South Ossetian population wants to leave Georgia and join Russia, you have nothing to say about it and the USA has nothing to say about it, because it's none of your business. It's their business.

The Georgians blew it. Tough. They made a serious error.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 04:21 PM

From Wikipedia:   "In December 1990 the Supreme Soviet of Georgia abolished the autonomous Ossetian enclave....Violent conflict broke ouat towards the end of 1991, during which many South Ossetian villages were attacked and burned as well as Georgian houses and schools in Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia...As a result approximately 1,000 died and 100,000 ethnic Ossetians fled the territory and Georgia proper."

To be continued

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 04:48 PM

CarolC – "People who deny the right of South Ossetia to break away from Georgia, but who uphold Georgia's right to break away from Russia are engaging in hypocrisy."

Can you tell us all exactly when it was that Georgia "broke away" from Russia? The USSR was made up of a number of independent republics – Georgia was one of them. When the Communist System in Russia collapsed the Republics were free to go their own separate ways. The borders of the United Soviet Socialist Republic of Georgia were determined by the Communists sometime around 1921, Abkhazia and South Ossetia lay within those boundaries. I asked earlier if the wishes and desires of the Ossetian people meant anything to the Russians, why was there never a United Soviet Socialist Republic of Ossetia? If the cause being supported by Russia is so laudable why did they not support the Ossetians in Georgia in 1990? When the circumstances were exactly the same? Oh wait a minute they weren't oil was not $115 per barrel, Russia was exporting very little of it and the BTC Pipeline had not been constructed. I supposed Chechnya will get "Independence" next Eh?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 05:01 PM

They should learn from Kosovo and move a bunch more Russians into South Ossetia, and then vote for independance. Later, they can vote again to join Russia.

                The west seems to like that arrangement.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 05:16 PM

Actually, they may have done something similar. They gave away Russian citizenship to any Ossetian who wanted it. That way the Russian tanks can be said to be protecting Russian citizens from those big bullies in Georgia. Sounds a bit like Hitler claiming to be protecting enthnic Germans from persecution in Poland. Slightly updated scam, but similar.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 05:33 PM

Georgia doesn't have a very long history of being and independent state within the boundaries it now occupies. There was a kingdom of Georgia from the 11th century until the 15th century, which broke up into several kingdoms and principalities in the 16th century. From 1918 to 1921, there was an Independent Republic of Georgia. After the break up of the Soviet Union, Georgia simply declared its independence. The current Georgia has existed since 1991.

Georgia is in no more of a position to force South Ossetia to remain a part of Georgia than Russia is to claim Georgia as a part of Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 05:45 PM

By the way, here is some background on Abkhazia...

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11670692

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/RMOI-6BT2W3?OpenDocument

"In 1992, Abkhaz separatists and Georgian national army began a war that lasted two years, with sporadic violence continuing until 1999, displacing all ethnic groups within Abkhazia. Both militaries were responsible for targeting the other's ethnic population by burning villages and destroying buildings and farm land. According to the Soviet government census of 1989, the pre-war population in Abkhazia was 525,000, 45% of which were classified as ethnic Georgians and 18% classified as ethnic Abkhazians. Post-war Abkhazia is 80-90% ethnic Abkhazian with the rest comprised of a mixed Abkhaz-Georgian population and some 30,000 Georgians on the border who return for harvesting during times of security.

While the numbers of displaced people is controversial and disputed by both sides, some conclusions have been reached. The largest number of displaced were ethnic Georgians. In addition, between 1992 and 1993 approximately 75,000 Russians and 75,000 Armenians fled to Russia, while close to 15,000 Greeks returned to Greece after centuries in Abkhazia. Ethnic Abkhazians also became internally displaced during the prolonged conflict."


The people who fled to Russia, Albania, and Greece were not necessarily fleeing from Abkhazians. Most likely, they were simply fleeing the conflict area.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 05:51 PM

THANK GOD THANK GOD

We were getting tired of AlQada anyway,
now Russia as our good old cold war enemy (with some really GOOD nukes) should whip us all back into submission to our Republican war machine Via the only true miltary master JOHN MC CAIN"T.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 06:17 PM

It suddenly occurred to me to ask what may seem an impertinent question, but I assure you I am genuinely curious as to the response.

Can any of those who favour the secession of all these East European enclaves tell me what their reaction would be if the same thing happened in their own neck of the woods?

How about if Alabama seceded from the US, or Cornwall declared independence from the UK?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 06:31 PM

"...favour the secession of all these East European enclaves..."

Do you mean the ones who have left and are happy, such as Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, or do you mean the unhappy areas which can't leave such as Chechnya?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 06:32 PM

Big lesson seems to be that Russia is energy independent, but USA not, and that if it be true that USA's modern military machine could defeat the Russian military machine, the USA either cannot or will not (maybe because of energy fears) use it. The looks like Russia rolls out over the rest of Asia and Europe to me until the Chinese stop it if they can.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 06:44 PM

""Do you mean the ones who have left and are happy, such as Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, or do you mean the unhappy areas which can't leave such as Chechnya?""

Whatever!

But it does make me wonder whether the Americans here would consider that Alabama should have the same right to self determination that they would advocate for, say Chechnya, or is it only right when it's happening to the "other side"?

Ditto, the Brits. Should Cornwall have the right to freedom from UK rule?

I assure you, it's a serious question, not trolling for controversy. I am wondering where our conception of the rights of others runs out of steam, and more importantly WHY?

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 07:04 PM

An independent Cornwall, I like it!


                  But Alabama tried that twice before. The first time they had to deal with US Grant, and the second time they had to deal with MLK Jr.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 07:14 PM

Don T...No way to answer the question in general terms since each piece of inhabited land has a different history.

The following statement may be contoversial, but I believe it would be best for the Muslim population of Chechnya to find a friendly country and move. People can get up and go, land cannot. The Jews moved about five million people to Israel where they can live next to people who have things in common. They are able to feel safe and in control of their own future. The geographic location of Chechnya make it nearly impossible for Russia to give it up.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 09:03 PM

I don't think I would have too much problem with my state seceding from the US. Might be a big improvement.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 09:52 PM

Georgia President calls down McCain (and Bush).

Here he is on Olbermann's show.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: bankley
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 10:34 PM

Is it getting Cold in here... or is it just me ?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 10:43 PM

The Jews moved about five million people to Israel where they can live next to people who have things in common.
???????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????

Is that why they are trying to kick the original inhabitants out?

I think they moved 5 million people into Israel because they think that God said that they should do that.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 10:48 PM

"God said that they should do that."

Nope, wrong again. It was the United Nations. Please read a book. Nite, y'all.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 10:55 PM

>>"God said that they should do that."

Nope, wrong again. It was the United Nations. Please read a book. Nite, y'all.<<

Nope, that's wrong. I have read The Book.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Paul Burke
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 03:27 AM

I think it was Woodrow Wilson who said, after America had advocated the rights of small nations, that he hadn't realised that there were so many small nations. Where ruling elites base their popular appeal on lazy and stupid nationalism, there is bound to be oppression of minorities, and those minorities will assert their own identity. Often in mirror- image stupidity. See Tutsi/ Hutu. It's a folk version of divide and rule, and why I don't listen to Balkan folk music any more. That exciting, off-beat tune might be carrying words like Let's Kill Next Door's Kids Because Their Ancestors Beat Us In 1356.

In the conflict in question, it's clear that the Georgian state (in business since 1991) has failed to acknowledge its ethnic and social diversity, and that this has been one of the sources of the present conflict. It's also unclear why Saakashvili thought it necessary to occupy the South Ossetia by force just now, and that his action shows very clearly why such a country should not be in NATO. Or rather, if they join NATO, why Britain should leave- NATO should not be not just an extension of American foreign policy.

Though the Russians are clearly making an example of Georgia, I don't think Ukraine should be too worried, apart from buying plenty of warm clothes for the winter. It's too big and too accessible from the west, though Russia might well use democratic methods backed up by economic pressure to reassert influence. It's up to the EU and America to counter the economic pressures, and give the people there a modicum of prosperity bto defend.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 06:09 AM

More from Wikipedia:

Not only did violent conflict break out towards the end of 1991, but when 100,000 South Ossetians fled, most "crossed the border into North Ossetia", that is, into Russia proper.





It's more than a bit of a stretch to read Sudetenland into the current crisis. People who vote with their feet make their view quite clear--except perhaps to those brilliant foreign policy analysts who are prisoners of their own Manichean world view and so clueless that they, for instance, mistake GWB for Churchill and do not recognize Bush's Iraq propaganda campaign. (To pick two purely theoretical examples.)

As Paul has pointed out, the other former members of the Soviet sphere of influence are plenty big enough to give Russia pause. To anybody who reads, it's plenty clear who the majority of South Ossetians see as the long-term aggressor. And it's not Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 07:50 AM

More Georgian agression...


Georgia: Russians move into Gori, explosions heard
Thursday, August 14, 2008 11:23:24 AM
By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA

Explosions were heard near Gori on Thursday as a Russian troop withdrawal from the strategic city seemed to collapse. A fragile cease-fire appeared even more shaky as Russia's foreign minister declared that the world "can forget about any talk about Georgia's territorial integrity."

The declaration from Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov came simultaneously with the announcement that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was meeting in the Kremlin with the leaders of Georgia's two separatist provinces.

"One can forget about any talk about Georgia's territorial integrity because, I believe, it is impossible to persuade South Ossetia and Abkhazia to agree with the logic that they can be forced back into the Georgian state," Lavrov told reporters.

At least five explosions were heard near Gori. It could not immediately be determined if the blasts were a renewal of fighting between Georgian and Russian forces, but they sounded similar to mortar shells and occurred after a tense confrontation between Russian and Georgian troops on the edge of the city.

The strategically located city is 15 miles south of South Ossetia, the separatist region where Russian and Georgian forces fought a brutal five-day battle. Russian troops entered Gori on Wednesday, after the two sides signed the cease-fire that called for their forces to pull back to the positions they held before the fighting started.

Georgia early Thursday said the Russians were leaving the city, but later alleged they were bringing in additional troops. Georgian government officials who had gone into the city for a possible handover left unexpectedly around midday, followed by a confrontation at a Russian checkpoint on Gori's outskirts that ended when Russian tanks sped toward the area and Georgian police forces retreated.

Some Georgian police said irregular fighters from South Ossetia had refused to leave Gori, where a BBC reporter saw them looting and burning Wednesday night.

The first of two planned U.S. aid flights arrived in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi late Wednesday, carrying cots, blankets and medicine for refugees displaced by the fighting. The shipment arrived on a C-17 military plane, an illustration of the close U.S.-Georgia military cooperation that has angered Russia.

Besides the hundreds killed since hostilities broke out, the United Nations estimates 100,000 Georgians have been uprooted; Russia says some 30,000 residents of South Ossetia fled into the neighboring Russian province of North Ossetia.

Gori was battered by sporadic Russian bombing before the cease-fire, with Russia saying it was targeting a military base near the city. The city, on Georgia's only significant east-west road, is only 60 miles west of Tbilisi.

The Russian troops' presence in Gori was viewed as a demonstration of the vulnerability of the capital.

Russian troops also appeared to be settling in elsewhere in Georgia.

An APTN camera crew saw Russian soldiers and military vehicles parked Thursday inside the Georgian government's elegant, heavily-gated residence in the western town of Zugdidi. Some of the soldiers wore blue peacekeeping helmets,others wore green camouflage helmets, all were heavily armed. The scene underlined how closely the soldiers Russia calls peacekeepers are allied with its military.

"The Russian troops are here. They are occupying," Ygor Gegenava, an elderly Zugdidi resident told the APTN crew. "We don't want them here. What we need is friendship and good relations with the Russian people."

Georgia, bordering the Black Sea between Turkey and Russia, was ruled by Moscow for most of the two centuries preceding the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was flying Thursday to France and then to Tbilisi to reinforce U.S. efforts to "rally the world in defense of a free Georgia."

"This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia where Russia can threaten a neighbor, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed," Rice said in Washington on Wednesday.

The Russian General Prosecutor's office on Thursday said it has formally opened a genocide probe into Georgian treatment of South Ossetians. For its part, Georgia this week filed a suit against Russia in the International Court of Justice, alleging murder, rape and mass expulsions in both provinces.

More homes in deserted ethnic Georgian villages were apparently set ablaze Wednesday, sending clouds of smoke over the foothills north of Tskhinvali, capital of breakaway South Ossetia.

One Russian colonel, who refused to give his name, blamed the fires on looters.

Those with ethnic Georgian backgrounds who have stayed behind -- like 70-year-old retired teacher Vinera Chebataryeva -- seem increasingly unwelcome in South Ossetia.

As she stood sobbing in her wrecked apartment near the center of Tskhinvali, Chebataryeva said a skirmish between Ossetian soldiers and a Georgian tank had gouged the two gaping shell holes in her wall, bashing in her piano and destroying her furniture.

Janna Kuzayeva, an ethnic Ossetian neighbor, claimed the Georgian tank fired the shell at Chebataryeva's apartment.

"We know for sure her brother spied for Georgians," said Kuzayeva. "We let her stay here, and now she's blaming everything on us."

Pointing to her broken door, Chebataryeva said Ossetian soldiers broke into her apartment and started firing at the Georgian tank from her windows.

North of Tskhinvali, a number of former Georgian communities have been abandoned due to the intense fighting of the last few days. "There isn't a single Georgian left in those villages," said Robert Kochi, a 45-year-old South Ossetian.

But he had little sympathy for his former Georgian neighbors, whom he accused of trying to drive out Ossetians. "They wanted to physically uproot us all," he said. "What other definition is there for genocide?"

------

Associated Press writers Misha Dzhindzhikhavili in Tbilisi; Mansur Mirovalev in Tskhinvali, Georgia; Jim Heintz in Moscow and Anne Gearan in Washington contributed to this report.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 07:57 AM

Now please feel free to correct me if I am wrong here but it was the Russians who sent troops into South Ossetia to protect what it views as it's citizens from attack from Georgian Government troops. Georgian troops having retreated and withdrawn completely from South Ossetia were then pursued into Georgia "proper" where the Russians claimed to be "demilitarising" areas from which any future attack may occur. After which they will hand over control of those areas to Georgian authority.

Now all that is understandable, but can anybody explain why Russian Forces undertaking these operations within Georgia feel the need to be accompanied by South Ossetian "Militias"??

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:02 AM

One would have to be totally insane or profoundly stupid to want Georgia to join NATO with its current President. Since he campaigned in 2004 on a platform of reigning in the breakaway republics it would be like signing up for a shooting war with Russia. Why does George Bush want to break up NATO?

BTW Bruce, since that is an AP article couldn't you have made a link?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:11 AM

Jack,

I posted links before, and got comments how Georgia was at fault when the article said that Russia was advancing into Georgia proper after the ceasefire- I have to presume that some here have difficulty in actually reading linked aricles before commenting on them.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:19 AM

Then Bruce, you ought to be explaining these things and if you must, use the links to support your explanations.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 09:34 AM

Yesterday, in the midst of a minor brainfart, I included North Ossetia with Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Georgian territory while knowing full well that it was placed within Russia at the same time that Georgia was granted independence.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 09:46 AM

"NATO should not be not just an extension of American foreign policy"

That's all NATO ever has been, in my opinion. (although some of its members balk now and then...)

****

Now, here's some info about Mr Saakashvili. I have added some italics to one part:

"Mikheil Saakashvili was born in Tbilisi, capital of what was then the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic in the Soviet Union, to a Georgian intelligentsia family. His father, Nikoloz Saakashvili, is a physician who still practices medicine in Tbilisi and directs a local Balneological Center. His mother, Giuli Alasania, is a historian who lectures at Tbilisi State University.

Saakashvili graduated from the School of International Law of the Kiev State University (Ukraine) in 1992. He briefly worked as a human rights officer for the interim State Council of Georgia following the overthrow of President Zviad Gamsakhurdia before receiving a fellowship from the United States State Department (via the Edmund S. Muskie/FREEDOM Support Act (FSA) Graduate Fellowship Program).

He received an LLM from Columbia Law School in 1994 and took classes in at The George Washington University Law School the following year. In 1995, he also received a diploma from the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.

After graduation, while on internship in the New York law firm of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler in early 1995, Saakashvili was approached by Zurab Zhvania, an old friend from Georgia who was working on behalf of President Eduard Shevardnadze to recruit talented young Georgians to enter politics. He stood in the December 1995 elections along with Zhvania, and both men won seats in parliament, standing for the Union of Citizens of Georgia, Shevardnadze's party."

It sounds to me as if Mr Saakashvili is a hand-picked agent of the US government, chosen by the US State Department and educated as a lawyer at Columbia, then sent back to Georgia to get elected and then manage that country on behalf of American policy.

I'm sure that's how the Russians see him...as a foreign-planted agent.

Imagine that. ;-) Now imagine a hand-picked Quebecois or Mexican lawyer educated in Moscow, chosen for a fellowship by the Kremlin, becoming the president of a newly independent Quebec, or a newly independent northern Mexico, and then declaring the area to be an enthusiastic ally of Russia. Imagine further that he launches an invasion of a separated enclave of Mexican-Americans or English-Canadians who successfully fought a war of secession in the early 90's because they didn't want to be part of the new Quebec or the new Northern Mexico nations.

Now you are beginning to get the picture of how Russia might look upon the situation in Georgia. How would the USA look upon either of the hypothetical situations that I have described above in Quebec or northern Mexico?

Why...the USA would go to war over it. At once! And so would Canada if it was Quebec that was involved. Furthermore, the war would not end with the mere rescue of the embattled separated enclave. It would end with the total military occupation of Quebec or Northern Mexico, and a regime change...and an end to the career of the Russian agent-elect in that region.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 09:57 AM

McCain has received about $200 thousand dollars in April 08 from the President of Georgia via a lobbyist. NO wonder he says we all are Georgians.
Where is my Georgian $




Russian and Georgian troops had a quirky friendly encounter today with all sorts of social interactions until one shot was fired in the seizure of a reporter's camera and 100s of journalists went running from the scene.




Finally Condi has a job she is trained for. Still its cute that she has to work through France to practice her craft of statesmanship with Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 10:06 AM

bush plan to "ease" tension
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSLD49893320080813



McCain is a Georgian http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/13/mccains-top-foreign-polic_n_118743.html

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 10:10 AM

I believe McCain is a "Georgian". I expect him to invade someone just as soon as he gets into office and has the power to.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Paul Burke
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 10:20 AM

Have the Russians reached Atlanta yet? Will Savannah be renamed Putingrad?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 10:36 AM

Rather different, as those Eastern European and Caucasian nations were brought into the Russian Empire and the USSR by conquest.
"But it does make me wonder whether the Americans here would consider that Alabama should have the same right to self determination that they would advocate for, say Chechnya, or is it only right when it's happening to the "other side"?

Ditto, the Brits. Should Cornwall have the right to freedom from UK rule?

I assure you, it's a serious question, not trolling for controversy. I am wondering where our conception of the rights of others runs out of steam, and more importantly WHY?

Don T"

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 10:40 AM

The more I read about this situation the more I smell neo-con politics... I think that Dick Cheney ordered this up for the sole purpose of creating an opportunity for McWar to whip up a nationalistic lather here in the US while Obama was on vacation...

I think Russia, Obama and the American people have been bamboozled yet again by the neocons, the war profiteers and Dick Cheney...

BTW, I for one am not a Georgian and I do not support Georgian genocide...

Shame on Georgia and shame on the neo-cons...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 11:01 AM

Naturally. Dick Cheney calls up Saakashvili in the middle of the night, could you do me a favour? You see, there is Democrat we don't want to be elected, so would you mind stirring up a war for us, so we can whip up a nationalistic lather thus letting our boy win?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 11:39 AM

Heh! Yeah, that would be a typical little ploy, wouldn't it?

I bet Saakashvili is beginning to regret his reckless behaviour. It is unfortunate that so many ordinary people have suffered on account of it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 11:55 AM

From Little Hawks rather fanciful post.

"Now, here's some info about Mr Saakashvili. I have added some italics to one part:"

Point 1:
"Saakashvili graduated from the School of International Law of the Kiev State University (Ukraine) in 1992."

Question: Were there any others who did this at the same time? I cannot see how this qualifies him, or makes him a desirable candidate for recruitment as an agent, or a spy.

Point 2:
"He briefly worked as a human rights officer for the interim State Council of Georgia.........receiving a fellowship from the United States State Department (via the Edmund S. Muskie/FREEDOM Support Act (FSA) Graduate Fellowship Program)."

Question: Was anybody else ever offered a "fellowship" via this Program? Again, I cannot see how this qualifies him, or makes him a desirable candidate for recruitment as an agent, or a spy.

Point 3:
"In 1995, he also received a diploma from the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France."

Question: Does this mean that he also a French agent, or spy?

Point 4:
"Saakashvili was approached by Zurab Zhvania, an old friend from Georgia who was working on behalf of President Eduard Shevardnadze to recruit talented young Georgians to enter politics."

Question: I take it from this that Eduard Shevardnadze is also an American agent, or spy. As of course Zurab Zhvania would have to be too.

Point 5:
"He stood in the December 1995 elections along with Zhvania, and both men won seats in parliament, standing for the Union of Citizens of Georgia, Shevardnadze's party."

Question: How did these men rig their elections? How did they know that they were going to win? Or was everyone who voted for them also agents and/or spies?

Point 6:
"It sounds to Little Hawk as if Mr Saakashvili is a hand-picked agent of the US government, chosen by the US State Department and educated as a lawyer at Columbia, then sent back to Georgia to get elected and then manage that country on behalf of American policy."

More Questions:

- On timeline LH how did the US Government know in 1992 that "The Rose Revolution" would take place in Georgia in 2003?

- Mikheil Saakashvili was not educated as a lawyer at Columbia, he had already graduated from Kiev in 1992, he studied for and obtained his Masters Degree in International Law at Columbia.

- "sent back to Georgia"? According to the Wikipedia entry you have "cut'n'pasted" He was invited back to Georgia by a fellow countryman at the behest of the President of Georgia. How does this get convoluted into his being sent back by the US Government?

- Timeline again Little Hawk, how did they (US State Department) get Mikheil Saakashvili on the list of potential candidates for the 1995 election? When he (Mikheil Saakashvili) left the USA and returned to Georgia, how did he (or the US State Department) know that he would be accepted as a candidate?

- Timeline, how did the US State Department know that Mikheil Saakashvili would lead the group who overthrew Eduard Shevardnadze? How did they know that after overthrowing Shevardnadze, he would be asked to lead? I mean let's face it, left school, studied in Ukraine, went to the USA, arrives back in December 1995. In 2003 he still must be relatively unknown in Georgia.

Very poor reasoning and complete and utter absence of logic.

My other question still stands:

Does anyone have any idea how the mighty Russian Army requires the assistance of South Ossetian militiamen inside Georgian territory??

I have got a pretty good idea as to why and what they are there for. I just want to hear some of the justifications put forward by the "fellow travellers".

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 12:16 PM

It's a possibility, Teribus. I figure that the Russians see it that way. I think you'd see it that way if the shoe were on the other foot, and he were a Russian-educated Latin American lawyer being put in charge of some part of Latin America. I think you would consider him to be an agent of Russia in that case.

I think he is an agent of the USA...or a willing servant, which amounts to the same thing.

Sure the Russians are after their own selfish gains here. They're playing at empire, same as the Americans. They both play that game all the time, and the Russians just scored a small victory in the game.

***

"Does anyone have any idea how the mighty Russian Army requires the assistance of South Ossetian militiamen inside Georgian territory??"

They don't require it. ;-) But why would they refuse it? They play dirty in war, same as the Americans do. The Americans were happy to use one set of Afghans to slaughter another set of Afghans and they were happy to use Montagnards against the Viet Cong and catholics against buddhists. This is standard opportunism, and both sides do it whenever and wherever they can. Their objective? Victory.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: bankley
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 12:50 PM

another really interesting fact, all jokes aside, is that reservists from the US State of Georgia recently participated in joint training exercises with the army in Georgia... confused yet ?

can't make this shit up folks.... where's Carlin when we need him ?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:01 PM

Russian troops inside Georgia are there as peacekeepers, enforcing a peace supported by armour, artillery and air-power (Unlike any UN peacekeeping mission).

Now why would they refuse the assistance of South Ossetian Militamen? I can offer a few extremely good reasons:

- They do not add to the weight of what the Russians say they wish to do.

- They do not operate within the Russian "Chain of Command" in what could turn into a "hair trigger" international crisis situation of some consequence. That is if this whole thing hasn't been deliberately engineered by the Russians from the word go.

- Their presence can only serve to inflame the situation, whereas the Russians are stating that they wish to pacify the area.

PS: Little Hawk Russia and Georgia are not at war.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:08 PM

Well, well, well...

Think about this, folks... Who benefits most from Russia getting bogged down in another Checnya styled quaqmire??? Why is it that Putin waged his finger at Bush at the Olympics right after recievind the phone call about Georgia as he was leaving to head home to deal with the crisis??? Waht was the "Rose Revolution"???

When ya'll get those queastions answered then I've got a few more that's gonna make the selling of the Iraq war quite amatuerish compared to this...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:11 PM

I can hear Willie Nelson...

Its just that same old zone
When Georgia's all been mined

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:17 PM

No, they're not technically at war now, Teribus. That's true.

I am not saying that the Russians hands are clean in this affair. However, I think the Georgians brought the mess down upon themselves...or rather, their government leaders did.

It would be wise for the Russians to restrain the Ossetian militia, no doubt about that.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:26 PM

"However, I think the Georgians brought the mess down upon themselves...or rather, their government leaders did."

So, how many dead Georgians from South Ossetian attacks do you think they should have allowed before respnding?

The attacks against Georgia preceeded the Georgian offensive, if you look at the timeline. There was a truce ( by the Georgians) as of 7 Aug, which the Ossetians broke ( according to at least one side)

How can you determine the "blame" when the truth about what happened is still in doubt?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:45 PM

Shaak attack promised violence against South Ossetian's in his initial election campaign. Does that go back far enough?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:51 PM

Wait just a minute, bruce... Either you haven't been keeping up or you think it was okay for Georgia, with their American trained and equipped Army and their CIA annointed president to attack and kill South Ossetians... This is how this got started... Not Russia steppin' in... Or are you gonna try to revise this much the way you have tried to revise how the US people got duped on Iraq???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:17 PM

"Either you haven't been keeping up or you think it was okay for Georgia, with their American trained and equipped Army and their CIA annointed president to attack and kill South Ossetians... This is how this got started... Not Russia steppin' in... "

Do you ever bother to read the posted conmments ( see the timelines above) or do you just jump in on the Anti-Bush ( or US) side without any thought?



Try looking at the facts instead of who you want to support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian-Ossetian_conflict

BOTH sides contributed to this mess, but a case can be made that Georgia is more the victim than others.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Leadbelly
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:31 PM

That's the point, Bobert! It was Saakashwili who started this little war. Don't know why Beardedbruce and others trivialized this fact since the beginning of this thread.
In real life, to do something criminal will produce consesquences.
Always have a look to her beginning...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:33 PM

The Georgian Ministry of Defense said on July 7, 2008 a group of up to ten militiamen were apparently prevented from placing mines on a Georgian-controlled by-pass road linking the Georgian villages in the north of Tskhinvali with the rest of Georgia. The Georgian side opened fire and the group was forced to retreat towards the nearby South Ossetian-controlled village. On July 8, 2008 South Ossetia reported that it had detained four "officers from the artillery brigade of the Georgian Ministry of Defense" close to the village of Okona in the Znauri district at the administrative border the night before.[20] Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili told police to prepare an operation to free the four soldiers, but they were released before an operation was launched.[21]

Russian military jets flew into Georgian airspace through South Ossetia on July 9, 2008 and then returned to Russia. The next day, the Russian authorities confirmed the flight and said, in an official statement, that the fighters were sent to prevent Georgia from launching an operation to free the four soldiers detained by South Ossetia.[22] In response, Georgia recalled its ambassador to Moscow "for consultations", stating that it was "outraged by Russia's aggressive policies."[23]

The incident coincided with the visit of the U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Tbilisi where she pledged the U.S. support for Georgia's bid to join NATO. She said that granting NATO Membership Action Plan to Georgia would help resolve the Abkhaz and South Ossetian problems. The statement caused a negative outcry in Moscow: the Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov responded, during his meeting with the de facto Abkhaz president Sergey Bagapsh, that Georgia's NATO integration process "may undermine the conflict resolution" process.[24] On July 11, 2008, Georgian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigol Vashadze called for an urgent UN Security Council meeting on the conflict zones.[25]

A South Ossetian envoy on July 11, 2008 declared that South Ossetia was capable of repelling any attack by Georgia without help from Moscow and also said the mainly Russian peacekeeping contingent in the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict zone should be increased.[26] The Russian Ministry of Defense said in a statement the same day that measures have been taken "to increase combat readiness" of the Russian peacekeeping forces stationed in Abkhazia. It also said that security had been tightened at the Russian peacekeepers' base camps, observation posts and checkpoints, and "additional training" of the peacekeeping personnel had been conducted "to explain regulations of use of firearm while on duty."[27] Nika Rurua, Deputy Head of the Parliament's Security and Defense Committee, warned that Georgia would shoot down Russia's military aircraft in case they appear in its airspace again and an initiative was considered to this effect, but decided instead to appeal to the world community on the matter. Media reports published information about Russia's alleged plans to seize the Kodori Gorge specifying that the details of the operation were worked out by Russian high-ranking military officials, with Abkhazia's President Sergey Bagapsh. Russia reportedly considered responding[update needed] by revealing the details of a planned military invasion of South Ossetia by Georgia to release their detained officers.[28]

On July 14, 2008 Georgia's deputy defense minister Batu Kutelia said Georgia plans to expand its military more than 15 percent to 37,000 soldiers following events in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The additional manpower would be used to defend Georgia's airspace and the Black Sea coast.[29] On July 15, 2008 the U.S. and Russia both began exercises in the Caucasus though Russia denies the timing was intentional.[30] The Russian exercises included training to support peacekeepers in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Georgia claimed the exercises were a manifestation of Russian aggression against it.[31] Also on July 15, Abkhazia and South Ossetia were said to be planning to join the Union of Russia and Belarus, a spokesman for the Union said both regions have talked about joining the Union, but that they would need to be recognized as independent and become observers before they could join the Union as members.[32][33]

According to media reports, on July 19, 2008 a Georgian police post was attacked by Abkhaz militias using grenades, one of the militiamen died from a grenade exploding accidentally. Abkhaz officials condemned the reports as false.[34] Georgian media also reported on July 19 that a battalion of Russian troops had moved into the lower Kodori Gorge.[35] Georgia's Defense Ministry claimed Russian troops encroached on Mamison and Roksky passes in Abkhazia and South Ossetia respectively and are in combat alert. Abkhazia's Foreign Minister said no new troops were brought in over the quota.[36]

A U.N. report issued July 23, 2008 on the period between April and July 2008 noted discrepancies with the Georgian attack of a shooting in Khurcha on the day of Georgian elections. In particular the report noted the way the incident was filmed suggested the attack was anticipated. The report said reconnaissance flights by Georgia were a violation of the ceasefire, but said the shooting down of those fights also constituted a breach of the ceasefire. Concerning a military buildup by Georgia the UN report said it found no evidence of a buildup but noted observers were denied access to certain areas of Abkhazia controlled by Georgia including the Kvabchara Valley.[37]

On July 28, 2008 a spokesman for the Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia said South Ossetian forces had blocked peacekeepers and OSCE observers from the village of Cholibauri which is close to where Georgia says South Ossetia is building fortifications.[38] On July 29, 2008 South Ossetia said two South Ossetian villages had been fired on by Georgian forces in response to South Ossetia reinforcing its positions on the perimeter of the conflict zone.[39] Georgia said the same day that Georgian posts on the Sarabuki heights were attacked by South Ossetian forces with no injuries reported.[38]

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:34 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_War


"Beginning late on August 1, 2008, intense fighting began between Georgian troops and the forces of South Ossetia. Georgia claimed that South Ossetian separatists had shelled Georgian villages in violation of a ceasefire. South Ossetia denies provoking the conflict.[35][16] On August 3, South Ossetians started to evacuate into Russia and on August 5, Russian ambassador Yuri Popov warned that Russia will intervene if conflict erupts. [36][37] On August 7, 2008, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili ordered Georgian troops to ceasefire. [38][39] Despite an offer of ceasefire the fighting intensified.[40][41] Hours after the declaration of ceasefire, in a televised address, Mikhail Saakashvili has vowed to restore Tbilisi's control over what he called the "criminal regime" in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and reinforce order.[41]

During the night and early morning Georgia launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali.[42] The heavy shelling laid the city in ruins, causing a humanitarian crisis which, according to Russian government sources, amounted to genocide. The news of the shelling was extensively covered by Russian media and served as a pretext for the following military reaction and Russia threatened to respond to defend South Ossetians against "a genocide by Georgian forces."[43][16] The extent of civilian casualties was later disputed in a number of sources.

On August 8, 2008, Russia sent troops across the Georgian border to South Ossetia to stop Georgia's offensive against its breakaway territory. In five days of fighting the Russian forces recaptured the regional capital Tskhinvali, pushed back Georgian troops, and largely destroyed Georgia's military infrastructure in airstrikes deep inside its territory.[44] Georgia retreated from its offensive in South Ossetia to defend itself[45]

Action on the Black Sea saw one Georgian missile boat sunk by the Russian Navy on August 9. The Russians claim that the Georgian ships had attacked them earlier. After the skirmish, the remaining Georgian ships fled in defeat.


Destroyed building in South Ossetia.Also on August 9, an offensive was begun by the military of the Republic of Abkhazia in the Kodori Valley, the only region of Abkhazia that was, before the war began, still in effective control of Georgian loyalists. By August 13 all of the remaining Georgian forces, including 3,000 ethnic Georgian civilians, in Kodori Valley had retreated to Georgia proper. [46

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: bankley
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:35 PM

how do you say 'pipeline' in Russian ? or oil for that matter ?

get used to it... the bear is back and is swimming in lotsa crude..

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 03:23 PM

First of all, bruce, any time line where we are dependent on on a CIA puppet governmentn to tell US the truth is as bogus as a $3 bill... Listening to their verious ministers of this or that talke about what is fact is like inviting a bridge salesman into yer home...

Do you dispute that the American trained and equipped Georgian army swarmed into South Ossetia last Thursday, killing hundred of civilians and sending thousands of South Ossetians into Russia fleeing the invasion???

I mean, this is as good a place to start as any if the truth matters at all...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 03:44 PM

"Do you dispute that the American trained and equipped Georgian army swarmed into South Ossetia last Thursday, killing hundred of civilians and sending thousands of South Ossetians into Russia fleeing the invasion???"

NO.

Do you dispute that the ( Russian trained and supported) South Ossetians have been engaged in ethnic clensing of Georgians in the (Georgian ) Territory that they and the Russians have taken since that offensive?

Do you dispute the events as outlined in my post of 14 Aug 08 - 02:33 PM ( ie, BEFORE the Georgian attack on last Thursday?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 03:49 PM

On the subject of the postulation that Chechens should move to a part of the world where there are people who are more like them... which part of the world would that be?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: bankley
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 03:52 PM

Lower Slobovia

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:07 PM

On the assertion that it was the South Ossetians who broke a cease fire... snipers from both sides had been violating it, not just South Ossetians.

Saakashvilli always planned to force South Ossetia to rejoin Georgia, and the Georgians had been preparing for it militarily for a long time. That makes Georgia the aggressor, and South Ossetia the victims.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:10 PM

...and I don't trust Wikipedia for a minute on the subject of who did what to whom and when.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:19 PM

"On the subject of the postulation that Chechens should move to a part of the world where there are people who are more like them... which part of the world would that be?"

Scranton?

Schenectady?

Pocatello?

East Orange?

Well, when we find out, let's issue them all passports and move them there, shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:23 PM

Russia always planned to force Georgia to release South Ossetia, and the Russians had been preparing for it militarily for a long time. That makes Russia the aggressor, and Georgia the victims.


Just as valid as your comment, CarolC.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:28 PM

Damn - I went to Ireland and had to watch developments from there without a PC to rant on.

And now that I'm back it appears to be over.

... I hope ...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:47 PM

Doesn't matter whether or not Russia planned to assist South Ossetia gain its independence. What matters is what the South Ossetians want.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:47 PM

No, Bruce, I don't believe any account that begins, "The Georgian Ministry of Defense reported..." The Goergian governemnt is a puppet governemnt of the United Sates so anything it has to report is propaganda...

Please, por favor, tell the good folks of the makeup of the South Ossetain peace-keeping force... That's a good place to start in showing this report to be suspect...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:47 PM

No, the aggressor is he who launches the initial full scale invasion, Bruce. That was Georgia. There were undoubtedly some provocations on both sides prior to that, and no one is entirely blameless in the matter, but the Georgians are the aggressor.

They have suffered a sort of similar result (though on a much, much smaller scale) to what Saddam's Iraq suffered when it went into Kuwait...and Iraq was the undeniable aggressor in that case.

No 2 ways about it. Georgia was the undeniable aggressor in this case.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:53 PM

Not looking back to July.

So, the Russian Peacekeeping force is now occupying what territory?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:55 PM

Going back to 2001, the Georgians have been the aggressors.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:58 PM

Be glad, BB, that they are not occupying all of Georgia. They have the power to do so, but perhaps enough wisdom not to use it. The USA is occupying all of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:58 PM

And going back to 1991?

Whatever date one picks, the sides can be flipped by going further back.

I do NOT hold Georgia blameless- But the South Ossetians have a large degree of fault, as do the Russians. To fail to acknowledge this, and blame ONLY the Georgians, is to abandon all hope of reaching a realistic solution.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:00 PM

I think folks that we must be careful of Putin, his credentials and what he has done to his rivals recently.

He has a billionaire in a cage - just to let him know who's boss

He poisoned the spy - was his name litvinienko? - anyway - he used a gruesome radioactive poison to murder an opponent.

He is a dangerous reactionary and I am more concerned about him than I can ignore.

I found myself agreeing with Ms Rice.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:00 PM

Yes. I have said myself that they are all to blame in some measure. That is usually so in these regional struggles.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:01 PM

"how do you say 'pipeline' in Russian ? or oil for that matter ?

get used to it... the bear is back and is swimming in lotsa crude.."

Oil is far from the prime issue here, especially as Russia controls the majority of it in that part of the world!!!
Not all the world is as obsessed with oil as the American public seems to be.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:03 PM

Georgia is nothin' more than a pawn on the neo-cons chess board to be used like an irritating gnat... Cheney is the one pulling the strings here and the entire prize is capturing the oil reserves in the Middle East... Porblem is that this is more of the failed Bush foriegn policy that is build around miliatray solution with a military that is slowly being decimated and an economy that can not afford to rebuild it...

BTW, Bruce, let me make it easier for you... Were there Russians assigned to the peace keeping force last Thursday???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:10 PM

It looks to me like Russia is going to continue to flex its muscles until Georgia signs a non use of force agreement and agrees that it will not try to force the provinces that have broken away to be reabsorbed into Georgia.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080814/world/georgia_russia

It also looks to me like Russia is trying to teach Georgia that it's not in that country's best interests to be on a short leash that is controlled by the US.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:20 PM

beardedbruce says :"So, the Russian Peacekeeping force is now occupying what territory? "

Bobert says :"BTW, Bruce, let me make it easier for you... Were there Russians assigned to the peace keeping force last Thursday???"



Let me make it easy for YOU, since your illness has affected your reading skills- The Peacekeeping force included Russians.



"The 2008 Georgian - Russia crisis began on March 6, 2008 when Russia announced that it would no longer participate in the Commonwealth of Independent States economic sanctions imposed on Abkhazia in 1996.[1] The crisis has been linked to the push for Georgia to receive a NATO Membership Action Plan and the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo.[2] Tensions in the crisis have been primarily centered around the breakaway state of Abkhazia and increased following the shootdown of a Georgian UAV drone airplane and subsequent buildup of military forces by Russia."

"Responding to Kosovo's recent declaration of independence, Russian officials declared Moscow should "reshape its relations with self-proclaimed republics".[3] Russia responded to these calls for increased ties by lifting CIS sanctions, declaring them "outdated, impeding the socio-economic development of the region, and causing unjustified hardship for the people of Abkhazia".[1] Russia also called on other CIS members to undertake similar steps, but met with protests from Tbilisi and lack of support from the other CIS countries.[4] Shalva Natelashvili, leader of the Labour Party of Georgia, warned Abkhazia would be "finally separated from Georgia" and cited the lifting of sanctions as the first sign.[5] Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, raised similar concerns about the dropping of trade restrictions saying, "That could look like a de facto annexation and that would be a matter of great concern if it were the case."[6]"

"Russia's state-owned Gazprom was reported to be planning oil and gas exploration in Abkhazia beginning July 1, 2008. In addition Abkhazia said international airline flights from Russia could use Sokhumi airport though the International Civil Aviation Organization said such flights would be unacceptable.[14] Officials from Gazprom said there were no plans for oil exploration in Abkhazia, but did say there was a proposal being considered to build a gas pipeline to Abkhazia.[15] Responding to Russian media reports that sea links between Sochi in Russia and Gagra in Abkhazia would be resumed, Georgia threatened to appeal to international marine organizations over the use of "illegal" routes.[16]"


"However, Georgia's defence ministry released video the next day showing what appears to be a Russian MiG-29 shooting down the unarmed Georgian drone. The video, shot from the drone moments before impact, shows a jet launching a missile over what appears to be the Black Sea. According to Georgia the jet came from Gudauta and then returned to Russia. Moscow denied Georgia's accusation and stressed that none of its planes were in the region at the time.[18][19] Furthermore, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement accusing Georgia of violating 1994 Moscow agreement and United Nations resolutions on Abkhazia by deploying without authorisation a UAV (which also can be used to direct fire) in the Security Zone and the Restricted Weapons Zone.[20]

On April 24, a closed-door U.N. Security Council emergency session convened at Georgia's request failed to resolve the dispute, but the U.S., the United Kingdom, France and Germany issued a joint statement expressing their concern over Russia's recent moves in Abkhazia and calling Moscow to reverse or not to implement its decision to legalize ties with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Russian ambassador to the U.N. Vitaly Churkin called the demand by the Western states "a tall order" and stressed that Russia had no intention of reversing its plans.[21]"



"On August 12, 2008 at 09:00 UTC Russian president and Russian Army Supreme Commander-in-Chief Dmitry Medvedev stated that "peace enforcing operation in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone" was over.[69] Later, Russian General Staff Deputy Head Anatoly Nogovitsyn said armed actions would stop, but reconnaissance operations would continue.[70]

On August 13, a reporter for the UK Guardian stated that "the idea there is a ceasefire is ridiculous," and that he could see villages near Gori burning, amidst claims that Chechen, Cossack and Ossetian irregulars were advancing through Georgian villages.[71] CNN reported that journalists in Gori said they had seen no Russian tanks, contrary to claims by the Georgian president.[72] According to Sky News, Georgia's deputy interior minister said "I'd like to calm everybody down. The Russian military is not advancing towards the capital." The same report said "Sky News correspondents Stuart Ramsay and Jason Farrell confirmed there were tanks in Gori, which has suffered extensively from Russian bombing raids"[73] Al Jazeera reported a "continuous build up" of Russian forces in Poti throughout the day, and the destruction of several Georgian vessels.[74] Russia's deputy chief of General Staff Colonel-General Anatoly Nogovitsyn said sporadic clashes continued in South Ossetia between Georgian snipers and Russian troops. "We must respond to provocations," he said.[75]"

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:22 PM

Ah yes, after all the cut and paste, we are left with the unpalatable truth(for some)that this is big payback time for the Russians...and the reason? Basically Western stupidity and short sightedness.

Since the nineties the West, and the USA in particular have treated Russia in the most dismissive manner,ignoring their input on Kosovo, Iraq, Nato membership for Baltic countries. That was short sighted
The stupid part was in attempting to make Georgia an ally and an outpost of US influence, without taking into account ethnic tensions or our future dependence on Russian energy supplies.

America's humiliation in Georgia has been brought about by their own arrogance in supporting and arming a madman(Saakashvili) in an attempt to humiliate Russia.
Bruce, Teribus, pdq and all the other right wingers, who usually trumpet the slogan "might is right", dont like it one little bit when WE are not "the mighty".
They conveniently forget what Georgia has done to South Ossetia...The carving of Kosovo from Serbia...Reagan's invasion of Grenada...Iraq...Afghanistan...the list is endless...Vietnam?

There are many lessons to be learned from the games being played out in Georgia, but the greatest is to NATO and to the Empire which controls it. Do you really want to incorporate the ethnic feuds of the ex-Soviet Caucasian states into your alliance, just to rub salt into the bear's wounds?

As I stated earlier the balance of power is shifting, Russia's star is rising and no amount of sabre rattling or appeals to hypocritical "democratic ideals" is going to make any difference.

At last the West is going to have to play second fiddle and start listening to the tune

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:23 PM

Boboert, you would be closer to the mark if you said that the USA's main goal here is to put up a presence around a rival and potential threat's territory. Power, keeping your nation on top, is the name of the game.

Russia is going to keep on flexing it's muscles until Saakashvili is replaced with someone more pliable. They have pretty much said so.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:24 PM

Correction to a previous post of mine...


Going back to 1991, the Georgians have been the aggressors.

The conflict began in 1990 when South Ossetia declared itself a Soviet Republic, a move rejected by Georgia, which abolished the region's autonomous status.

Fighting broke out in January 1991 when Georgian forces entered South Ossetia's capital Tskhinvali.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2522621/South-Ossetia-factbox.html

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:28 PM

The South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast was created in 1922 after the Soviet occupation of Georgia. Hostilities broke out in 1918–1920 after the First World War along with various Caucasian conflicts.

In the late 1980s, when perestroika policy initiated by Premier Gorbachev, rising nationalism in the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) and country's movement towards independence were opposed by the Ossetian nationalistic organization, Ademon Nykhas (Popular Front), which demanded greater autonomy for the region and finally, unification with Russia's North Ossetia. On November 10, 1989, the South Ossetian Supreme Soviet approved a decision to unite South Ossetia with the North Ossetian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. However, a day later, the Georgian SSR Supreme Soviet revoked the decision and on 23 November, thousands of Georgian nationalists led by Zviad Gamsakhurdia and other opposition leaders marched to Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, to hold a meeting there. The Ossetians mobilized blocking the road and only the interference of Soviet Army units could avoid the clash between the two demonstrations. The Soviet commanders made Georgian demonstrators turn back. However, several people were wounded in subsequent clashes between Georgians and Ossetians.

On 20 September 1990, the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast declared independence as the South Ossetian Democratic Soviet Republic, appealing to Moscow to recognise it as an independent subject of the Soviet Union. When the election of the Georgian Supreme Council took place in October 1990, it was boycotted by the South Ossetians. On December 10, 1990, South Ossetia held its own elections, declared illegal by Georgia. A day later, Georgian Supreme Soviet canceled the results of the Ossetian elections and abolished South Ossetian autonomy.[1]

On December 11, 1990, several bloody incidents occurred in and around Tskhinvali. Georgian government declared a state of emergency in the districts of Tskhinvali and Java on December 12. Georgian police and National Guards units were dispatched in the region to disarm Ossetian armed groups.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:30 PM

BTW, Bobert:

"Under the terms of a ceasefire agreement concluded in June 1992, a peacekeeping force including South Ossetian, Georgian and Russian troops was deployed along the Georgian-South Ossetian border to maintain the status quo"

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:32 PM

The Georgians did that to crush South Ossetia's efforts to split off from Georgia. Georgia had no right to do that. South Ossetia has as much right to declare itself no longer a part of Georgia as Georgia had to declare itself an independent state. That makes Georgia the aggressor.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:34 PM

Ahh... I see that all of someone's documentation is still coming from Wikipedia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:36 PM

No one accepts Wikipedia as an authority on anything. One might just as well be providing documentation from Dr. Seuss.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:37 PM

As opposed to??/
The Telegraph? The Russian cable service? The South Ossetian Government?


Tell me again ( or rather, for the first time) how you have such god-like certainty about what is happening

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:38 PM

ad hominim attack, CarolC. If you care to demonstrate something false in my posts, feel free- but to declare the posts that you do not agree with invalid because you do not agree is admitting you have no valid data yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:42 PM

CarolC,

U have posted from other sources, and I stated:
"RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 03:52 PM

1. My "Facts" are from sources that I cannot verify ( from both sides- someone is lying, but I do not know who)"

You have made the claim that all of your information is absolute truth, and cannot be questioned, even though it is obtained from a biased party in the conflict.

So who died and made you God?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 06:19 PM

I can go into Wikipedia and change those entries that have been posted to anything I want any time I want. Why should I or anyone else accept Wikipedia as someone's sole source of documentation? At least is Wikipedia is going to be used, back it up with some supporting documentation. On its own, it has no credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 06:36 PM

Woah, bruce, whoa... Slow down, son, yer gonna hurt yerself and in yer haste, maybe miss the fact that your intial time line argument, based on Georgian sources, may not hold water...

Okay, so there were Russian "peace keeping" forced in South Ossetia last Thursday... That is a good start to debunking the rest of the Georgian version...

So, Bruce... Were they dressed up in tie-dyed shirts walkin' 'round with flowers??? If not, how were they dressed???

We're gonna take this real slow, bruce, so ya' might as well just get used to it but I'm sure we'll all benefit in the end...

Please answer the question the best you can... One paragraph will do nicely...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 07:16 PM

Bruce,

I take it that you were for what Israel did to Lebanon in the response to the kidnapping of a couple of soldiers a couple of years ago. Isn't what Russia did in response to the shelling of its peace keepers about the same? How can you support one and not the other.

By the way, I think that both hugely over reacted and were playing broader geopolitical games. But isn't sauce for the goose sauce for the gander.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 07:18 PM

Fu#k with the tiger, ya get a face fulla claws.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 07:37 PM

Unless the Tiger is George Bush, the dude who Fu#ked with him you just moved to Pakistan while he spends a trillion dollars making Iraq nearly, nearly as peaceful, safe and stable as he found it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 07:38 PM

I think I'll have a few dozen beer the day Obama is sworn in.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 07:55 PM

Danged.... Usually when I ask bruce a question, go back to restin', I come back and he's tried to answer it with 'bout 5 cut 'n posts but, geeze, seems I was a sllep a long time and come back and bruce hasn't found a source that describes what the Russian peace keepers wear???

Hmmmmm???

Oh, an' yeah... There is relevence to this question and next few, bruce because this ol' hillbilly sniffs a Gulf of Tonkin here so will you please answer the question so we can get to the next one???

I mean, if you expect us to accept your arguments based on your expert witness, in this case the Defense Ministry of Georgia, it is only fair to determind wheteher or not thay are a crdible source, right???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:00 PM

They wear blue helmets. With a UN logo on them.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:05 PM

I watched BBC newsnight tonight and listened with great understanding and interest to a Russian spokesman as he explained their official perspective.

I reflected on the images I had just seen on the news which showed Georgian civilians and Western press being shot at by Ossetian seperatists under the cool eye of the russian military on the road between Gori and Tblisi.

As the Russian Representative droned on, I stopped listening and yelled at the screen "why won't you withdraw then?".

Sadly my friends it is indeed true that without an immediate withdrawal of the Russian troops, combined with real policing, rounding up and repatriating of the rampaging Ossetians, the russians words distinctly lack any credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:23 PM

I'm currently watching RUSSIA TODAY - the English speaking russian news channel.

The official line, repeated again and again is that they are in Georgia on a humanitarian mission.

This conflicts in my view with the information on the BBC

The russian perspective is that America is using this situation to persuade europe that they need an anti missile defence system installed. Poland has apparently been given an anti missile capability.

Apparently they would be reporting from Tshkinvali, but there are Georgian snipers there taking pot shots so it is too dangerous.

They deny that there is any violence in Gori.

On the BBC, I have seen images of Russian soldiers wiping their feet with a Georgian flag.

There is much implied self congratulation for ending the violence in Tshkinvali.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:36 PM

"Poland has apparently been given an anti missile capability."

I believe this is a response by NATO to the Russian military invasion of the last few days. They want to show Russia that their actionswill not be wihout consequences. There is nothing built and no actual arms diliverd as this agreement was made today. If this is a wrong impression, I would like to know also.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 09:04 PM

I see my question about where the Chechens should go has not been answered.

If the idea is that they are out of place where they are because they are Muslims, that is not true. Many of the republics surrounding Chechnya also have a majority of Muslims. The fact is that there is no place on earth that has people who are more like the Chechens than the region in which they live.


Poland was already slated to have a missile defense system installed there, long before what just happened in Georgia and South Ossetia. A lot of Russia's behavior has been a response to this. They don't believe that it's purely defensive in nature and that it's not going to be aimed at them. They have good reason to believe this.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 09:47 PM

But if the Americans elect a Muslim president, Chechnya's troubles will be over.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 09:52 PM

America can't elect a Muslim president. No such person is running for office.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 11:56 PM

If McCain thought it would win it for him, he'd convert.

After all, for him its "Country First".

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: robomatic
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 12:46 AM

I've been hearing that the stats indicate that Obama and McCain are in a dead heat right now.

I think the Russian sabre rattling (and not just sabres, and not just rattling) is good for McCain about now.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:17 AM

Re:   South Ossetia-Georgia (and probably quite a few other conflicts): A short quote from one of BB's posts tells the whole story:   "We must respond to provocations". As long as all sides seem to feel that way--and it seems they do now-- there will be no end to the problem.

But the fact remains that for the majority of South Ossetians, it's clear that Georgia, not Russia, is seen as the aggressor.   Drivel about the Sudetenland notwithstanding.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:46 AM

The current tensions between Russia and Georgia are only good for McCain to the extent he can disassociate himself from GWB---who has proven himself, as I noted earlier, to be the anti-TR.

And we've already discussed the worth of "stats".

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:57 AM

robomatic,

The poll numbers have not really moved.

It seems to me that the situation in Georgia poses as many problems for McCain as opportunities.

He talked about all his visits there and is joined at the hip with Georgia's chief lobbyist. On the other had he says the conflict was not foreseeable on the third hand he says he warned of it. He talks about banning Russia from the G8, but he doesn't and will never, even if the disaster of his Presidency should occur, have that power. He talks about NATO protection for Georgia but has no cards to play there. He talks about military response when the Iraq war has depleted US forces. It is difficult to see just what benefit we might gain from McCain's experience.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 06:13 AM

pdq

"I believe this is a response by NATO to the Russian military invasion of the last few days."

Exactly what I wrote. My whole sentence began with:

"The russian perspective is that America is using this situation to persuade europe that they need an anti missile defence system installed."

CarolC's post however seems to refute the whole idea.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 06:56 AM

What's this???

McAtheist is convertin' to Islam???

Wow!!! This ain't gonna help his chances of gettin' elected...

Has he changed his name yet??? Jaoni McAli has a nice ring to it... That oughtta get him some votes... Much better than McUgly, or McWar...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 08:30 AM

"CarolC's post however seems to refute the whole idea."

They usually do.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 08:55 AM

The conflict is not over oil. Georgia only has the pipeline run through it. The oilfields are in Azerbaijan, which has not been involved one bit in the conflict. Most of the oil is already controlled by BP.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 08:56 AM

Well, seein' as bb has no intention of answering my last question, which BTW was one of a series that was going to detroy the "offical" mythology/story of Gerogia's Misitry of Defense, I think we call all assume that anything we hear from Georgia cannot be taken as fact.

With that said, I do find it interesting that the Bush administration is using language that is clearly intended to inflame the tensions between the United States and Russia...

When I heard him talking about how bad Russia was for invading a sovergn nation all I could think of was Iraq...

But the most serious part of this is that these entire events, down to Operation Brimstone are nothin' but chess moves on Dick Cheney's ***World (oil) Domination Grand Chess Board***...

Makes me sick to see just how the media, just as they did in the mad-dash-to-Iraq, have taken the bait... There is way too much real information out there for them to just be agents of The Bush/Cheney/Rice War Machine!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:22 AM

Some folks are forgetting that Georgia started this.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:33 AM

"It all started when he hit me back!"

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 10:04 AM

I really don't know where CarolC finds the spirit to keep trying to reason with utter morons. Loads of good stuff here from LH too, and a good post from Paul Burke (re the Kosovo precedent etc).

I likedbeardedbruce's reference to the insoucience of Europe towards its oil dependency. He probably thinks the US can survive on its indigenous reserves until alternatives come along. Fat chance of that, even after Alaska's been destroyed.

Best of all was Teribus sneering at Russia's concern to feel safe - just as details were being finalised for America to put missiles in Poland precisely to "feel safe." (JFK nearly started WW3 when the USSR tried that in Cuba, which is much farther from the US than Poland is from Russia.) That's been a long-established plan, as pdq may care to note, since he thinks it was dreamt up the other day. But then pdq knows that Iran is a nuclear power, or seeks to be, despite a report to the contrary from his own country's intelligence services. (OK, those intelligence services have been wrong before, and famously, but does pdq know better?)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 11:47 AM

From 2005...

Star Wars in Poland

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 12:05 PM

I do agree, however, with the premise that the US is using this situation to persuade the rest of Europe to not stand in the way of the missile sites that the US and Poland have had planned for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Goose Gander
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 02:01 PM

Georgia invaded South Ossetia, and only then did Russia intervene. If you start a war, you don't get to decide how it ends. Just ask George W. Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 02:52 PM

1. I only post when I get on the computer- Unlike Bobert, I do not assume that a lack of response is anything other than a lack of response.

2. The START of this is years ago- THIS engagement started with the claimed attack by South Ossetians on Georgian by artillary ( in spite of the mixed Ossetian/Georgian/Russian peacekeepers, who should have stopped this.) and the subsequent attack by Georgia on South Ossetia.

3. I note no comment here about the failure of the Russians to either control the South Ossetians, ot to withdraw from Georgian territory.

As for Lebenon, the parallel is that Hezboallah ( like the South Ossetians) attacked Isreal, who( , like Geogia) then invaded to put an end to the acts of warfare.

Russia is most certainly acting in what it considers it's best interests: If that is OK, why can't the US act in its own interests as well? Or do you all still demand that there be two standards, one for the US and allies, and another, looser one for the rest of the world?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 03:13 PM

I have not seen any evidence that the conflict started with South Ossetians firing on Georgians other than what Wikipeda says the government of Georgia has reported. The Government of Georgia has been preparing for an invasion of South Ossetia for a long time (since long before this summer). The South Ossetians themselves have been bracing for such an invasion for a long time.

This conflict has been ongoing since Georgia started it in 1991, and since then, it has always been Georgia's intention to finish it by invading and reoccupying South Ossetia.

If Georgia wants to end the conflict, it's going to have to stop waging war against South Ossetia and recognise it as an independent nation.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Goose Gander
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 03:17 PM

And why do 'US interests' always seem to lie on the other side of the globe? Georgia borders Russia, so Russian concern is understandable. Regarding who's to blame and whether one side is 'less guilty' than the other, I really don't have a dog in that fight. But US hypocrisy is astounding. What would be the response if San Diego County (for example) attempted to secede from the US and Russia backed the 'breakaway republic of san diego'?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 03:31 PM

By the way, the locations of the skirmishes that the government of Georgia is alleging happened in July in its timeline are in South Ossetia, not Georgia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 03:38 PM

"By the way, the locations of the skirmishes that the government of Georgia is alleging happened in July in its timeline are in South Ossetia, not Georgia. "

Not entirely true, CarolC: The attacks that caused the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia DID occur in Georgian territory. I will have to check the earlier ones ( before the ceasefire by Georgia that South Ossetia violated)



"But years of negotiations with separatist leaders in Abkhazia and South Ossetia have proved fruitless. Saakashvili has offered those governments broad autonomy in exchange for allegiance to Georgia, but Abkhaz and South Ossetian leaders have insisted on full-scale independence or absorption into Russia.

Georgia's all-out assault on South Ossetia was preceded by attacks by Ossetian forces against Georgian troops earlier in the week, including a separatist ambush with rocket-propelled grenades on a Georgian armored personnel carrier that killed two soldiers and injured six, Georgian authorities said. On Thursday, a separatist mortar attack on the village of Avnevi killed eight Georgian civilians.

Thursday evening, Saakishvili called for a cease-fire and urged separatist leaders to resume talks on a peaceful settlement. But when separatists began shelling Georgian villages after Saakashvili's cease-fire call, Georgian leaders decided to move ahead with the assault.

"Separatists opened fire in response to yesterday's peaceful initiative of the president of Georgia," said Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze in a televised address. "As a result, lives of civilians were under threat."


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-080808-georgia-ossetia-webaug09,0,4176197.story

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 03:44 PM

The South Ossetian Press and Information Committee reported that a South Ossetian militiaman had been killed and another injured in an attack on a police post in the village of Ubia and this was followed by the shelling of Tskhinvali, which resulted in the death of one man. The shelling involved the use of mortars and grenade launchers, they said. Georgia claimed it had opened fire in response to the shelling by South Ossetian militiamen of Georgian-controlled villages.

The Georgian Ministry of Defense said on July 7, 2008 a group of up to ten militiamen were apparently prevented from placing mines on a Georgian-controlled by-pass road linking the Georgian villages in the north of Tskhinvali with the rest of Georgia. The Georgian side opened fire and the group was forced to retreat towards the nearby South Ossetian-controlled village

According to media reports, on July 19, 2008 a Georgian police post was attacked by Abkhaz militias using grenades, one of the militiamen died from a grenade exploding accidentally. Abkhaz officials condemned the reports as false.[99]

On July 29, 2008 South Ossetia said two South Ossetian villages had been fired on by Georgian forces in response to South Ossetia reinforcing its positions on the perimeter of the conflict zone.[104] Georgia said the same day that Georgian posts on the Sarabuki heights were attacked by South Ossetian forces with no injuries reported.[103]

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 03:48 PM

"The Government of Georgia has been preparing for an invasion of South Ossetia for a long time..."

This is getting to be just plain silly. South Ossetia is part of Georgia and has been since 1991 after Russian and Georgian leaders negotiated the current boundries. Not one international body, including the UN, recognizes the South Ossetian claim of independence, and no rational peolple consider it a part of Russia. It belongs to Georgia just as San Diego County belongs to the United States.

Perhaps the unhappier folks in South Ossetia will pick up and got to Russia to live. I'm sure there will be plenty of their relatives will want to stay and the area will be much the better for it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:04 PM

South Ossetia considers itself an independent country. Nobody in the world has a right to tell them otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:09 PM

On July 29, 2008 South Ossetia said two South Ossetian villages had been fired on by Georgian forces in response to South Ossetia reinforcing its positions on the perimeter of the conflict zone

As we can see, Georgia has been firing on South Ossetians even in the absence of any attacks coming from South Ossetians. Georgia's bombing and invasion of South Ossetia had notthing whatever to do with any skirmishes instigated by South Ossetians or anyone else. Georgia bombed and invaded South Ossetia for no other reason than because it wants to force South Ossetia to be reabsorbed back into Georgia. And any and all violence by South Ossetians has been in response to these efforts by Georgia. This makes Georgia the aggressor.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:16 PM

1.
"Georgia said the same day that Georgian posts on the Sarabuki heights were attacked by South Ossetian forces with no injuries reported.[103]"


2."Georgia bombed and invaded South Ossetia for no other reason than because it wants to force South Ossetia to be reabsorbed back into Georgia." = A judgement made by you without substantiation. I read that Georgia was tired of being attacked by the South Ossetian sepratists, even afetr various ceasefires, and was trying to show them that they should not blow up Georgians. Just as valid as your claim, and a lot closer to the stated facts by BOTH sides.


3/"And any and all violence by South Ossetians has been in response to these efforts by Georgia."

A false claim, as several of the attacks on Georgia are claimed to be AFTER cease-fires were in place- the South Ossetians DID NOT WANT a peaceful resolution.

I will state that "Any and all violence by Georgians has been in response to these efforts by South Ossetians to violently leave the state of Georgia." This is obviously as true as your claim, perhaps more so.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:18 PM

Georgia reports Shootout in S.Ossetia

Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 29 Jul.'08 / 09:56
   

Georgian posts in the South Ossetian conflict zone came under fire from South Ossetian militias overnight and early on July 29, Rustavi 2 TV and the Georgian Public Broadcaster reported.

According to the reports, posts located on the Sarabuki heights were attacked. No one was injured, the reports said. The South Ossetian side has yet to comment.

A group of officials from the Georgian Ministry of Defense, including Deputy Minister Ramaz Nikolaishvili, visited the conflict zone on July 28. The Georgian MoD reported that the delegation also visited, as it put it, "the strategic height" of Sarabuki and placed the Georgian national flag there.

In a separate incident, the Russian command of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces stationed in the conflict zone said late on July 28 that South Ossetian militiamen had prevented peacekeepers and OSCE observers from monitoring the village of Cholibauri. The Georgian side has claimed that South Ossetian militiamen are setting up military fortifications in an area close to the village.

"They [the South Ossetian militiamen] threatened us at gunpoint and even fired several shots into the air over the observers' heads," Interfax and RIA Novosti news agencies quoted Vladimir Ivanov, a spokesman for the Russian peacekeepers in the conflict zone, as saying late on July 28. "Such actions fuel tensions in the conflict zone."

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:26 PM

The BBC showed footage the other night which they filmed a couple of weeks ago that they said was filmed by one of their crews and which they claimed depicted russian backed south ossetian seperatists attacking georgian targets in georgia.

To what extent is the "popular" uprising of the russian backed seperatists comparable to the "popular" uprising of the Contras in Nicaragua.

Is Russia deliberately trying to destabilize Georgia to effect a regime change in Georgia as Sakashvili claims?

Is the whole Contra thing the reason why America has been so quick to deduce the russians motives?

Is it a case of the pot calling the kettle black, or worse, is it a case of the Americans projecting their own guilt onto Russia?

Russian propaganda ... er ... news ... gives such a different picture to the news agencies that I trust that I have to consider that they do indeed have something to hide.

There simply isn't the same honest media scrutiny that we enjoy in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:42 PM

Ummmmmm, what would Russia's motive be here, folks??? I mean, lets get real... Russsia needs another Cheknya like the US needs another Iraq... If anything, Russia has been suckered into this by the US and their CIA puppet in Georgia... Russia has everything to loose... Especially now with Russia enjoying all these oil profits...

Maybe this is why Putin very angerily waged his finger at Bush at the Olympics after getting a call informing him of the attacks...

Russia nas been sucker punched by Cheney and Putin is gonna be one pissed off guy for a long time over it... And I don't blame him... And big moth John McCain, whould he be elected, won't be able to fix nuthin' because he had to use his Georgian lobbiest to turn this into a big ol' fashion circle jerk of a PR campaign...

One more reason to not vote for John McCain unless you want 4 more years of lousy US/Russian relations...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:46 PM

Bobert,

You state:
"Ummmmmm, what would Russia's motive be here, folks??? "


Do you ever bother to read anything? There have been a number of posts about what Russia stands to gain by this. If you truely believe what you have stated, you disappoint me greatly. Those NASCAR fans you wanted to disenfranchise have a better grasp of international politics than you have shown.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:53 PM

I think I am becoming more entrenched in my suspicion of Putin.

However, now that i look at the Americans a bit more closely, they are coming across as though they are revelling in their righteousness.

They don't seem to be engaging the Russians on the question of Georgia's irresponsibility but are stuck in a groove blaming russia.

Again though, I find myself returning to the pictures of the south ossetian forces currently in Georgia laying waste to those around them whilst under the protection of the russian peacekeepers.

I don't see how allowing that has anything to do with humanitarianism or peacekeeping or russian responses to georgian aggression against ossetians.

Why are the russians giving tacit licence to the south ossetian seperatists to murder and destroy in georgia?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:55 PM

...there should be no doubt that Abkhazia must be regained and that Georgia's territorial integrity must be restored. Georgia will be completely free only when the most beautiful flag in the world, the five-star flag, flies at the (*1) Roki tunnel and on the (*2) Psou.

--Mikheil Saakashvili, November 22, 2004


*1 The Roki tunnel crosses the border between South Ossetia and Russia.

*2 The Psou River is forms the border between Abkhazia and Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:59 PM

For the record,

I would trust Obama to be a million times more resourceful, more intelligent, and more competent to deal with this situation than McCain.

I think politics is indeed a game of chess and that is unavoidable as if you aren't playing it you'll be beaten by someone who is.

I believe that Obama would be a subtler and more effective player.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:59 PM

Russia's Ominous New Doctrine?

By Strobe Talbott
Friday, August 15, 2008; Page A21

Russia has been justifying its rampage through Georgia as a "peacekeeping" operation to end the Tbilisi government's "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" of South Ossetia. That terminology deliberately echoes U.S. and NATO language during their 1999 bombing campaign against Serbia, which resulted in the independence of Kosovo. Essentially, it's payback time for a grievance that Russia has borne against the West for nine years. The Russians are relying on the conceit that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is today's equivalent of Slobodan Milosevic, and that the South Ossetians are (or were until their rescue by the latter-day Red Army last week) being victimized by Tbilisi the way the Kosovar Albanians suffered under Belgrade.

This analogy turns reality, and history, upside down. Only after exhausting every attempt at diplomacy did NATO go to war over Kosovo. It did so because the formerly "autonomous" province of Serbia was under the heel of Belgrade and the Milosevic regime was running amok there, killing ethnic Albanians and throwing them out of their homes. By contrast, South Ossetia -- even though it is on Georgian territory -- has long been a Russian protectorate, beyond the reach of Saakashvili's government.

An accurate comparison between the Balkan disasters of the 1990s and the one now playing out in the Caucasus underscores what is most ominous about current Russian policy. Seventeen years ago, the Soviet Union came apart at the seams more or less peacefully. That was overwhelmingly because Boris Yeltsin insisted on converting the old inter-republic boundaries into new international ones. In doing so, he kept in check the forces of revanchism among communists and nationalists in the Russian parliament (which went by the appropriately atavistic name "the Supreme Soviet").

Meanwhile, Yugoslavia collapsed into bloody chaos because its leaders engaged in an ethnically and religiously based land-grab. Milosevic, as the best-armed of the lot, tried to carve a "Greater Serbia" out of the flanks of Bosnia and Croatia. If Yeltsin had gone that route, seeking to create a Greater Russia that incorporated Belarus and the parts of Ukraine, northern Kazakhstan and the Baltic states populated by Russian speakers, there could have been conflict across 11 time zones with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in the mix.

A question that looms large in the wake of the past week is whether Russian policy has changed with regard to the permanence of borders. That seemed to be what Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was hinting yesterday when he said, "You can forget about any discussion of Georgia's territorial integrity." He ridiculed "the logic of forcing South Ossetia and Abkhazia to return to being part of the Georgian state."

Lavrov is a careful and experienced diplomat, not given to shooting off his mouth. That makes his comments all the more unsettling. If he has given the world a glimpse of the Russian endgame, it's dangerous in its own right and in the precedent it would set. South Ossetia and Abkhazia might be set up as supposedly independent countries ("just like Kosovo," the Russians would say) -- but would in fact be satrapies of Russia. While Russia might see that outcome as proof of its comeback as a major power, the Balkanization of the Caucasus may not end there: Chechnya is just one of several regions on Russian territory that are seething with resentment against the Kremlin and that might hanker after a version of independence far less to Moscow's liking than what may be contemplated for Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Among Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's important tasks in the days ahead is to get clarity on whether a Lavrov doctrine has replaced the Yeltsin one of 16 years ago. If so, big trouble looms -- including for Russia. Moscow's action and rhetoric of the past week have highlighted yet another, potentially more consequential respect in which this episode could bode ill for all concerned. For the Bush administration -- and those of Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush as well -- the fundamental premise of American policy has been that Russia has put its Soviet past behind it and is committed, eventually, to integrating itself into Europe and the political, economic and ideological (as opposed to the geographical) "West."

Prominent Russians have said as much. In one of my first meetings with Vladimir Putin, before he became president, he spoke of his country's zapadnichestvo, its Western vocation. Yet it now appears that beyond the undisguised animosity that Putin bears toward Saakashvili, he and his government regard Georgia's pro-Western bent and its aspiration to join two Western institutions, NATO and the European Union, as, literally, a casus belli. If that is the case, the next U.S. administration -- the fourth to deal with post-Soviet Russia -- will have to reexamine the underlying basis for the whole idea of partnership with that country and its continuing integration into a rule-based international community.

The writer is president of the Brookings Institution and was deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:59 PM

My own opinion is that Russia is doing it to show Georgia (and its puppet master, the US) that Georgia is going to have to relinquish any claim on South Ossetia and Abkhazia whether it wants to or not. I think it is doing it to pressure Georgia to sign a non use of force agreement.

If Georgia can throw its weight around and force South Ossetia to do its bidding (killing many civilians in the process), it seems to me that Georgia is not in a position to complain if someone else does the same thing to it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:04 PM

Saakashvili is not speaking like a true conqueror. Shame! No wonder his invasion plans in South Ossetia went awry. He should have said "Georgia will be completely free only when the most beautiful flag in the world, the five-star flag, flies over Moscow, Vienna, Dresden, and Paris!" You can't win total hegemony for the most beautiful flag in the world with feeble half-measures. George "It's all the way to Baghdad!" Bush could have told him that.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:07 PM

lox...

There are genuine members of the Russian Army in S. Ossetia (a part of Georgia) right now, but there are also paid mercenaries as well as volunteers from various areas. Those who don't wear a Russian uniform but kill people are probably mercenaries being protected by the Russian Army as the former do the "dirty work". The volunteers seem to be unpaid folks who either have a grudge to settle or just want to be able to kill people.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:13 PM

And the russian Media is romanticising the whole campaign and glorifying it with slow moving music on news reports which, as we have seen in Ireland amongst other places, can make ordinary murderers feel and appear like warrior poets.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:14 PM

"Essentially, it's payback time for a grievance that Russia has borne against the West for nine years."

Exactly. And a legitimate grievance, in my opinion...but it goes back a lot further than nine years. It goes all the way back to the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1989 and the subsequent dismembering of most of their border regions and the devastation of their domestic economy, indeed the devastation of the fabric of their entire society.

If you were Russian, BB, you would most likely understand that it's a legitimate grievance.

The West has been throwing its weight around in an arrogant manner for decades now, subverting various cultures through economic and political manipulation, bombing invading small countries at its whim, and attempting to control all the oil in the world...confident that no one could stop them.

The Russians are now saying, "Enough. We draw the line here."

You would say exactly the same thing were you in their position.

You have your interests at heart. They have theirs. They are human too.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:21 PM

LH,

Thing is that Russians are doing it in a hamfisted neanderthal way.

The global partnership that the US speaks of is in fact the diplomatic battlefield where the nations of today fight their battles without suffering damage to their people, infrastructure or reputation.

America is right that Russia has taken a step backwards and in the process undermined her standing on the world stage.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:27 PM

"Russians are doing it in a hamfisted neanderthal way."

Agreed. Perhaps they are trying to imitate George Bush? ;-)

The USA has been clearly giving the world the message since 2001 that might is right and that he with the largest military in the world is absolutely free to attack whom he wants when he wants, regardless of legality, regardless of what the U.N. has to say about it, and even upon wholly spurious excuses (like WMDs that don't exist). Furthermore, he with the largest military has the right to torture prisoners and hold them in offshore facilities without trial or legal representation.

I'm sure Russia has learned a lot from watching the Bush administration's gentle approach to diplomacy in these last 7 years. (sarcasm)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:33 PM

"My own opinion is that Russia is doing it to show Georgia (and its puppet master, the US) that Georgia is going to have to relinquish any claim on South Ossetia and Abkhazia whether it wants to or not. I think it is doing it to pressure Georgia to sign a non use of force agreement."

No, they are really doing it to show Georgia that they can't follow policies which Russia doesn't approve of.
S. Ossetia and Abkhazia are mere examples of that.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:36 PM

Yes - and it makes me a bit sick to see Bush and Rice enjoying their new found status as courageous diplomats.

America is being slightly less hamfisted.

I heard one US representative say scathingly " Russia is nothing ... it's saudi with trees" as a way of explaining why they would have no chance in a diplomatic struggle against America.

I believe Obama might be so much less hamfisted as to be considered Graceful.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:46 PM

I have to say that I also find carols point interesting regarding the need for a georgian non aggression pledge.

There seems to me to be no harm in the georgians agreeing not to attack Ossetia or Abkhazia again.

Nor does there seem to be any harm in Georgia accepting that the sovereignty of Ossettia and Abkhazia and their respective desires for self determination deserve to be given due attention and scrutiny.

Perhaps it is right and proper that Georgia accepts their right to coexist as independant political states.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 06:33 PM

The US isn't being less hamfisted. It's just being a lot more covert in its hamfistedness. Any rhetoric on the part of the US government about "global partnership" is just a cover for what is really being done, which is the US attempting to bend the entire world to its will whether the rest of the world likes it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 06:45 PM

Ssaakashvili sounded quite unhinged as he ranted today. Even Condi, standing beside him, had the grace to look a bit uncomfortable.

Thanks for the Strobe Talbot cut & paste, beardedbruce. I thought such lengthy clippings were discouraged in the non-music threads but it is a useful pointer to who does your thinking.

The US admin line on Kosovo, parroted by Talbot, has always been a travesty.

First there was no genocide inflicted on the Albanian muslims. Remember those figures that were being bandied around at the time? The US state department was talking about 250,000 dead Albanians IIRC, and the UK foreign secretary (Robin Cooke) used a more conservative figure of 150,000. So far about 3,000 bodies have been found, most of them Serbs.)

Second the Albanian muslims (in the main, refugees and economic migrants who got out of Albania proper in the Hoxhe years and earlier) had discriminated against the indigenous Serbs for years.

Third, all that stuff about Milosevic withdrawinig Kosovo autonomy is blatant hypocrisy. Tito granted it in 1974 - yes, the guy was human and made some mistakes. When Milosevic withdrew it, the IMF and the World Bank were delighted because they wanted to see strong central government. Can you imagine how the US admin would function if California, for instance, had a veto on federal policy-making?

Pdq, try applying your South Ossetia and San Diego logic to Kosovo. Russia, along with Spain and others, warned that sovereignty for Kosovo would open a can of worms. Now a chicken has come home to roost. And this time, joy of joys, there's fuck all that Uncle Sam can do about it except huff and puff.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:04 PM

Some historical perspective...


"Up until now, this war was framed as a simple tale of Good Helpless Democratic Guy Georgia versus Bad Savage Fascist Guy Russia. In fact, it is far more complex than this, morally and historically. Then there are two concentric David and Goliath narratives here. The initial war pitted the Goliath Georgia--a nation of 4.4 million, with vastly superior numbers, equipment and training thanks to US and Israeli advisers--against David-Ossetia, with a population of between 50,000-70,000 and a local militia force that is barely battalion strength. Reports coming out of South Ossetia tell of Georgian rockets and artillery leveling every building in the capital city, Tskhinvali, and of Georgian troops lobbing grenades into bomb shelters and basements sheltering women and children. Although true casualty figures are hard to come by, reports that up to 2,000 Ossetians, mostly civilians, were killed are certainly believable, given the intensity of the initial Georgian bombardment, the wanton destruction of the city and surrounding regions and the generally savage nature of Caucasus warfare, a very personal game where old rules apply.

But you don't hear about this story from the Western media. Indeed, you hear little if anything about the Ossetians, who seem to hardly exist in the West's eyes, even though their grievance is the root cause of this war.

While Russia and America see the conflict in abstract terms about spheres of influence and protecting allies, for Ossetians, who still recall the centuries of massacres Georgians committed against them, it is highly personal. They will still recall the Georgian massacres in the early 1920s, when Georgia was briefly independent, which exterminated up to 8 percent of the Ossetian population. In 1990, when Georgia was again moving towards independence, the ultranationalist leader Zviad Gamsakhurdia abolished Ossetia's limited autonomy, leading to another Ossetian rebellion that was only quelled by a peace agreement signed by Georgia, Russia and the Ossetians. Gamsakhurdia was subsequently deposed, and Georgia's ethnic chauvinism was shelved until the rise of current president Mikhail Saakashvili in 2003."


http://mobile.thenation.com/docmobile.mhtml?i=20080818&s=ames2

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:10 PM

so did the chicken come home to roost in the can of worms? ...

Sorry ... I never was much good at politics ;-)

but seriously ...

I see partnership as meaning "don't buy a gun, get a lawyer!"

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:14 PM

Partnership with the US means get a gun and use it on whoever we tell you to.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:15 PM

Interesting article Carol.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:32 PM

I'm not sure I agree with your last statement on partnership.

I think that neo-condoleezas words can be turned back on her.

I think the US needs the cooperation of the other G8 countries and wider international cooperation as much as russia does to function on the global chessboard/marketplace.

America can no longer afford to isolate itself either.

Especially now that europe is staarting to grow significantly in strength.

At the end of the next recession Europe will be seen to have weathered the storm the best and that includes countries like poland and the other old soviet block countries who will suddenly be in undreamed of positions of influence.

America and russia both require a strong partnership with Europe, as Europe does with them. Not to mention China.

There is an American tendancy sometimes, when criticizing themselves, to remain nonetheless in a self aggrandizing mindset.

This isn't all about US foreign policy, it is about Diplomatic jostling on the great global chessboard.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:37 PM

I don't disagree with any of that. I was just giving the meaning of partnership with the US from the perspective of the current (and some former) administrations.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:49 PM

Just look at how smug and pleased with himself that yucky little Sarkozy is that he got to be the most important boy in assembly.

Gordon Brown and David Cameron are both looking on in envy.

And of course David Cameron is showing that he can talk tough too (puke)

Like a litle annoying terrier barking more aggressively so the other dogs might take him seriously.

We must apparently fasttrack Georgia's entry into NATO ...

... yes david ... that'll solve the problem ...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:50 PM

This, as with all recent wars, is not about ideologies per se. It is about money and who will control what aspect of the money market. Note the singular--market.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 08:06 PM

Bruce,

I started to read you first sorce and found lies right there in the first sentence...

You, my friend, are doing nothin' in the interent in truth... What you are doing is spreading propaganda...

All of a sudden Putin is the Devil???

Yeah, Bush and Cheney do love their boogie men...

Give us a break... Most intellegent people don't hacve to read thru reems and reems of propaganda to know which way the wind blows...

This war was started by the Unitied States and their puppets... That is the truth... Unless you can get that far then you are out of the intellegent discussion on why the US did it and what they must now do to fix it... Other than blow smoke up the posteriors of true believers...

B~

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 08:21 PM

Peter K (Fionn),

Why do you expect an argument? I agree with everything you said about Kosovo and our betrayal of our Serbian allies. That was a monstrous crime by Madeleine Halfbright and "Worthless Willie" Clinton, our second worst president ever. When the news media said that a mass grave with 700 slaughtered innocent Kosovar Muslims was found which later proves to be 5 dead bodies, unidentifiable and probably Serb, the news media had an obligation to correct their disinformation. They did not.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 08:45 PM

"That was a monstrous crime by Madeleine Halfbright and "Worthless Willie" Clinton, our second worst president ever."

That's true, pdq, in my opinion. It was a monstrous crime. But I am sort of getting the impression that you always see these things primarily along old party lines that you are traditionally loyal to, regardless of the real circumstance.

In other words, when a Democratic administration does it, it's terrible. But when a Republican administration does it, well, then it's probably justifiable...and when a US ally (Georgia) does it, well then, it's even more justifiable. But when Russia does it! Then it's absolutely despicable...

I think you're having trouble being objective about certain war crimes and war criminals, because your own political loyalties are getting in the way of your ability to recognize them.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 08:53 PM

Yeah, we've hade 30 years of anti-human foriegn policies... This ain't about Dems or Repubs... It's failed vision stuck in a hampster wheel... We need a paradyme change which is not realted to political parties but founded on pro-human, pro-earth thinking and not US always getting our way...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 08:57 PM

Serbia, Allies?

Since when?

Haven't they always been close to the Russians?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:03 PM

Yes, Jack, they have, as a matter of fact.

They fought the Germans in WWII, while the Catholic Croatians mostly were allied with the Germans against the Serbs. After the war, the whole area of what was called Yugoslavia aligned itself closely with the Soviets, but maintained political autonomy.

As soon as Yugoslavia broke up after Tito's death the West began playing the usual "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" games that all powers great and small always play, and the Serbs became the odd man out in that game as wars broke out between Serbs, Croatians, Bosnians, etc. Russia tended to favor the Serbs in those conflicts, the West tended to side against them.

Many wrongs were committed on all sides.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:21 PM

Liberal Squawk,

No, you are the one stuck on party line platitudes. My opinions are as diverse as anyone on Mudcat since I try to find facts. That is something that people with a science background must do. Philosophy majors believe that "truth" is on the side of the one who can use tha best wordplay and win an argument. They make good lawyers.

Albania stealing Kosovo from the rightful owner, Serbia, is equivalent to Russia stealing South Ossetia from the rightful owner, Georgia. Unhappy inhabitants who were given Russian citizenship should move to Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:37 PM

Methinks LH, ye have hit a nerve. It is rare to see such a sharp scientific mind reduced to name calling.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:40 PM

"Serbia, Allies?

Since when?

Haven't they always been close to the Russians?" ~ JtS

Well, the United States helped Russia any way it could to defeat Nazi Germany. Serbia was the only Balkan country allied us. The Shah of Iran was a very important ally, his country having a huge border with Russia and warm water ports. The supply route that allowed Russia to defeat Germany went through Iran. Yes, Iran, Serbia, Russia and the United States were allies and essential in winning WWII in Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:42 PM

Ossetians are the rightful owner of South Ossetia. It has been their territory for many hundreds of years. Georgia forcing South Ossetia to be a part of Georgia would be like Russia forcing Georgia to be a part of Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:42 PM

Its also rare to see a "sharp scientific mind" supporting the neocons, Jack!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:46 PM

LOL akenaton

Is this conversation is starting to border on the oxymoronic?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 10:23 PM

"Albania stealing Kosovo from the rightful owner, Serbia, is equivalent to Russia stealing South Ossetia from the rightful owner, Georgia. Unhappy inhabitants who were given Russian citizenship should move to Russia."


                      pdq - I remember trying to make this point in a previous thread and was shouted off the internet.

                      I think the Kosovo example was even more sinister in that a huge number of Albanians moved to Kosovo for the specific purpose of wresting it away from Serbia.
                      When Serbia tried to chase the Albanians out, Bill Clinton, desparately needing an international event to change the dialogue in the American press, jumped in on the side of Albania. The rest is...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 10:26 PM

mystery.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 10:47 PM

...in fact!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 10:51 PM

Interesting to read this thread because what should be a simple matter of fact is resurrected as fact influenced by interpretation tinged with political 'view point' (read bias). And yes, I'm as guilty as the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 11:04 PM

I suppose these things would be easy if somebody was 100% right, and the other party was 100% wrong, but...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 11:30 PM

Rig, that promise is the entire appeal of the republican party.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 11:43 PM

I definitely have a bias. I always come down on the side of the people who are fighting for their freedom, and against those who seek to subjugate them.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 11:53 PM

And you do it well, Carol. Based on your view.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 01:08 AM

Okay, pdq, if you are gonna call me "Liberal Squawk", then I shall have to come up with a catchy nickname for you also. ;-) I'm thinkin'...

plainly demented qualifier...

partially dessicated quim...

pathetically deranged questioner...

perpendicularly delineated quartermaster...

Hmmm. Or how about something simple like...

"pigs don't quack"

I think Clinton was in the wrong. I think Bush is in the wrong. I think Georgia is in the wrong. And I think you're wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 01:09 AM

"Rig, that promise is the entire appeal of the republican party."


                Tina Turner would say: "What's the Republican Party got to do with it?"

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 01:15 AM

I now understand what Bob meant when he said

"Oh God said to abraham kill me a son
Abe said man you must be puttin me on
God said no, abe said what
God say you can do what you wanna but
The next time you see me comin you better run
Well abe said where dyou want this killin done
God said out on highway 61
Well georgia sam he had a bloody nose
Welfare department wouldnt give him no clothes
They asked poor howard where can I go
Howard said theres only one place I know
Sam said tell me quick man I got to run
Oh howard just pointed with his gun
And said that way down highway 61
Well mack the finger said to louie the king
i got 40 red white and blue shoestrings
And a thousand telephone that dont ring.
Do you know where I can get rid of these things?
And louie the king said let me think for a minute son
Then he said yes I think it can be easily done
Just take everything down to highway 61
Now the 5th daughter on the 12th night
Told the first father that things werent right
my complexion, she says, is much too white
He said come here and step into the light
He said hmm youre right let me tell the 2nd mother this has been done
But the 2nd mother was with the 7th son
And they were both out on highway 61
Now the roving gambler he was very bored
Trying to create a next world war
He found a promoter who nearly fell off the floor
He said i never engaged in this kind of thing before
But yes, i think it can be very easily done
Well just put some bleachers out in the sun
And have it on highway 61"

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 01:29 AM

Yeah.

But do you understand what the song "Angelina" is about? Not "Farewell Angelina". Just "Angelina".

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 01:38 AM

In so far as it is echoed in "Every Grain of Sand", yes.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 01:44 AM

Here's another excerpt from the article I posted earlier that I think bears reading...

"The question we must ask is: Are we willing to risk war, including nuclear holocaust, in order to fulfill the aspirations of Mikhail Saakashvili? While Bush and McCain speak of Saakashvili as if he's a combination of Thomas Jefferson and Nelson Mandela, he's seen by his own people as increasingly authoritarian and unbalanced. Last year, Saakashvili sent in his special forces to violently disperse opposition protesters in the capital city, followed by a declaration of martial law. He sacked the opposition television station (partly owned by Rupert Murdoch), exiled or jailed his political opponents, and stacked the courts with his own judges while removing neutral observers, leaving even onetime neocon cheerleaders like Bruce Jackson and Anne Applebaum feeling queasy. Hardly the image of the "small democratic nation" that everyone today touts."


Hell, the US government and media tried to tear Hugo Chavez a new one just for not renewing the license of one of the TV stations in his country, and here we are propping up a guy who sacked the opposition TV station and exiled or jailed his political opponents.

In what way is this guy different from Putin? (Oh, yeah... he's willing to be our puppet.)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 01:53 AM

Saakashvili is purported to have won the election with 98% of the popular vote. I believe that. Right. Much like I believe that Hussein won with 100%. And Castro. And Stalin.

Democracy my ass. He's another fu#kin' dictator. But in this case, he's a dictator who is in Bush and Cheney's pocket.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 02:23 AM

"Massive amounts of infrastructure will need to be rebuilt. Prices have already gone up significantly over the past two years, and inflation will likely increase as a result of the war."


Tell me, doesn't this sound like a job for










no, not Superman







no, not Batman and Robin







no not Spiderman









no, not Superwoman








but







bot









a Halliburton subsidiary?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 02:25 AM

Sorry. Was having a case of Deja Vu,


all over again!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 06:18 PM

Oh, sorry odq. I just assumed. My apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 06:24 PM

Er, pdq

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 06:38 PM

Peter K (Fionn),

Thank you for returning and reading my clarification.

BTW, if the US continues to have such an inconsistent foreign policy, we will gradually lose our alies because they will not trust us. Many need military and economic support and often get a lecture in "human rights" instead. It is quite difficult to insure everybody's "human rights" when your country isbeing invaded or your children are being killed in bomb attacks on their way to grade school.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 06:51 PM

>>>BTW, if the US continues to have such an inconsistent foreign policy, we will gradually lose our alies because they will not trust us. Many need military and economic support and often get a lecture in "human rights" instead. It is quite difficult to insure everybody's "human rights" when your country isbeing invaded or your children are being killed in bomb attacks on their way to grade school.

Amen to that.

With reference to the current situation in Georgia; Bush has been Promising them NATO membership; McCain is threatening to drop Russia from the G8. The President of the US, especially a presumptuous nominee such as McCain, has the authority to do neither. So these promises and threats are causing a lot of consternation among America's best allies.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 07:00 PM

I think our foreign policy is perfectly consistent. Any country that the US sees as being a threat to our hegemony is our enemy. Anyone who is a friend of our enemy is our enemy. Serbia was a friend of Russia, and therefore our enemy. Anyone who is an enemy of our enemy is our friend. Georgia is an enemy of Russia, so they are our friend. It's as consistent and as predictable as it could possibly be.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 07:02 PM

"we will gradually lose our alies because they will not trust us."

Huh????? Fer Chrissake, they don't trust you now! ;-D (Except maybe for Israel.) The USA is one of the least trusted nations in the world, and I mean just about everywhere. Your allies are not allies out of a sense of trust, pdq, they are allies due to various almost inextricable financial and business ties that have been around ever since the end of WWII, if not longer. It's sheer pragmatism and the weight of the status quo, not trust.

Nor, of course, do they trust Russia. Nobody has much reason to trust either the USA or Russia.

Nobody trusted the Romans either...for the same reason. They were not trustworthy.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 04:35 AM

I'm begining to feel quite optimistic about this forum.
I sense a new confidence from the old much maligned rebels.


"Mighty oaks from little acorns grow." Maybe its just coincidence but whenever Peter turns up we become "inspired"....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 08:31 AM

"Fer Chrissake, they don't trust you now! ;-D (Except maybe for Israel.)"


                  Weren't the last few moles unearthed in the CIA working for Israel?


                  And I think you're right about Serbia, Carol, their biggest problem was they just happened to be in the wrong place at the right time for Bill Clinton and NATO.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 10:17 AM

Until Jimmy Carter's presidency, we (the US) were strongly allied with Turkey, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Lebanon and Israel. Three different religions and lots of animosity between them, but all good friends to us.

We most certainly could be allied with Serbia (and Croatia) after the breakup of the old Yugoslavia, and still be at odds with Russia and their tendency for expansionism. For someone to put out the simplistic statement "Anyone who is an enemy of our enemy is our friend." and suggest that is the depth and breadth of the US foreign policy does not deserve to be given the time of day.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 10:42 AM

Have we all concluded that Bush done it yet?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 10:45 AM

Yes. He did it in the library with a candlestick!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 12:48 PM

. . . and seven people here offered to light it for him.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 01:00 PM

Iran wasn't our friend. The Shah was our friend. Clearly much of Iran didn't appreciate our meddling in that country, and that's why the Shah was chased out of there. Iran could have been our friend had we not crushed their fledgling democracy because of oil and had we not propped up the despotic Shah.

And while my synopsis of our foreign relations looks simplistic because it didn't take very many words to communicate it, it's not at all simplistic when one examines the particulars of how we go about it.

But it's still entirely about empire and not wanting to allow the existence of any other superpowers that could challenge our hegemony.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 01:51 PM

Okay, pdq, fine then...Israel doesn't trust you either. ;-)

By the way, have you got the time?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 05:17 PM

Pdq,

I think there make be some confusion. I don't doubt that we could be allies with Serbia. I simply question that we are or recently have been.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 06:35 PM

Bill Clinton authorized NATO forces to bomb Serbia back to the Srone Age if they tried to stop Kosovo from being taken away by Albanians. Madeleine Albright was the architect of the plan. We blasted our friend Serbia with more ordinance (including most of our depleted Uranium on hand at the time) than George Bush (#41) used to win the Gulf War (1991). They are not our friends anymore. Oh, let's not forget that no UN resolution was voted on authorizing this attack. There was also no vote in the US Congress. The 2003 Iraq conflict (see George W. Bush, #43), on the other hand, had numerous UN-voted mandates starting in 1990 and a very specific approval by the US Congress, in addition to a voted general approval fthrough the War on Terrorism vote in OCT 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 06:41 PM

How was Serbia our friend? They came out of the collapse of communism as and authoritarians, suppressing other ethnic groups with close ties to Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 07:21 PM

Why is it that you can clearly recognize American aggression against Serbia but not against Iraq, pdq? Might it have something to do with your partisan viewpoint?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 07:28 PM

The best way to have handled Iraq would have been to kill Hussein. One against tens of thousands. He deserved a bullet in the brain anyway due to what he ordered be done to the Kurds. But war generates lotsa dollars--just ask Mr Halliburton and the folks in the arms industry. But folks get all fuzzy when they have to think of that instaed of war. Retail killing as opposed to wholesale
slaughter. Besides, if some leaders started thinking that way, the arms manufactureres would apply the logic to them.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 07:32 PM

Get enough folks to say, "I'll be right behind you Bush (or Putin or whatever other warmongers you care to name)" and war would freakin' well end soon enough. imo

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 07:35 PM

But, hey, man...Saddam Hussein was an American ally when he was killing Iranians. Remember? He was "our boy in Baghdad".

Sort of like Noriega. He was an American ally for many years too.

Oh, and Osama Bin Laden used to work in harmony with the CIA to kill Russians in Afghanistan.

I see a common thread running through all of this.


You are quite right that a war suits the arms industry far better than an assassination of one man does.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 07:40 PM

Yes, and it doesn't seem to matter which country is on who's side. Whatever it takes to start the bullets flying seems to be perfectly acceptable to the arms industry, where ever you find it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 08:05 PM

Iraq broke off diplomatic relations with the US over the 1967 Arab-Israel War. They were our enemies under Saddam Hussein from 1979 until we put a big US combat boot up his ass. Don't re-write history. Mudcat has some standard opinions that must be adhered to for purposes of getting along. They ain't true, but that don't matter here.

Iraq never was our ally and they never received a "wink" from the US ambassador to invade Kuwait. They had less than 2.5% US arms going into the Kuwait invasion, none of that material was authorized by the US government (read: from illegal arms deals). The nerve gas and biological agents Reagan authorized in about 1986 consisted of small samples (vials carried in one briefcase) and came with technical help. The purpose was to identify the chemical and biological agents that Iran was using against the Iraqi army and civilians. And we gave spy plane photos but only after repulsed the Iraqi aggression and moved into Iranian territory to conquer Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 08:09 PM

pdq, you need to start getting your history from more historians and fewer hacks.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 08:26 PM

I don't understand the last sentence in the second paragraph in the 17 Aug 08 - 08:05 PM post. Who moved into Iranian territory to conquer Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 08:50 PM

A bit more proofreading...Yes, Iran moved into Iraqi territory in the latter stages of the Iran-Iraq War. Reagan maintained a strict neutrality until Iran became the aggressors. He gave Iraqi diplomats sophisticated spy plane photographs showing the location of Iranian troop movements. He gave them no weapons and made it clear that when hostilites ended, the original borders were going to stand. Compare that to Kosovo, Bosnia and Geargia. Inconsistent foreign policy as I have already stated.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 09:51 PM

If the US only stepped in when Iran entered Iraqi territory, it really can't be said that the US was maintaining strict neutrality, since Iraq invaded Iran in the first place. Clearly, the US wanted Iraq to invade Iran, and it did not want Iran to enter Iraqi territory. Had the US maintained neutrality, it would not have interfered in any way at any time, and certainly not after it had already allowed Iraq to invade Iran.

Iraq was our proxy against the Iranian revolutionaries in the Iran Iraq war.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 09:58 PM

And it's just too bad Shakespeare wasn't around to write the play about the insanity that he certainly would have deduced from the hypocisy related to the Iran-Contra affair.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 11:55 PM

As usual, pdq, you are mesmerized by the outer form of the law (official treaties, alliances, U.N. declarations, whatever), and can't seem to see what is actually going on between the lines.

The outer form of the law, when it applies to international relations, is often intended simply to mislead those who are mesemerized by it while the real program goes forward, and the real program was this:

The USA wanted revenge on Iran for the Iran hostage crisis that crippled Jimmy Carter's presidency and humiliated and frustrated America. They wanted to bring down the Iranian regime. They encouraged Saddam Hussein to use Iraq as their instrument to punish Iran. They helped finance his war effort. Their hope was that Saddam's invasion would break the back of the Iranian regime for good, following which the USA could establish a compliant regime in Iran, thus controlling Iranian oil and getting revenge on Iran at the same time.

Saddam did well at first, because he had the intial advantage of surprise and he had better modern weaponry. He did not do well in the long run. The Iranians defeated his invasion. If you call their eventual advances across the border into Iraq "aggression" under that circumstance, then perhaps you would call the Allied invasions of occupied Europe under the Third Reich aggression as well?

Saddam had failed miserably as America's hired gun to punish Iran, but he still was armed to the teeth...and he had nowhere to go...

He had become an embarrassment and a liability at that point. So the next thing to do was wait for Saddam to make his next serious mistake or help him to make it...then pull his teeth. As it turned out, that didn't take too long.

None of this has anything to do with the official out-front propaganda BS, pdq, it has to do with the real strategic moves behind the scenes. Actions speak louder than words.

The USA and UK have been playing a Great Game in the Middle East ever since the end of WWII. That game is aimed at controlling Middle Eastern oil and the marketing of that oil. They used Saddam while it was convenient, they dumped him when it wasn't anymore. They blew it totally when it came to dealing with Iran, though....so Iran is still on the hit list. If there is another war there soon it will be Iran which is targeted. Syria is also on the hit list, but much secondary, I'd say.

The excuse again, just like in Iraq, will be the rumored presence or the rumored danger of WMDs.

It is the excuse most likely to be believed by the American public, despite the fact that Iran and Iraq are both utterly physically and technically incapable of attacking the USA...and they would not attack Israel either unless they had decided on committing national suicide.

Thus, those who already HAVE the WMDs by the hundreds and/or thousands...Israel, the USA, and the UK...pretend to be living in fear of those who don't have them...and who wouldn't even dare use them if they did have them, for the most painfully obvious reasons.

It's ridiculous, but a majority of Americans will probably believe it once again, because you seem inclined to believe anything you are told by Big Brother as long as it places evil somewhere else in the world....and not at home.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:51 AM

That's IT exactly Hawk...one has to read between the lines.

What seems obvious, is totally incomprehensible to folks like pdq, Teribus , or Bearded Bruce.
I wonder though, is this really the case, or do they have the powers required to deduce and are just afraid to use them?

I don't think I've ever heard any of them actually question Western foreign policy, other than as a weapon against a rival in domestic politics.
There seems to be some sort of denial at work here.

"I won't think for myself.....Iwon't....I won't...and no fuckin' leftie is gonna make me"...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 06:53 AM

Well I've read this thread through and done some thinking.

I started off (like most people) caught up in the wole "aaahhh the cold war is starting again" hysteria.

I've come round though, thanks to the sound reasoning of folks like CarolC, to a point where I am disgusted and revolted by the sycophancy of David Cameron and the opportunism of Bush, but most of all by the Audacity of Sakashvilli.

I have a name for the new world ideology - cynical egotism.

The Russians are no angels, but the world is not well served by the distortion of truth that we are seeing around us.

Vote "cynical egotist" at the next election ... or if that ain't your cup of tea, go for Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 07:52 AM

Obama - I don't know how you could get more egotistical than that.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: folk1e
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 07:52 AM

One of the problems with playing with the "brown and smelly" is that you end up covered in it!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 09:15 AM

Lox, I don't see how Bush escapes blame in this. Form seeing Putin's soul to the combination of bluster and neglect in foreign policy, to the cancellation of Russian oil contracts in Iraq, to the "missile defense", to the offer of a NATO seat to Georgia, which Bush does not have authority to give. The man is a perfect storm of diplomatic fuckups and the negation of power.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 11:03 AM

bottom line: Russia wins.

The US is 54 Trillion dollars in debt with a stop lost military and is not the mythological undenied supreme super power.

Jack when you (quoted) "Iraq never was our ally and they never received a "wink" from the US ambassador to invade Kuwait"
you probably did not intend to revise history but that statement is dead wrong. I watched the ambassador speak of her involvment and she said she was ordered to say "we have no intention to intervene."

Under Reagan we sent GHW Bush to Iraq for Saddams birthday. Bush was taped kissing Saddam on each cheek. ITs a much more powerful video than Rumsfeld sahking hands with Saddam.

Isn't it amaking how quickly we lose touch with accurate history?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 11:45 AM

It was another poster (not JtS) who said that about Iraq not ever being our ally or receiving a "wink" from us.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:23 PM

sorry , typical forum mistake due to not reading every post.

thanks

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:28 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/17/AR2008081702076.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:29 PM

The time will come when the sequence of events and responsibilities can be established in an indisputable and impartial manner: several weeks of provocations and skirmishes along the lines separating South Ossetia from the rest of Georgia; the thoughtless Georgian military intervention in South Ossetia the night of Aug. 7-8; the brutal and disproportionate response of Russian troops, driving the small Georgian army from South Ossetia and dislodging it from Abkhazia -- the other separatist province, where it had regained a foothold in 2006 -- before occupying part of the rest of Georgian territory.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/17/AR2008081702078.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:34 PM

Thoughtless of Georgia to kill more than a thousand South Ossetian civilians, and brutal of Russia to kill less than two hundred Georgian civilians?

I guess this assertion doesn't surprise me considering the source.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:47 PM

CarolC,

Did you read the article. and even see who the source WAS?

And tour numbers are slightly biased- YOU need to look at more than one side to get a real idea of the numbers killed. Or even look for a NEUTRAL party... Like France???

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:48 PM

I don't blame bush - I see him as taking a golden opportuity to capitalise on circumstances.

Sakashvilli is a little trouble maker trying to play the powers off against each other and using his own people as well as the south ossetians as cannon fodder to further his own spiteful self aggrandizing agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:49 PM

Just had a naughty little risque giggle at the idea of Genocide in Chicken Valley ...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:51 PM

Sorry, I very seldom trust any information coming from the Washington Post.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:52 PM

the thoughtless Georgian military intervention in South Ossetia the night of Aug. 7-8; the brutal and disproportionate response of Russian troops

I've no brief for the Russians- in fact, I believe that Putin is a fascist dicator in preparation, and in 5 years time, we'll see what a fascist nuclear power looks like- but nobody has offered any explanation why Saakashvili behaved as he did. Why take your trousers off and stick your dick in a wasp's nest? And, though one's concern must be for the civilians of either side, and for the poor benighted soldiers too, just for a moment imagine the USA's response if Cuba invaded Florida, and the Russians put military equipment in Mexico. What sort of "proportionate response" would be appropriate?

Remember that the USA is sponsoring some vile dictatorships in former Soviet states on Russia's southern border, and can't claim any democratic moral high ground.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:53 PM

From bb's 12:28 link:



By Fred Hiatt

Monday, August 18, 2008; Page A11

As Russian forces loot and occupy a neighboring state, conscripting Georgian civilians at gunpoint to sweep their city streets, it's not uncommon, in Moscow or in Washington, to find America at fault.

Russia has gone over to the dark side -- or, in the Moscow version, has finally stood up for itself -- in understandable reaction to U.S. disrespect, according to this view. And the next president should learn a lesson from this: that there are limits to how far Russia can or should be pushed.

This narrative of American provocation cites a long list of grievances, but the principal and original sin is NATO expansion. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States encouraged the newly free nations of Central and Eastern Europe to join a military alliance whose founding purpose had been containment of the U.S.S.R. Russia hated the idea from the start, and the United States should have known that Moscow, once it recovered its strength, would exact retribution.

But was this really something that was done to, or even against, Russia? The vision behind NATO expansion under both President Bill Clinton and President Bush was a Europe whole and free. The carrot of NATO membership was dangled, first of all, to ease the dangers of transition. Applicant countries had to promise civilian control of their militaries, fair treatment of ethnic minorities and respect for international borders. Given the terrible things that might have accompanied the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact and Czechoslovakia -- Yugoslavia on a far greater scale -- the policy was amazingly successful.

Of course, applicant nations had an additional motive: They wanted an insurance policy against the possibility that Russia might eventually revert to its old form and seek hegemony over them. America sympathized but also hoped that Russia would cooperate with and someday even join NATO -- that it would recognize the potential benefits of living as part of a neighborhood of prosperous, freely trading, democratic nations. It did not seem crazy to hope that Russians themselves would notice how much better off Germans are today, for example, living in respectful peace with smaller neighbors such as Denmark and Belgium than they were when Germany sought domination.

But Vladimir Putin, who came to power in 2000, had a different vision of Russia's place in the world. Russia "has tended to feel absolutely secure only when everybody else, particularly those around its borders, feels absolutely insecure," Russia hand Strobe Talbott noted last week, and Putin fell squarely in that tradition. At home, he quashed political opposition and independent media. He brought Russia's mineral riches back under state control and then began using them -- oil and natural gas in particular -- to enforce obeisance abroad.

And he viewed NATO expansion as an affront, as something done to Russia, not because he imagined that Estonia or Georgia or even NATO itself ever would attack Russia, but because it complicated Russia's drive for hegemony. Seeing the world as a contest among spheres of influence, he could not imagine that the leaders behind NATO might see things differently.

So NATO expansion is an affront only to the kind of Russia that the West would find unacceptable in any case. But, even if America has not sought to encircle or strangle Russia, should it not have been more sensitive to Russia's wounded pride? Might Russia have evolved more democratically if Washington had been more deferential?

Maybe so, but there's not much evidence to support such a theory. The West spent a good part of the past 17 years worrying about Russia's dignity -- expanding the Group of Seven industrial nations to the G-8, for example -- and it's not clear such therapy had any effect. Putin had his own reasons for stifling democracy, and, to quote Talbott again, the "more authoritarian or totalitarian" Russia has been, "the more aggressively it asserts its interests overseas." The unhealthy cycle is on display now: Hearing only about Georgian "genocide" and aggression on state-controlled television, Russians cannot understand Western criticism of Russia's actions as anything but further evidence of unfairness, which could be used to justify more aggressive behavior.

What does all this mean for the next president? By all means he should cooperate with Russia when possible, and he should remain open to the idea that Russia might one day join NATO and other international arrangements on terms of mutual respect.

But if the hope is that greater understanding of and deference to Russia's imperial ambitions would tame those ambitions, the historical analogies are not encouraging.

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:54 PM

...or Nicolas Sarkozy, for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:03 PM

"but nobody has offered any explanation why Saakashvili behaved as he did. "

Actually, there have been several explainations.

Georgia was reacting to the South Ossetian shelling of the Gerogian posts, after the ceasefire of Aug 7.


Can I start shelling your house, and expect you to do nothing about it?

BTW, the RUSSIANs has been bulding up their forces for the previsous several weeks, and had already spent two weeks in cyberattacks against Georgia, shutting down the Georgian government internet capability.

BEFORE the Georgian attack of 8 August.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:05 PM

So, who besides Putin would you trust?


Names please.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:08 PM

We can click the links as well as you can pdq.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:12 PM

another 'explanation' of how the current dispute originated

'Here in Tskhinvali, residents have no doubt that Georgia started the war with Russia and there is much bitterness about the rain of artillery and rockets that the government of President Mikhail Saakashvili used in its efforts to capture the city.

The Georgian government said much of the destruction of Tskhinvali was caused by a Russian counteroffensive, but that argument carries no weight with residents.

People insist that a terrible barrage struck the city late Aug. 7 and continued into the morning - accounts supported by Western monitors who were also forced into their cellars. Even buildings used by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe were damaged, one severely.'

from the Boston Globe

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:21 PM

I don't particularly trust putin, but it is becoming increasingly clear to me that Sakashvilli's motivation is and has always been the subjugation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to unwelcome Georgian control.

I have a family member who worked in Abkhazia with the red cross in about 2001 and I remember him describing Georgian policy towards Abkhazia in pretty scathing terms.

The days of Shevrednadze are sadly long gone and have been replaced by yet another ambitious reckless nationalist in the form of Sakashvilli.

His foray into Chicken Valley was something he has been looking for an excuse to do for years.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:21 PM

I would tend to trust the South Ossetians in this particular case.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:25 PM

I don't particularly trust sakashvilli, but it is becoming increasingly clear to me that putin's motivation is and has always been the subjugation of Georgia to unwelcome Russian control.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:26 PM

CarolC,

Why?


How are they any different than Georgia, or Russia? Don't they have a vested point of view, and wouldn't they lie to put it forward?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:30 PM

The difference between South Ossetia and the group consisting USA Russia and Europe is that they have no illusions of international dominance or power.

The best they can hope for is a big friend to look after them and trade with them. If they can have independance that is a bonus.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:32 PM

I forgot to include Georgia in that group.

Sakashvilli wants to be *taken seriously*.



Yeah right!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:34 PM

Everybody pissed on someone Lox. Isn't 20-30% of Ossetia ethnic Georgian? Is anyone asking them if they want to break away?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:37 PM

Putin

Doesn't give a rats ass about Ossetia or Georgia. He's just rattling Bush's cage and trying to drive up energy prices.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:41 PM

We are being given one sided accounts of what was going on during the period leading up to Georgia's bombing and invasion of South Ossetia in the Washington Post and other news outlets with the same agenda as the Washington Post. Georgia was also guilty of violating the ceasefire on many occasions. This was not a one sided situation at all. And Georgia was also doing other things to undermine South Ossetia's internal order and political structure.

Georgia was not acting in response to unprovoked attacks. Georgia was just as guilty as the South Ossetians of violating the ceasefire, and its attack on and invasion of South Ossetia was something that had been planned and prepared for long before the incidents that are being used as cover (by the government of Georgia and some people in this thread).

And as the speech from Saakashvili shows, it was always his intention to take back the areas that broke away by any means necessary.


One theory I've run across lately about a possible motive for Saakahsvili's decision to act when he did, was to coerce the rest of Europe into allowing Georgia to become a member of NATO. He may have succeeded in that objective, but possibly at the cost of his presidency. Of course, the member countries of NATO may regret their decision if they allow Georgia into NATO, especially if Saakashvili remains in office. I think it will be a much bigger problem for them than it will be for Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:43 PM

I would tend to trust the South Ossetians because they have only one objective. They want their freedom. Georgia and all of the other players have many hidden objectives, all of which involve subjugating other people.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:45 PM

BB

I'll bet you 50 bytes that in a week Russia is out of Georgia and Europe and america have agreed to neuter Sakashvilli.

It'll be done in such a way that Europe will be seen to be the mature referee, america will save face by "letting" europe and sarkozy resolve the situation and russia will tell it's people about the heroic liberation.

North and South Ossetia will eventually be reunited, and will become independant under russias protection.

The fate of Abkhazia will probably continue to be messy for years to come.

Sakashvilli will lose his presidency at the next election and a more docile "partner" will take over after running a campaign blaming sakashvilli for nearly turning georgia into a battle field for the two superpowers.

Georgia will remain independant.

If you are right and Putin is the conquering warlord you say he is, he must conquer Georgia in its entirety now. Really, he would have had to do it last week.

If he wants the oil, why did he not annex that part of Georgia. The pipeline goes nowhere near Ossetia, let alone Abkhazia.

I bet 100 bytes that I am right.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:50 PM

Putin is not trying to conquer. He is simply doing the same thing that Israel did to Lebanon a couple of years ago. He's just showing who is boss.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:00 PM

In this game of brinksmanship, Georgia got what it wanted. A knee-jerk response from Bush. If you think not, then why would a place like Georgia with a less than effectively trained and armed military go grab Russia by the nuts and squeeze?


Well, now ya know.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:04 PM

Even The Telegraph, a staunchly Conservative UK broadsheet and supporter of Mikheil Saakashvili, is critical of 'his decision to invade South Ossetia' and concludes 'he could soon be fighting for his political life with no prospect of any meaningful help from his Western allies.'

Georgia: Mikheil Saakashvili, the man who lost it all

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:26 PM

"If you are right and Putin is the conquering warlord you say he is, he must conquer Georgia in its entirety now. Really, he would have had to do it last week."

Nope- all Putin has to do is keep his "peacekeepers " in Georgian Territory to show that he is in control. Note he is NOT withdrwing even though the ceasefire calls for that.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:29 PM

BTW, I have never said that Georgia was JUSTIFIED, just that they had a reason. They did not act wisely.

I object ONLY to CarolC's declaration that South Ossetia is the "innocent party" - the comment that Georgia has some blame is certainly true- But there is blood on the South Ossetians, and on Russia, as well.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:31 PM

Had Georgia not kept trying to subjugate the South Ossetians, there would have been no bloodshed whatever. Georgia is the responsible party in this particular conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:31 PM

I agree with you, Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:33 PM

The South Ossetians have just as much right to defend themselves against subjugation by Georgia as Georgia has to defend itself from subjugation by Russia. Anyone who defends Georgia's right to defend itself from subjugation by Russia, while denying South Ossetia's right to defend itself from subjugation by Georgia is engaging in hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:35 PM

Or partisanship. ;-) That's h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y spelled differently.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:40 PM

'Georgia proclaimed its independence in April 1991 in a wave of nationalist fervour, partially expressed by the abolition of South Ossetian autonomy. Fighting broke out across South Ossetia in the winter of 1991. This involved armed units based around the former Georgian and South Ossetian police forces, ex-soldiers, and a variety of militia.

In the summer of 1992 Russian president Boris Yeltsin and his Georgian counterpart (and former Soviet foreign minister) Eduard Shevardnadze agreed a ceasefire under the auspices of the largely moribund Commonwealth of Independent States.'

In fact, Russian peacekeeping forces have remained in South Ossetia since that date until President Saakashvili launched his 'reckless shelling of the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, on August 8th last, killing several Russian soldiers.'

The Irish Times perspective 18th August

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:43 PM

There seems to be some confusion as to who shot at who first. I do think the bad asses in this are Georgian. They teased Russia expecting the US to declare for them--which George did. Now what?

Georgia will have a collapsed government within a few months, because when ya start a fight, ya don't always get to say when it stops.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 03:48 PM

Peace,

I have to disagree. The recent unrest ( may 2008 to present ) seems to have been started by South Ossetians attacking Georgians, in an effort to turn their defacto independence into dejure. Prior to this, after the 1991-2 conflict, it was non-violent.

I do NOT judge whether they were justified in taking up arms- BUT I do think that it should be noted who it was that restarted the violent conflict, and who ( the Russian Peacekeepers) who did NOT prevent the attacks of Georgians that are noted.

Too much happened BEFORE 7 August to think that the Georgian invasion was the start of this round of war.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 03:56 PM

"Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said there was "mounting evidence that Russian and Georgian military used armed force unlawfully during the South Ossetian conflict" and it emphasized that this "highlights the need for international fact-finding missions in Georgia."

"Ongoing militia attacks and a growing humanitarian crisis also indicate the urgent need for the deployment of a mission to enhance civilian protection," HRW said in a report.

"This conflict has been a disaster for civilians," said Rachel Denber, HRW's Europe and Central Asia deputy director.

The conflict has devastated parts of Georgia and South Ossetia, with many casualties reported. The U.N. refugee agency said more than 158,000 people had been displaced by fighting in Georgia, mostly from districts outside the breakaway territories where the fighting began."


http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/18/georgia.russia.war/index.html




AND- ie, BOTH SIDES.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 04:02 PM

CarolC,

"Had Georgia not kept trying to subjugate the South Ossetians, there would have been no bloodshed whatever"


I have to differ- it was the South Ossetians who seem to have started THIS round of violence, against Georgians.

"The 2008 Georgian - Russia crisis began on March 6, 2008 when Russia announced that it would no longer participate in the Commonwealth of Independent States economic sanctions imposed on Abkhazia in 1996.[1] The crisis has been linked to the push for Georgia to receive a NATO Membership Action Plan and the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo.[2] Tensions in the crisis have been primarily centered around the breakaway state of Abkhazia and increased following the shootdown of a Georgian UAV drone airplane and subsequent buildup of military forces by Russia."

"The crisis deepened on April 20, 2008 when a Georgian unmanned unarmed aerial vehicle (UAV) was shot down over the Abkhazian conflict zone. Abkhazia's separatist administration immediately said its own forces shot down the drone because it was violating Abkhaz airspace and breached ceasefire agreements. Garry Kupalba, deputy defence minister of the unrecognised Republic of Abkhazia, told reporters the drone had been shot down by an "L-39 aircraft of the Abkhaz Air Force". He also identified the drone as an Israeli-made Hermes 450.[17]

However, Georgia's defence ministry released video the next day showing what appears to be a Russian MiG-29 shooting down the unarmed Georgian drone. The video, shot from the drone moments before impact, shows a jet launching a missile over what appears to be the Black Sea. According to Georgia the jet came from Gudauta and then returned to Russia. Moscow denied Georgia's accusation and stressed that none of its planes were in the region at the time.[18][19] Furthermore, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement accusing Georgia of violating 1994 Moscow agreement and United Nations resolutions on Abkhazia by deploying without authorisation a UAV (which also can be used to direct fire) in the Security Zone and the Restricted Weapons Zone.[20]

On April 24, a closed-door U.N. Security Council emergency session convened at Georgia's request failed to resolve the dispute, but the U.S., the United Kingdom, France and Germany issued a joint statement expressing their concern over Russia's recent moves in Abkhazia and calling Moscow to reverse or not to implement its decision to legalize ties with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Russian ambassador to the U.N. Vitaly Churkin called the demand by the Western states "a tall order" and stressed that Russia had no intention of reversing its plans.[21]

Although Moscow denies that a MiG-class fighter was involved in the incident, the Russian envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, has suggested that a MiG-29 belonging to a NATO member might have downed the Georgian spy plane. In response, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has reportedly remarked that "he'd eat his tie if it turned out that a NATO MiG-29 had magically appeared in Abkhazia and shot down a Georgian drone."[22]

Early in May 2008, both Russian and Abkhaz sides claimed that three more Georgian reconnaissance drones were shot over Abkhazia, and declared that Georgia was preparing to mount an offensive into the region in the near future. Georgia denied these allegations, stating that it was "a provocation aimed at propagandistic support of Russia's military intervention."[23]

On May 26, 2008, the U.N. mission released the conclusion of its independent investigation into the April 20 incident. It confirmed that the Georgian video footage and radar data were authentic and the jet which destroyed the drone was indeed Russian. The conclusion report said that the jet flew towards the Russian territory after the incident, but it was unclear where the attacker took off, naming the Gudauta base as a possible locality. The mission also noted that "a reconnaissance mission by a military aircraft, whether manned or unmanned, constituted "military action" and therefore contravened the ceasefire accord.[24] Georgia hailed the report,[25] but Russia dismissed it.[26]

Georgia had officially suspended drone flights over Abkhazia in early June, but Abkhazia accuses Georgia of continuing to fly drones in the region.[27"

"On May 21, 2008 automatic weapons fire and grenade blasts were reported near the village of Kurcha. A passenger bus is also reported to have come under fire. Russian peacekeepers and UN observers were called to the scene of the violence.[44] A deputy Georgian interior minister told journalists two buses of passengers going to vote in the Georgian elections were blown up and that the injured were being taken to Zugdidi hospital.[45] Abkhaz officials claimed the attacks happened in Georgian territory, not Abkhaz. Two Georgians were reported to be those injured in the attack.[46] Some reports said the Inguri Bridge, the only legal crossing-point between the breakaway region of Abkhazia and Samegrelo, was blocked by Abkhaz paramilitary units and that Bus crossing has also been banned. Dozens of local residents assembled in front of the administrative office of the district to protest the decision. [47] Georgian officials accused Abkhazia of the attacks and preventing Georgians from voting in the legislative elections, which Abkhaz officials denied instead saying Georgia was responsible for the attack and Georgians in Abkhaiza were not interested in voting. Abkhazia said Russian peacekeepers were sent to the border to prevent further violence.[48]

Georgia's Foreign Ministry has sent a protest note to the CIS secretariat demanding some Russian troops and armaments be immediately withdrawn from Abkhazia saying that according to the UN, an airborne battalion, 50 BMD-2 airborne combat vehicles, and two artillery batteries have been deployed in Abkhazia. The ministry said this was out of line with a 1995 resolution of the CIS presidents' council.[49]

On June 15, 2008 media reports circulated saying Russia had set up a military base near the village of Agubedia in Abkhazia's Ochamchir district and had deployed heavy armor there. Russia's Defense Ministry denied the report.[50] The Georgian-backed Abkhaz government said on June 17, 2008 that Russia refuse to allow UN observers in the area.[51]"

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 04:07 PM

"Georgian police said on June 18, 2008 that they detained four Russian peacekeepers and a military truck in the conflict zone between Georgia and its breakaway Abkhazia, accusing the peacekeepers of transporting ammunition and shells without coordination with the Caucasus states. Georgia's Interior Ministry said Tuesday that the peacekeepers were transporting 35 crates of ammunition, including guided missiles and anti-tank mines, a violation of agreements in the region. Russia's Defense Ministry said the arrest was "in violation of all regulatory norms in the buffer zone." The peacekeepers were released after nine hours of interrogation.[53] Lt. Gen. Alexander Burutin, a deputy head of the General Staff, on June 19, 2008 compared the detention to a "bandit attack" warning Russian peacekeepers had every right to use their weapons and that future attempts at detaining peacekeepers may result in bloodshed.[54] A Russian military expert commenting on the detentions predicted war between Georgia and Abkhazia if such actions didn't stop.[55] Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Russia would not tolerate such actions against peacekeepers.[56]

The Abkhaz government claimed Georgian special forces were responsible for a bombing in Abkhazia on June 30, 2008 that wounded two in Sukhumi and another in Gagra the day before which wounded six. Abkhazia closed off traffic from Georgia in response to the bombing. [57]"

"In South Ossetia three explosions were heard near the village of Eredvi with one blast meters away from a line Georgian military vehicles. South Ossetian authorities have called the blasts a "provocation".[59] Deputy Defense Minister Batu Kutelia accused the South Ossetian administration of being responsbile, saying they had taken up "tactics of terrorism."[60]"

"On the night of June 14 into the early morning of June 15 of 2008 mortar fire and an exchange of gunfire were reported between South Ossetian and Georgian forces. South Ossetia reported that mortar fire was launched from Georgian-controlled villages on Tshinkvali, the South Ossetian capital, and that their forces came under fire from Georgian forces on the outskirts of the capital. Georgia denies firing the first shot claiming instead that South Ossetia had attacked the Georgian-controlled villages.[63] Russian, Georgian, and North Ossetia peacekeepers as well as OSCE monitors went to the site of the clashes however it was not determined who fired the first shot. One person was killed and four wounded during the violence.[64]"

Events from July 4 on have already been posted.




If you can state that one side, and only one side is at fault, you either are not looking at the facts, or you have already decided what to think before looking at them.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 05:31 PM

As I said before, someone is being very selective about which events they are willing to report. And as I said before, Georgia was also engaging in the very same sort of thing as the above posts are accusing the South Ossetians of engaging in.


This one is proof of nothing, since each side is blaming the other side...

"On the night of June 14 into the early morning of June 15 of 2008 mortar fire and an exchange of gunfire were reported between South Ossetian and Georgian forces. South Ossetia reported that mortar fire was launched from Georgian-controlled villages on Tshinkvali, the South Ossetian capital, and that their forces came under fire from Georgian forces on the outskirts of the capital. Georgia denies firing the first shot claiming instead that South Ossetia had attacked the Georgian-controlled villages.[63] Russian, Georgian, and North Ossetia peacekeepers as well as OSCE monitors went to the site of the clashes however it was not determined who fired the first shot. One person was killed and four wounded during the violence.[64]"



25 April 2008 – Russian Foreign Ministry claims Georgia is potentially planning a military intervention in Abkhazia.

June 2007 – South Ossetia asserts Tskhinvali shelled by Georgian mortar and sniper fire.

15 May 2008 – Russian defence chief Yuri Baluyevsky urges NATO to help stop the 'military build-up' in Georgia, and names the US, Turkey, the Czech Republic, and Bulgaria the top providers of military resources to Georgia.

30 June-2 July 2008 – Blasts in Sukhumi market and Russian peacekeepers' checkpoint on Georgian-Abkhaz border. Russia blames Georgian special forces for the incidents.

3-4 July 2008 – Explosions in South Ossetia prompt Russia to accuse Georgia of military intervention and to condemn its 'aggression'.

29-30 July 2008 – South Ossetia accuses Georgia of shelling villages outside of Tskhinvali. Georgia asserts that South Ossetians directed fire towards its monitoring group.

Aug. 4: Russia accuses Georgia of using excessive force in South Ossetia after the Russian-backed rebels said Georgian artillery had killed at least six people.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 05:39 PM

After the GMT 4:00 8 August UN Security Council meeting, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried said that it appeared that the South Ossetians were the provokers of the violence. Fried said, "We have urged the Russians to urge their South Ossetian friends to pull back and show greater restraint. And we believe that the Russians ... are trying to do just that

The US Vice President Dick Cheney said on August 10, "Russian aggression must not go unanswered, and that its continuation would have serious consequences for its relations with the United States, as well as the broader international community." in an expression of U.S. solidarity with Georgia in the conflict with Russia.

Confused?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 05:43 PM

"someone is being very selective about which events they are willing to report."

I have noticed: When I post that BOTH sides are to blame, you decide that ONLY Georgia is at fault, and that it is OK for the South Ossetians to kill and murder.




" Georgia was also engaging in the very same sort of thing as the above posts are accusing the South Ossetians of engaging in."

As I have said- BUT you seem to always ignore the fact that the South Ossetians ARE engaged in it as well.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 05:51 PM

Bruce there are 'faults' on both sides despite the very one sided initial reporting which demanded a response.

'Saakashvili is a famously volatile risk-taker, veering between warmonger and peacemaker, democrat and autocrat. On several occasions international officials have pulled him back from the brink. On a visit to Washington in 2004, he received a tongue-lashing from then Secretary of State Colin Powell who told him to act with restraint. Two months ago, he could have triggered a war with his other breakaway province of Abkhazia by calling for the expulsion of Russian peacekeepers from there, but European diplomats persuaded him to step back. This time he has yielded to provocation and stepped over the precipice.

The provocation is real, but the Georgian President is rash to believe this is a war he can win or that the West wants it. Both George Bush and John McCain have visited Georgia, made glowing speeches praising Saakashvili and were rewarded with the Order of St George. But Bush, at least in public, is now bound to be cautious, calling for a ceasefire.

The reaction in much of Europe will be much less forgiving. Even before this crisis, a number of governments, notably France and Germany, were reporting 'Georgia fatigue'. Though they broadly wished the Saakashvili government well, they did not buy the line that he was a model democrat - the sight last November of his riot police tear-gassing protesters in Tbilisi and smashing up an opposition TV station dispelled that illusion. And they have a long agenda of issues with Russia, which they regard as more important than the post-Soviet quarrel between Moscow and Tbilisi. Paris and Berlin will now say they were right to urge caution on Georgia's Nato ambitions at the Bucharest Nato summit.

Both sides are behaving badly.

It is outrageous that Russia is seizing the chance to attack Georgian towns and airfields. Dozens of Georgian civilians are now dying too. But Georgia needs to be restrained, for its own sake.'

'Georgia's volatile risk-taker has gone over the brink'
Thomas de Waal The Observer, Sunday August 10 2008

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 05:52 PM

On March 31, 2008 a South Ossetian police post near the village of Okona in the Znaur District was attacked by a group armed with guns and grenade launchers. Military observers from the Joint Peacekeeping Force and the OSCE mission established that the shots were fired from an area controlled by Georgia. Two days before the shooting, Georgian police task force and security officers dressed as civilians had been seen in the vicinity.

On April 2 another armed group fired automatic weapons at a South Ossetian Defense Ministry checkpoint near the village of Andzi-si. The servicemen at the checkpoint did not return fire.

A total of 56 incidents of ceasefire violation by Georgian forces were registered by the Joint Peacekeeping Force in April 2008. Most of them involved random shooting with the purpose of fueling tension in the region.

On May 14 President of South Ossetia Eduard Kokoity said the Georgian special services were planning a terrorist attack in the territory of the self-proclaimed republic against Georgians and Georgian peacekeepers.

On May 15 Captain Vladimir Ivanov, an aide to the Joint Peacekeeping Force commander for contacts with the media, announced a planned rotation of the peacekeeping contingent in South Ossetia. Georgian media then spread information about an alleged expansion of the Russian peacekeeping contingent in the conflict zone, quoting Georgia's foreign minister. A routine rotation was described as a "provocation" and a "reckless enterprise."

On July 3 as Dmitry Sanakoyev, head of the 'alternative' Georgian-backed government of South Ossetia, was driving across the republic to Batumi to attend an international conference, his car was struck by a mine and fired at from the direction of local villages. Sanakoyev's bodyguards returned fire. The shooting went on for several minutes. Three of the guards were severely injured. Sanakoyev himself was unscathed. South Ossetian Interior Minister Mikhail Mindzayev said that the attack on Sanakoyev was orchestrated by Georgia to provide a pretext for invading the self-proclaimed republic.

On July 7 the police in Russia's Southern Federal District detained four military men from the Georgian Defense Ministry in the village of Okon, South Ossetia's Znaur District. Officials of the breakaway region of South Ossetia claimed the detained men were pursuing intelligence activities in the Tskhinvali region. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili considered the detainment a hostage situation. On July 8, the detainees were released.

On July 9, Russia's Foreign Ministry issued a statement concerning the aggravated situation in the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-Ossetian conflict zones, which said that "For the past several days, the situation in the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-South Ossetian conflict zones has intensified. The city of Tskhinvali has been shelled by the Georgian army, with victims registered among civilians. Fighters and unmanned aircraft of the Georgian Air Force have repeatedly violated the conflict territorial air zones. In a terrorist attack, a South Ossetian police officer was killed. Georgian military set up a post at a strategic site near the village of Sarabuki. Additional military equipment was moved from Georgia into the conflict zone without any coordination with the Joint Peacekeeping Forces, which was registered by military observers including by the OSCE mission in Georgia. These actions point to an open and planned aggression against South Ossetia, which is the internationally recognized side in settling the conflict."

On August 1 and 2, the tension in the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict zone was aggravated due to a massive shelling of Tskhinvali's residential districts, which led to numerous deaths among civilians, with six South Ossetians killed and 15 wounded. Georgia claimed this was a response to South Ossetia's gunfire on Georgia's territory. South Ossetia began evacuating the region's residents to North Ossetia, with 2,500 people leaving their homes during the two days after the shelling.

On August 6, South Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity said he would take "the toughest measures" toward "militants firing at the villages." Previously, the breakaway region's Defense Ministry reported that the Georgian side started sniper fire at the South Ossetian villages of Mugut and Didmukha in the Znaur District at around 12:00 p.m. According to South Ossetian sources, the Georgian special forces attempted to occupy Nul Height to gain control over the Znaur road and the South Ossetian villages located along the road. In the afternoon, it was reported that an aggressive battle was taking place at the village of Nul.

Irina Gagloyeva, head of South Ossetia's Committee for Information and the Press, told RIA Novosti that South Ossetian units had forced the Georgian military units out of Nul Height.

Georgia's Interior Ministry, however, denied the reports.

According to the South Ossetian Interior Ministry, on August 7 Georgia started ground fire and shelling of the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali from the village of Nikozi. Then, according to Tskhinvali, the shelling and shooting at the South Ossetian village of Khetagurovo was started from the Georgian village of Avnevi. About 10 people were killed and another 50 received various wounds. The Georgian media, however, reported that the South Ossetian side had been shelling the Georgian villages of Avnevi and Nuli for three hours. According to the information of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces in the conflict zone, it was the Georgian side that started firing first. Also, there were reports that Russian peacekeepers were fired on.

On August 8 Georgia started military operations in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 05:57 PM

Someone has been suggesting that the South Ossetians were unilaterally attacking Georgia and Georgian villages, and saying that the South Ossetians were the aggressors prior to Georgia's bombing and invasion of South Ossetia. This is not true. Georgia was also engaging in acts of aggression against South Ossetia. So for Georgia to be violating the cease fire and engaging in acts of aggression against South Ossetia, and to then bomb, shell, and invade South Ossetia on the pretext that it's doing so because it's a victim of South Ossetian aggression is simply a lie. Georgia's bombing and invasion of South Ossetia had nothing whatever to do with defending itself from acts of aggression from South Ossetia.

As we can see, Georgia was deliberately inflaming the situation in South Ossetia in order to create a pretext to bomb and invade.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 06:06 PM

"The conflict has devastated parts of Georgia and South Ossetia, with many casualties reported. The U.N. refugee agency said more than 158,000 people had been displaced by fighting in Georgia, mostly from districts outside the breakaway territories where the fighting began."

The figure above is rather astounding since the conflict is about only 40,000 unhappy people in the area we are calling South Ossetia, a part of Georgia.

To "rescue" them, the Russians have started a conflict that has displaced 158,000 innocent civilians from all over the nation of Georgia, and that number can only rise.

As I said before, if the Ossetian minority, about 57% of the disputed region's total population want to leave, Russia should be sending vans and busses, not MIGs and tanks.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 06:14 PM

Georgia has no right to force or even expect the South Ossetians to leave the area where they have been living for many hundreds of years. The South Ossetians do have a right to remain living there in freedom for however long they want.

If might makes right, and whoever has the most might can do whatever they want to whoever is weaker, then we really can't tell Russia it can't annex Georgia if it wants to. If might is the only right, Russia can do whatever it wants with Georgia. If might doesn't make right, then whatever rights the people of Georgia have to be free and independent and not subjugated by a larger more powerful country, the South Ossetians also have.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 06:18 PM

"Someone has been suggesting that the South Ossetians were unilaterally attacking Georgia and Georgian villages, and saying that the South Ossetians were the aggressors prior to Georgia's bombing and invasion of South Ossetia. "

YOU are the only one claiming unilateral anything.

South Ossetia did attack Georgians before the Aug 7 invasion. Fact- live with it.


I never said that either side was innocent- YOU did that.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 07:23 PM

Another demonstration of the truth that the Cold War wasn't really anything much to do with the USSR being Socialist.

Of course it suited the rulers on both sides to make out that it was - for the Soviet Union it was a way of winning a certain measure of support from some Socialists outside, and for the Americans especially it was a way of discrediting Socialist ideas.

But in fact the way the USSR acted was down to Russian imperialism, carried over from pre-revolutionary times, and still very much with us in post Soviet times.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 09:04 PM

In the 18 Aug 08 - 04:02 PM post and others, it is asserted that it was South Ossetia that started this round of violence prior to the attack and invasion of South Ossetia by Georgia on August 8th. This is false. That post and others makes the claim that South Ossetia unilaterally engaged in violence against Georgia during that time period, and that Georgia was just acting in self defence. That post (and others) ignores all of the violence that Georgia was using against South Ossetia during the same time period. That post and others are suggesting that Georgia didn't contribute to the violence prior to it's bombing and invasion of South Ossetia on August 8th. This is entirely false.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 09:12 PM

Wrong, CarolC. The post you claim did nothing of the sort. I HAVE STATED THAT GEORGIA bears some responsibility- when do you admit the South Ossetians do as well?

IN FACT, the attack of 7 Aug by the gEORGIANS ( WHICH WAS AN OVER-REACTION) was in response to an attack BY SOUTH OSSETIANS on GEORGIANS, after a ceasefire. There had been attacks by BOTH sides ealier, and would be later. But there would have been no invasion if the Ossetians had kept the ceasefire- unless the Russians, who were already attacking Georgia, insisted on it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 09:19 PM

This incident...

On March 31, 2008 a South Ossetian police post near the village of Okona in the Znaur District was attacked by a group armed with guns and grenade launchers. Military observers from the Joint Peacekeeping Force and the OSCE mission established that the shots were fired from an area controlled by Georgia. Two days before the shooting, Georgian police task force and security officers dressed as civilians had been seen in the vicinity.

...occurred prior to the incident that the person who is insisting that the South Ossetians started this round of violence has been referencing as the start of the violence. As did this one...


On April 2 another armed group fired automatic weapons at a South Ossetian Defense Ministry checkpoint near the village of Andzi-si. The servicemen at the checkpoint did not return fire.

And all of these...

A total of 56 incidents of ceasefire violation by Georgian forces were registered by the Joint Peacekeeping Force in April 2008. Most of them involved random shooting with the purpose of fueling tension in the region.

Clearly, the violence that this person is insisting was the start of THIS round of violence was not the start of this round of violence.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 09:20 PM

No I don't consider the South Ossetians responsible. As I have said before, had Georgia not tried to subjugate South Ossetia, and interfered with their right to self determination, none of that violence would have occurred.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 09:29 PM

CarolC,,

You keep ignoring the CEASEFIRE of 7 Aug, that would have ended the violence except for S. Ossetion restarting it.
YOU keep picking dates befiore the ceasefire- well, I can too, to show attacks on the Georgians. Just admit BOTH sides were at fault, and that Russia has no right to continue to occupy Georgia, as they seem to be doing.

THE PRESENT ETHNIC CLENSING THAT IS GOING ON IS BY THE OSSETIANS, AND RUSSIAN "PEACEKEEPERS, AGAINST GEORGIAN CIVILIANS.

I really don't think you want to be thought of as someone in favor of that.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 09:31 PM

the irony here is that in seeking to expand its and Nato's influence the US has actually diminished the alliance. Obviously the US took advantage of Sakashvili to extend the US sphere of influence into formerly Soviet borders. So whats going to happen to Nato, while the US and British media covers this as Russian aggression the rest of Europe isnt as black and white on the subject. The OLD Europe which still has several times the population and wealth of New Europe is not as willing to go to war with Russia over Georgia or some other former RUssian territory.
And that is what Nato membership would mean.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 09:43 PM

"THE PRESENT ETHNIC CLENSING THAT IS GOING ON IS BY THE OSSETIANS, AND RUSSIAN "PEACEKEEPERS, AGAINST GEORGIAN CIVILIANS."


                   After learning the truth about Kosovo, there are numbers of Americans who do not believe this is happening, or ever did happen.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 10:50 PM

I think it is pointless to argue whether or not the Ossetians are brave little defenders of their cultural identity or pawns of the big bear. It's obviously clearly both. The Ossetians make a handy 'bully boy' with which Russia can tweak the Georgian nose of the Western camel which has come into their tent of influence. The Russians are supporters of nationalities when it suits, and they are the crushers of nationalities as well. Check with the Chechens just north of this situation. The Soviet Union was a wholesale ethnic cleanser/relocator.

This is not sudden and it is not based purely on the events of the last ten days. It is an interesting combination of what appears to me to be clumsy moves by the Bush administration to extend NATO membership precipatetly and somewhat incomprehensibly. I personally don't see what Poland wants with American anti-missile missiles (particularly when they don't really work). I think the notion of countering ballistic missiles with missiles has not been turned in to a successful production weapon, it is warmed over Reagan-vision. And it definitely pisses off the Russians. It always has. Similarly, the Russian bait-and-smash of the Georgians is reminiscent of Cold War objectives and Cold War tactics.

It is overall a surrender to the old world view, (us and them)and it is creating deja vue to those of us who remember the good ol' days of Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, and NATO.

Russia might profit immediately as 'tough guy on the block' but with a resurgent and united Europe I think it is not a good long term policy.

Clearly this has been a tonic to the McCain campaign, which is slanted toward the previous century (as was the 'W' administration). They're going to make all the hay they can over this. Obama is at risk either way he wants to argue: He can't look any more militant than McCain, so he will be branded as a 'me-too'. On the other hand, his ability to reason via the 'big picture', while very attractive in the primaries, leaves him open to a charge of looking weak by being reasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 12:14 AM

Georgia declared a unilateral truce on August 7, and on August 7 these things happened...

According to the South Ossetian Interior Ministry, on August 7 Georgia started ground fire and shelling of the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali from the village of Nikozi. Then, according to Tskhinvali, the shelling and shooting at the South Ossetian village of Khetagurovo was started from the Georgian village of Avnevi. About 10 people were killed and another 50 received various wounds. The Georgian media, however, reported that the South Ossetian side had been shelling the Georgian villages of Avnevi and Nuli for three hours. According to the information of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces in the conflict zone, it was the Georgian side that started firing first. Also, there were reports that Russian peacekeepers were fired on.

Georgia began invading and occupying South Ossetian villages by 2:45 AM on the 8th.

Some unilateral cease fire.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 12:18 AM

I've been hearing conflicting reports about what the Russian forces have been doing in Georgia as well. As we've seen, the Georgians are doing a lot of lying, and they were caught at it by the Joint Peacekeeping Forces in the conflict zone (see my previous post). Right now, I'm not prepared to accept the version of events that is being promulgated by the government of Georgia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Baffled
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 01:32 AM

Long thread I haven't been able to read completely, but has anyone pointed out that the Georgian ethnic cleansing began just after midnight on 8-8-08? Trained by the Luciferian CIA, the Georgians got extra occultic 'power' by killing as many as they could on that magical day.

The Brezinski plan (Z. Brezinski is advising Obama and his son is advising McCain) is to encircle Russia with nukes. Medium range. Also put up missile defenses. Then pre-emptively attack. This renders Mutually Assured Destruction obsolete. NATO believes it can actually sneak attack Russia, destroy most of it's reactive ability, and then shoot down the few missiles that get off the ground.

True insanity. I hope Europe is spooked about this, because Americans don't seem to be. I don't watch TV, but on the day after the Ossetian attack (which will be remembered as the beginning of WW3, much as Ferdinand's assassination marked the beginning of WW1), on 8-8-8 I watched a minute or two of the NBC nightly news, and the lead stories were all tabloid fodder. Comedian Bernie Mac died, etc. No mention of the Ossetia situation.

The news media in America is helping to cover up the crimes of the global corporatists who've seized our government.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 01:41 AM

That won't prevent the Russians from firing nukes from their submarines.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 02:28 PM

According to the South Ossetian Interior Ministry, on August 7 Georgia started ground fire and shelling of the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali from the village of Nikozi. Then, according to Tskhinvali, the shelling and shooting at the South Ossetian village of Khetagurovo was started from the Georgian village of Avnevi. About 10 people were killed and another 50 received various wounds. The Georgian media, however, reported that the South Ossetian side had been shelling the Georgian villages of Avnevi and Nuli for three hours. According to the information of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces in the conflict zone, it was the Georgian side that started firing first. Also, there were reports that Russian peacekeepers were fired on.

Let me see. You ignore the claimed attacks by South Ossetians that BROKE the ceasefire, and you take the word of the "Joint Peacekeeping Forces " consisting of whom? You seem to go out of your way to ensure that you only get one side of the story.

Are you stating that you KNOW that the South Ossetians did NOT attack any Georgians on the 7th, prior to the Geoirgian attack? Will you admit that, if they did, the Ossetians will have no right to ANYTHING, as you seem to impose on the Georgians?





"The war began after a ceasefire agreement between Georgia and South Ossetia broke down, WITH AN ESCALATION OF FIRE EXCHANGES. Georgia THEN proceeded to launch a major military offensive in South Ossetia.[17] The Georgian government said the troops had been sent to end the shelling of Georgian civilians by South Ossetian "

Note: Echanges indicates that BOTH sides were engaged.

"On August 7, 2008, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili ordered Georgian troops to ceasefire.[53][54] Despite the declared ceasefire, fighting intensified.[55][56] Hours after the declaration of the ceasefire, in a televised address, Mikheil Saakashvili vowed to restore Tbilisi's control over what he called the "criminal regime" in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and reinforce order.[56]"


"A truce was later announced, with emergency talks set for Friday, but by nightfall, both sides were trading heavy fire.

Georgia accuses Russia of arming the South Ossetian authorities - who have been trying to break away since the civil war in the 1990s. Moscow denies the claim."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7546639.stm

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 02:34 PM

CarolC,

Are you aware of the present condition of Russia submarine forces?




"I personally don't see what Poland wants with American anti-missile missiles (particularly when they don't really work). I think the notion of countering ballistic missiles with missiles has not been turned in to a successful production weapon"

Wrong- they work, but the present installations ( both here and in Poland ) are for only 10 interceptors- enough to remove the threat of a "rogue nation" (N. Korea, Iran) or terrorists launching a few missiles, but not enough to affect the balance of power between US/Russia/France/UK/China, all of whom have lots more than 10 launch vehicles.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 02:36 PM

'But even as tensions appear to be easing in the South Ossetia crisis, Saakashvili's bold—critics say reckless—handling of a crisis with Russia over the pro-Russian breakaway republic is raising plenty of questions.

The doubts being raised challenge not only his judgment in ordering Georgian forces into South Ossetia (a move that triggered the Russian assault) but also about the Bush administration's approach to backing a young, nationalistic democrat whose actions have fed the deepest tensions between Washington and a resurgent Moscow since the end of the Cold War........

Still, State Department officials were troubled last year by Saakashvili's willingness to send police against unarmed protesters and an opposition TV station and to rule, for a time, under a state of emergency.

In recent months, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other officials are said to have warned Saakashvili against taking any military moves that could provoke Moscow, especially a thrust into South Ossetia.

It is unclear how firmly the message was delivered, but their advice seems to have been ignored'

From a report by Thomas Omestad yesterday

'Why Washington Has Embraced Georgia's Embattled President
But in taking on Russia, Saakashvili may have misjudged the depth of U.S. support'

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 02:37 PM

The Russians don't need to use nukes to damage the US. All they have to do is turn off a few pipelines and damage a few more.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 02:46 PM

Saying that the South Ossetians broke the cease fire so therefore we can't trust what we say is a perfect example of one sided thinking. We have seen (according to the members of the joint peacekeeping forces) that it was not the South Ossetians who broke the cease fire, but in fact that Georgians who broke the cease fire.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 02:48 PM

Correction...

Saying that the South Ossetians broke the cease fire so therefore we can't trust what they say is a perfect example of one sided thinking. We have seen (according to the members of the joint peacekeeping forces) that it was not the South Ossetians who broke the cease fire, but that in fact it was the Georgians who broke the cease fire. So it's the Georgians whose word cannot be trusted.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 02:53 PM

It's also a perfect example of circular thinking.


The South Ossetians broke the cease fire.

No they didn't.

How do you know?

The South Ossetians said so.

You can't trust the South Ossetians. They broke the cease fire.


But in this case, it's not just the South Ossetians who say so.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Charley Noble
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 02:56 PM

500!

It was a minor miracle that outside intervention had some success in Bosnia. However, that was after 3 years of exhausting uncivil war.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 03:00 PM

CarolC,


"(according to the members of the joint peacekeeping forces)"

Who consist of WHOM?


The Russians and the South Ossetians?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 03:21 PM

And Georgians and members of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) mission.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 03:40 PM

I posted this reort yesterday -

'People insist that a terrible barrage struck the city late Aug. 7 and continued into the morning -

- accounts supported by Western monitors who were also forced into their cellars.

Even buildings used by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe were damaged, one severely.'

There were eight or nine OSCE monitors in South Ossetia prior to this conflict Russia has agreed to the deployment of a bigger international monitoring mission in and around Georgia's disputed region of South Ossetia, the head of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe said today.

'OSCE chairman Alexander Stubb, the Finnish foreign minister, said the plan called for the immediate dispatch of 20 military observers to Tbilisi'   ..... International Herald Tribune

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 04:48 PM

Emma,

NONE is disputing that Georgia attacked Tbilisi. The question is whether they did so in reaction to attacks by South Ossetians on Georgians, earlier.

As for the "joint peacekeeping forces", who said what, when? I have not seen anything from the Georgians that were members, that there were no earlier attacks by South Ossetians.


DOn't tell me that Georgia attacked Tbilisi- THAT is agreed by both sides- TELL ME why they did so- was it because they were reacting to an attack or not? Or are you going to be mindreading them again?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 05:10 PM

'WHAT WERE THEY SMOKING IN THE WHITE HOUSE?'

one explanation

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 05:11 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/19/georgia.russia.war/index.html

"The conflict began when Georgia launched a large-scale attack on South Ossetia on August 7 after a week of what it said were separatist attacks on Georgian villages that border the enclave. Russian troops responded in force the next day, pouring across the international border with hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles and driving into Georgia from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another Russian-backed separatist territory.

The fighting has devastated parts of Georgia and South Ossetia, with many casualties reported. The U.N. refugee agency said more than 158,000 people had been displaced by fighting in Georgia, mostly from districts outside the breakaway territories where the fighting began. Watch how Georgians are being affected by the conflict »

Both Russia and Georgia accuse the other of ethnic cleansing during the conflict. "

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 09:08 PM

Once again...

According to the South Ossetian Interior Ministry, on August 7 Georgia started ground fire and shelling of the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali from the village of Nikozi. Then, according to Tskhinvali, the shelling and shooting at the South Ossetian village of Khetagurovo was started from the Georgian village of Avnevi. About 10 people were killed and another 50 received various wounds. The Georgian media, however, reported that the South Ossetian side had been shelling the Georgian villages of Avnevi and Nuli for three hours. According to the information of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces in the conflict zone, it was the Georgian side that started firing first. Also, there were reports that Russian peacekeepers were fired on.

The Joint Peacekeeping Forces in the conflict zone said that the Georgian side started firing first

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 09:21 PM

And the Georgian government said that they were responding to South Ossetian attacks. Can't you read?

"a week of what it said were separatist attacks on Georgian villages that border the enclave."

"Georgia's all-out assault on South Ossetia was preceded by attacks by Ossetian forces against Georgian troops earlier in the week, including a separatist ambush with rocket-propelled grenades on a Georgian armored personnel carrier that killed two soldiers and injured six, Georgian authorities said. On Thursday, a separatist mortar attack on the village of Avnevi killed eight Georgian civilians.

Thursday evening, Saakishvili called for a cease-fire and urged separatist leaders to resume talks on a peaceful settlement. But when separatists began shelling Georgian villages after Saakashvili's cease-fire call, Georgian leaders decided to move ahead with the assault.

"Separatists opened fire in response to yesterday's peaceful initiative of the president of Georgia," said Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze in a televised address. "As a result, lives of civilians were under threat."

Speaking Friday on CNN, Saakashvili accused Russia of provoking Georgia into attacking South Ossetia, an intimation that Russia engineered the separatist shelling of Georgian villages late Thursday. "Most decision-makers have gone for the holidays," an apparent reference to the opening ceremonies of the Summer Olympics in Beijing. "Brilliant moment to attack a small country.""

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-080808-georgia-ossetia-webaug09,0,4176197.story



"The Joint Peacekeeping Forces in the conflict zone said that the Georgian side started firing first "

Let me see- Russians, South Ossetians, Georgians- the Georgians object to the conclusion, but are outvoted. Must be nice to have such faith in one side.

So Russia and the South Ossetians have nothing to gain by lying, but the Georgians DO?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 09:24 PM

from your post:

"The Georgian media, however, reported that the South Ossetian side had been shelling the Georgian villages of Avnevi and Nuli for three hours."

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 09:30 PM

"'WHAT WERE THEY SMOKING IN THE WHITE HOUSE?'"


                   Emma - Almost immediately after the unpleasantness started, Poland agreed to the missile bases. Maybe that's where they were going all along. Convinced the Georgian government that if they started something with Russia, the US would bail them out. Let it happen, and pleaded ignorance--it wouldn't take many stage props to convince the American public that George W. Bush was ignorant--and they never really cared what happened to Georgia in the first place.
                   Now they've got the missile bases and Georgia's got the shaft. Cheney and Bush are good at this--with their "dumb cop/smart cop routine.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 09:30 PM

"The United Nations Security Council convened an emergency session early Friday at Russia's request to discuss the conflict in South Ossetia, but could not reach an agreement on Moscow's call for a statement that would have required both Georgia and South Ossetia to renounce the use of force."



BOTH, not just Georgia-

A rugged, heavily forested region nestled in the foothills of the Caucasus Mountains, South Ossetia has existed as a de facto independent state within Georgian territory since a bloody civil war with Georgia in 1991-92. No country recognizes its statehood, but Russia supports the region economically and has maintained a military presence there.

It is one of two breakaway republics in Georgia: the other, Abkhazia on the Black Sea coast, is also run by a separatist government and survives with the help of strong economic and political backing from Moscow.

When Saakashvili took power, he pledged to Georgians that he would return the country's separatist regions back into Georgia's fold. He succeeded with another Black Sea breakaway region, Ajaria, where he ousted a Moscow backed separatist leader in 2004.

But years of negotiations with separatist leaders in Abkhazia and South Ossetia have proved fruitless. Saakashvili has offered those governments broad autonomy in exchange for allegiance to Georgia, but Abkhaz and South Ossetian leaders have insisted on full-scale independence or absorption into Russia.

Georgia's all-out assault on South Ossetia was preceded by attacks by Ossetian forces against Georgian troops earlier in the week, including a separatist ambush with rocket-propelled grenades on a Georgian armored personnel carrier that killed two soldiers and injured six, Georgian authorities said. On Thursday, a separatist mortar attack on the village of Avnevi killed eight Georgian civilians.

Thursday evening, Saakishvili called for a cease-fire and urged separatist leaders to resume talks on a peaceful settlement. But when separatists began shelling Georgian villages after Saakashvili's cease-fire call, Georgian leaders decided to move ahead with the assault.
......

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 09:42 PM

The Georgian government cannot possibly be responding to attacks from anyone else if they are the ones who fired FIRST.

I'm definitely not the one on this thread who can't read.


First means nobody did it before the Georgians did it. They did it first, and everybody else did it after. First means first... not second, or third, which is what it would be if they were firing in response to someone else (who are the ones who would have been first had the Georgians been firing in response.

Once again, according to the peacekeeping forces, Georgia fired first. Not second, not in response to someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbrucew
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 09:50 PM

"The Georgian government cannot possibly be responding to attacks from anyone else if they are the ones who fired FIRST."

Since they did not fire first, yours is a strawman argement.



"I'm definitely not the one on this thread who can't read."

Yes, you are. See my posts -


"First means nobody did it before the Georgians did it. They did it first, and everybody else did it after. First means first... not second, or third, which is what it would be if they were firing in response to someone else (who are the ones who would have been first had the Georgians been firing in response."

That is what it means, but you have no evidence that it is TRUE- So, another strawman.

"Once again, according to the peacekeeping forces, Georgia fired first. Not second, not in response to someone else. "

And according to the Georgians, the South Ossetians fired first- you know- First means nobody did it before the South Ossetians did it. They did it first, and everybody else did it after. First means first... not second, or third, which is what it would be if they were firing in response to someone else (who are the ones who would have been first had the South Ossetians been firing in response.



YOU make the claim that the Russians are telling the truth, in spite of their vested interest in making a lie, buit that the Georgians are lying, because of their interest.

I claim only that we DO NOT KNOW who is telling the truth- But we should find out BEFORE deciding who is the responsible party.

It is up to you to prove that the Russians are telling the truth- or else cease to make unjustified claims as to who is to blame.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 09:50 PM

And as I said before (but apparently someone can't read), the peacekeeping forces included members of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) mission.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbrucew
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 09:50 PM

"The Georgian government cannot possibly be responding to attacks from anyone else if they are the ones who fired FIRST."

Since they did not fire first, yours is a strawman argement.



"I'm definitely not the one on this thread who can't read."

Yes, you are. See my posts -


"First means nobody did it before the Georgians did it. They did it first, and everybody else did it after. First means first... not second, or third, which is what it would be if they were firing in response to someone else (who are the ones who would have been first had the Georgians been firing in response."

That is what it means, but you have no evidence that it is TRUE- So, another strawman.

"Once again, according to the peacekeeping forces, Georgia fired first. Not second, not in response to someone else. "

And according to the Georgians, the South Ossetians fired first- you know- First means nobody did it before the South Ossetians did it. They did it first, and everybody else did it after. First means first... not second, or third, which is what it would be if they were firing in response to someone else (who are the ones who would have been first had the South Ossetians been firing in response.



YOU make the claim that the Russians are telling the truth, in spite of their vested interest in making a lie, buit that the Georgians are lying, because of their interest.

I claim only that we DO NOT KNOW who is telling the truth- But we should find out BEFORE deciding who is the responsible party.

It is up to you to prove that the Russians are telling the truth- or else cease to make unjustified claims as to who is to blame.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 09:52 PM

According to people who are not Georgians, South Ossetians, or Russians (The members of the OSCE), Georgia fired first. So that makes the Georgians liars.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 10:00 PM

reference for that claim - WHO was it that said it?

SOURCE, please.

When I search for OSCE and comments, I do not find any such claim. Please let me know where it is.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 11:03 PM

Well, BB, I don't know what you consider an objective source. But one I respect greatly, in addition to the reporting in the WSJ ( as opposed to the editorials) is the Economist.

Economist 10 Aug 2008, p 11., start of article "Russia resurgent": On the night of August 7th, Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia's president, embarked on an ill-judged assault on South Ossetia, one of his country's two breakaway provinces."

Georgia "embarked".

What's more, anybody who could read would have seen many citations, including on this thread, that Saakashvili proclaimed that when elected president, he would bring South Ossetia back into Georgia, ending its de facto autonomy. Foolishly, he actually tried to do what he promised.


More from the same article: " Mr. Saakashvili is an impetuous nationalist who has lately tarnished his democratic credentials. His venture into South Ossetia was foolish and possibly criminal". Despite this, the Economist prefers him to Putin--as any reasonable person would do. But they do, as noted above, cite him as the instigator of the August 2008 crisis.

The argument over who started it is pointless anyway. As I've noted, as long as all sides operate on the rule: "We must respond to any provocation"--and all sides are willing to read provocation into just about anything, the problem will never be solved.

But anybody--GWB to pick a purely theoretical example--who blusters about how Georgia's "territorial integrity" --which includes South Ossetia and Abkhazia--must be "restored" is a pathetic creature. It's time to wake up and realize there is no force on earth which can compel this. And it's emphatically not worth going to war with Russia over. Or do you perhaps believe it is?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 11:05 PM

Why does the source matter?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 11:06 PM

My last was in response to the 19 Aug 08 - 10:00 PM post.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 11:11 PM

Ron is right.

Bush and McCain can bluster all they want. No one is going to war with Russia over this. Blame who you want. Russia has won.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Paul Burke
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 03:34 AM

As Volgadon pointed out, the real danger is Ukraine, where the government's support is paper- thin, as is their mandate. The "Orange Revolution" is seen by Russia as western interference, and indeed overthrew a president whose policy was to develop closer ties with Russia. Many of the Ukrainian population are of Russian origin - some areas well over 50%.

This would not matter, had the government not early on adopted a nationalist policy which could be interpreted as making Russians into second- class citizens. Ukraine is also very dependent on Russia for energy.

It's quite probable that the Russians will use economic pressure to split Ukraine, and declare a "protectorate" over the Eastern areas. The best way to counter this is to embark on a policy of economic development which will benefit all Ukrainians, including Russian speakers, and secure their energy supplies.

Can the west do this, in a recession, when Europe has become dependent on Russian gas?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 05:13 AM

Re.. the proposed siting of the missile defence shield in Poland.

The Americans would have us believe that this is to protect the West from attack by a "rogue" state such as Iran.

As most people agree that Iran does not have nuclear weapons at present, or are likely to aquire them in the forseeable future, this excuse seems feeble.
In addition, any attack by Iran on the West would ensure its own immediate destruction by a counterstrike.

I think an all out war for energy will be waged by the West and this missile defence system is the first step in a programme to neutralise any military retaliation by Russia.
America is still the only country to have used nuclear weapons and have shown themselves willing to use them against a rival ideology in the Cuba Crisis.
I am quite sure the nuclear option will be considered very carefully by the people who run America, should their ideology and economic system come under thread from dwindling energy supplies...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 06:50 AM

I see the discussion between Carol and BB as having reached a point where it can no longer serve to advance the discussion helpfully.

I understand and agree with both points as summarized below.

BB - It is complex messy and we shouldn't be too quick to conclude who is at fault.

Carol - The wests response flies in the face of any fair assessment of the root causes of the conflict.


My view is that while I don't trust Putin (any more than any other politician) I don't blame the russians.

NATO seems to be suggesting that the Georgian atrocities in south ossetia can be overlooked as their actions were about asserting control over their own sovereign territory and Russia has no mandate to judge, let alone act.

Russia on the other hand seems prepared to overlook south ossetian atrocities committed under their noses in the area around Gori, no doubt on the basis that they are just getting a bit of revenge after the aggression of the Georgians.

In fact, the georgians and ossetians should both be getting their knuckles rapped for playing with peoples lives.

The fact they aren't could suggest that there is a power game going on between Russia and Nato ...

But my guess now is that they have just gone and got themselves entrenched, a bit like Carol and Bruce, and aren't listening to each other.

Russia should be withdrawing to the ossetian border and taking the ossetians with them.

Nato should be supporting russia and finding ways to work with her to bring peace to the region.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 07:29 AM

Guest, lox:

I agree that there is some entrenchment going on, but I think there were prepared positions, prepared by Russia well before the apparent onset of hostilities. The Ossetians have 'irregular' forces which have been raiding Georgian homes, persons and property after the retreat of the Georgian military. These had been regularly used as provocateurs.

Those monitoring the techno-war launched against Georgian command and control indicate that it started weeks before the military moves.

Meanwhile, it looks as if the United States is becoming entrenched in a position of finger wagging and pooh-poohing. It is difficult to see what the US is getting out of this, except to further move along a clearly confrontational path re: the useless missiles to Poland move, which clearly distresses the Russians, and which offers no profit.

The only profit I see at the moment goes to the McCain campaign which can posture without danger yet gain foreign policy cred.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 07:32 AM

A bit of insight as to why Russian troops are now beyond what is now internationally accepted--outside Russia--as the borders of South Ossetia:

20 Aug 2008 WSJ: (from article on this phenomenon:)

"In Soviet times Akhalgori" ( town in Georgia outside current South Ossetia " belonged to what was then known as the South Ossetian Autonomous Province. South Ossetia's provincial leaders proclaimed a secession from Georgia as the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990's. After fighting their self-proclaimed republic established control over the province's capital city and roughly 2/3 of the countryside."

"The South Ossetian government's writ never reached Akhalgori, which is separated from the rest of South Ossetia by a mountain range".

So, since this town was formerly part of South Ossetia--under Russia--the South Ossetian view is that they are simply restoring South Ossetia to its former borders in the Soviet era."

They call this move "restoring the constitutional order". And from their perspective, they are correct.

More from the WSJ:   "... the Ossetian takeover in the Akhalgori area was peaceful. There were no instances of looting or torching civilian homes here, residents said. Some stores remain open, power supplies continue, and Georgian civilians wander around undisturbed".

This sort of thing is why the border question is so complex--and why absurd statements like "Georgia's territorial integrity must be restored" are worse than worthless. The South Ossetians say it is their territorial integrity which must be restored-- and is now being restored.

As to why nothing to compel the restoration of Georgia's July 2008 borders is likely, another article from the WSJ: The UK is still the second-biggest contributor of troops to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But as to its stance on the current crisis in "Georgia", the UK "has shown no willingness to help rebuild the Georgian military. Instead the UK supports bringing Russia closer into the international fold--echoing views of other EU peers--and showing Russia that it has more to gain by being a partner than an aggressor."

"I am not one that believes that isolating Russia is the right answer to its misdemeanors" said UK Foreign Minister David Miliband, in a statement before the NATO meeting Tuesday. "I believe that the right response is hard-headed engagement."

If GWB cannot even get the UK to support his harsh line against Russia, who, aside from the former USSR satellites, can he get?




And I think a good case can be made for the idea that the most important issue here is that unrest be stilled so that any nuclear material in the areas affected does not fall into the hands of terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 07:36 AM

And as to whether McCain gets any benefit from the crisis, the question is how many voters realize his stance is just stupid blustering--with no way to back it up.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 07:52 AM

"And as to whether McCain gets any benefit from the crisis, the question is how many voters realize his stance is just stupid blustering--with no way to back it up."

Ron: the two propositions are identical. McCain gets a benefit when he gets more votes and more support, regardless of what you think about its legitimacy- That's politics!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 07:54 AM

Obama is too polite to give McCain what he deserves.

He should say. OK tough guy, lets make this election about who wants to get in a shooting war in Russia. Either tell us how you would win such a war or shut up! McCain's time has passed. The neocons have lost. Its just that the New York Times and William Kristol don't know that yet. There are two superpowers again and Russia's energy reserves are a hell of a lot more powerful weapon than anything the had as Soviets. The European Union will be another super power, China and India are coming up fast.

McCain, wants Georgia to join NATO, The UK and Germany don't want to sign a treaty where Some petty dictator in a two bit back water can pull them into World War Three.

McCain wants to kick Russia out of G8 and bar them from WTO. Russia needs only to use its energy to get open trade with Europe, China and India. God help us if they turn the fuel in their bombs into nuclear power. They can sell their caviar and titanium to those countries. Maybe they will build airframes partnering with one of the Asian tigers for electronics.

If McCain wants to continue Bush's path, restarting the cold war, he's not going to have the easy time Reagan did.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 12:01 PM

Godwin's Law strikes again!

'The former US national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has called on the world community to isolate Russia in protest over its campaign in the Caucasus, likening its tactics to those of "Hitler or Stalin".

Brzezinski, who was the national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, and is now an occasional adviser to the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, said the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin, was "following a course that is horrifyingly similar to that taken by Stalin and Hitler in the 1930s".'

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday August 12 2008

Leading politicians in France and Germany who expressed opposition to the unilateral foreign and military policy of the Bush administration and the expansion of NATO to include a country where (as recently as last year) anti-government protesters were confronted by riot police and special troops entered Imedi TV station, had possibly entertained hopes of a change of line as a result of the November presidential election.

On the issue of the US stance toward Russia, however, they have been sorely disappointed.

It appears that both the Democratic and Republican parties are seeking to outdo one another in their declarations of hostility toward Moscow.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, fresh off a trip to the Republic of Georgia, said
"I left the country convinced that Russia's invasion of Georgia may be the one of the most significant event to occur in Europe since the end of communism,"
The senator also issued a terse warning to the former Soviet Union, saying that "Russia's actions in Georgia will have consequences."
- CBS News today

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 12:07 PM

thats pretty much the case Jack.
a lot of tough talk from McCain and Nato but really if anything this is more likely to lead to a breakup or weakening of Nato. Old Europe isnt so keen to do much against Russia, as they know they will freeze in the dark come winter. And they arent willing to go to war over a former soviet enclave.. Bush tried to buildup up Georgia as an ally, right in the Russian backyard, but when Sakashvili attacked Ossetia and the Russians hit back hard, it backfired. The Georgians feel betrayed - but the US certainly wasnt willing to escalate it.

and from the standpoint of Russian the west set the precedent with Kosovo. Basically there is no UN framework to break up a part of a country against its will - even though a part of its population might want to secede. Once that happened Russia said at the time it was going to back the same thing in Abkhazia and Ossetia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 12:33 PM

"The neocons have lost."

While you and I are in agreement about 85% of the time, on this we disagree.

I will believe the neocons have lost when it does not take millions and millions of dollars to become President of the USA. Too many companies contribute so that in future they will have influence. They intend to get their money back in one form or other. Hell, just LOOK at the connections between big business and profit in this presidency alone.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 12:41 PM

I disagree with the synopsis that has been given of my position on this issue, and the reasons for my disagreement with the poster whose positions I have been disputing.

My position is that Georgia has been planning this invasion of South Ossetia for a long time, and that South Ossetia has a right to not only defend itself from Georgian acts of aggression, but also to be helped by Russia in doing so. Furthermore, I maintain that South Ossetia has as much right to self determination as Georgia has.

My dispute with the other poster is not over who started this round of hostilities, but rather, that the other poster's insistence that it was the South Ossetians who started it is not based in fact because the only documentation that has been presented in support of this has come from the government of Georgia, and also, that to try to narrow down the government of Georgia's reason for invading to a window of a few hours on August 7 is absurd. So far, I have not had an opportunity to show that this was where I was going because the other poster has not answered the question I posed in my 19 Aug 08 - 11:05 PM post.


Check this out - Saakashvili eats his tie...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kid379OjuC0

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 01:29 PM

CarolC,

You have made a claim that the Joint group, as a whole, have made a specific determination. Where does that statement come from? What is the source that you read, or did they call you personally?

If it is Russian press, I have a few more questions.




"
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 09:52 PM

According to people who are not Georgians, South Ossetians, or Russians (The members of the OSCE), Georgia fired first. So that makes the Georgians liars. "

WHERE DOES THIS STATEMENT come from?????

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 01:35 PM

Why does my source for that information matter?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 01:44 PM

Fine.

God says that the Georgians are not at fault- WHy does MY source for that claim matter???

On the OSCE:
"Such rush has become a common practice in the run-up to the OSCE's year-end meetings, particularly on issues involving "frozen conflicts"; and it tends to take the form of concessions to Russia as the stronger side.

The Joint Control Commission (JCC), which oversees the ceasefire in South Ossetia, met on November 16-17 in Ljubljana in the 13 year-old format: Georgia, South Ossetia, Russia, and Russia's North Ossetia region (a ratio of 3:1 against Georgia) plus the OSCE as observer. Opening the session, Rupel startled the Georgian delegation by endorsing the "existing mechanism" (a familiar Moscow phrase opposing internationalization of the format) and suggesting a "highest-level meeting" of those four parties to discuss settlement negotiations and related issues. Russia's envoy, Valery Kenyaykin, then fleshed out Rupel's proposal by calling for an urgent meeting among Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia, Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia, "president" Eduard Kokoiti of South Ossetia, and North Ossetia's head Taymuraz Mamsurov, to be held at Putin's residence in Sochi before the end of November (i.e., just days ahead of the OSCE's year-end conference) and to focus on political settlement issues. On cue, the South and North Ossetian delegates supported the proposal.

Rupel's and Moscow's proposal abruptly departed from the decision, reached at several JCC sessions (always in the OSCE's presence and with its approval, most recently in October 2005) on holding a meeting between Georgia's Prime Minister Zurab Nogaideli and Kokoiti to discuss demilitarization of the "conflict zone" and economic rehabilitation of South Ossetia. The Georgians had all along insisted logically on demilitarization to be achieved ahead of political-settlement negotiations, and for those political negotiations to be held in an internationalized format, not the Russian-dominated JCC."

So, 1. OSCE is only an observer
2. The four parties that vote on matters concerning Ossetia are biased 3 to 1 against Georgia,: Even if they vote against some statement, it will still pass.


Why are you hiding where you got this information that the Joint whatever says that Georgia is at fault, unless it comes from a disreputable source?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 01:49 PM

I'm asking why the source for my material matters. I see the question is not being answered.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 01:53 PM

Because I do not trust you to have reported the "statement" accurately.


Aug 7th statement at the OSCE


Thew one I have found so far indicates the South Osetians at fault. So, show me the source of the one YOU claim indicts the Georgians, or I will presume you are youst making it up.

Last chance ( You have declined three times)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 01:58 PM

Is that all? Just want to make sure that it's reported accurately? Ok. Here it is...

http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=CDI+Russia+Profile+List&articleid=a1218643038

According to the information of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces in the conflict zone, it was the Georgian side that started firing first.


The Joint Peacekeeping Forces are composed of members of the OSCE, South Ossetians, Russians, and Georgians.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:01 PM

OSCE warns Russia against jeopardizing Georgia sovereignty
10:15 | 03/ 07/ 2008
   


ASTANA, July 3 (RIA Novosti) - The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly adopted a resolution on Thursday urging Russia to avoid steps that compromise Georgia's sovereignty in its breakaway provinces.

Members of parliament from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's 56 member states are currently meeting in Kazakhstan's capital, Astana, for their annual session.

The resolution on Russia, passed by a 61-15 vote with 29 abstentions, follows Georgian claims that Russia has assumed de facto control over the province of Abkhazia, the focus of a long-running row between Moscow and Tbilisi.

Earlier this week Abkhazia closed off its border with the rest of Georgia, following a series of explosions that it blamed on Georgian security forces.

In March this year, Russian lawmakers recommended that 'missions' be opened in the two territories, sparking a furious response from Georgia, which accuses the Kremlin of trying to annex Abkhazia, along with South Ossetia, another breakaway province.

Relations between Russia and Georgia have been strained since Russia stepped up support for the breakaway Georgian republics in April. The pro-Western government of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has said it is determined to bring the breakaway regions back under its control, while Moscow says Tbilisi's policies could lead to new bloodshed.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:07 PM

Russia Profile is published by the RIA Novosti News Agency, Moscow, Russia


Sounds like more propaganda- you won't take Georgia's word, but you do take Russia's?


"According to the information of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces in the conflict zone, it was the Georgian side that started firing first."

As stated, the joint forces are heavily biased ( 3 to 1 ) against the Georgians

Fireing first WHEN? I have said that GEORGIA invaded South Ossetia- BUT after the South Ossetians attacked Georgians first. There is NO indication that that is not the case- not from a reputable source.



But thank you for telling me which set of lies you have chosen to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:12 PM

the rest of the paragraph with your quote:

"According to the South Ossetian Interior Ministry, on August 7 Georgia started ground fire and shelling of the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali from the village of Nikozi. Then, according to Tskhinvali, the shelling and shooting at the South Ossetian village of Khetagurovo was started from the Georgian village of Avnevi. About 10 people were killed and another 50 received various wounds. The Georgian media, however, reported that the South Ossetian side had been shelling the Georgian villages of Avnevi and Nuli for three hours."

So one side votes itself to be innocent, and you are willing to accpt it because.... Why? The Russians have since lied about withdrawal from Georgia, and are presently still advancing in Georgia dispite the statement that they are not.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:20 PM

Food aid sent in to suffering Georgian area
Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:15:29 AM
By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA

A convoy of badly needed food aid for beleaguered Georgians rumbled through a Russian checkpoint Wednesday, waved through by soldiers who themselves showed no signs of fulfilling their president's promise of a pullback within two days.

A top Russian general, meanwhile, said Russia plans to construct a series of checkpoints manned by hundreds of soldiers in the so-called "security zone" around Georgia's de-facto border with the breakaway territory of South Ossetia.

The Russian-backed separatist region was the flashpoint of fighting this month that brought Russian troops deep into Georgia. A cease-fire that calls for both sides to pull back to their positions before the brief war allows Russia to maintain troops in a zone extending more than four miles into Georgia from South Ossetian line.

Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy head of the Russian general staff, told a briefing Wednesday that Russia will build a double line of 18 checkpoints in the zone, with the posts in the front line to be manned by about 270 soldiers.

The plans clearly show that Russia aims to solidify control of South Ossetia. The province for now technically remains a part of Georgia, but Russia has said it will accept whatever South Ossetia's leaders decide about their future status -- which is almost certain to be either a declaration of independence or a request to be incorporated into Russia.

The nine flatbed trucks carrying aid rolled through the Igoeti checkpoint about 30 miles west of the capital, Tbilisi. Igoeti one of the deepest Russian penetrations into Georgia since fighting broke out in South Ossetia nearly two weeks ago.

The Russian seizure of Gori and villages in the region has left thousands of people with scarce and uncertain food supplies. The convoy of aid from the U.N.'s World Food Program could last for a few days.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said his troops will complete its withdrawal from Georgia by Friday, but few signs of movement have been seen other than the departure of a small portion of the troops who have held the strategically key city of Gori, another 25 miles west of Igoeti.

The Russian forces in Georgia appear to be aiming to weaken Georgia's military through the detention of personnel and destruction of equipment before they withdraw as promised.

On Tuesday, Russian forces drove out of the Black Sea port city of Poti with about 20 blindfolded and bound Georgian prisoners -- identified by local officials as soldiers and police -- and seized four U.S. Humvees. They reportedly were taken to a Russian-controlled military base nearby, and Georgian Interior Ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili said Wednesday they still were being held.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:21 PM

The United States is seeing "early signs of some withdrawal," but the pace of the pullout "needs to increase sooner rather than later," said National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe, cited by U.S. media.

    Johndroe made the remarks on Air Force One as President George W. Bush flew from his Crawford ranch in Texas to a speech to veterans in Florida.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:21 PM

I would reverse that question and ask why we are expected to accept the assertion that Georgia only invaded South Ossetia in response to attacks from South Ossetians, since the only source for this assertion is the government of Georgia. If we are not to rely on sources that are biased, and if the government of Russia is biased, then the same standard applies to the government of Georgia. They cannot be trusted as an unbiased source of information about who attacked whom and when.

And for this reason, it is ridiculous to try to suggest that Georgia only bombed and invaded South Ossetia in response to attacks from South Ossetia and that we are expected to accept that just because the government of Georgia says so. Almost all of the media in the US and elsewhere are saying that Georgia bombed and invaded South Ossetia specifically for the purpose of taking back that territory, and that the Government of Georgia has had that intention since 1992. Which is what I have been arguing all along.

Nobody has to accept any assertions coming from the government of Russia. But if someone expects us to accept what the government of Georgia has to say about it, and then that person turns right around and says that we shouldn't accept what the government of Russia says about it, that person is engaging in hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:25 PM

CarolC,

I have stated that we should look at what BOTH sides are saying, and have not decided who is at fault- YOU have declared Georgia to be to blame- so show some trustworthy facts, or just admit you do not know which side is at fault ( like I do: The CLAIM that the Georgians make is as valid as the CLAIM that the Russians make)- so why do YOU chose to take one as truth and the other as lie, unless the voices are telling you something the rest of us cannot hear?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:27 PM

more:

Nogovitsyn, the Russian general, indicated his forces may not return the U.S. vehicles, which had been waiting at Poti to be shipped home after being used in recent U.S.-Georgia military exercises.

Asked about U.S. demands that Russia return seized weaponry to the Georgian military, he said "we don't intend to give up trophies."

Nogovistsyn said that 64 Russian soldiers were killed in the fighting and 323 were wounded. Russia previously had said 74 soldiers were killed and 170 were wounded in the conflict.

Georgian officials have said they lost 160 soldiers and that 300 are missing. Russia claims Georgian losses are much higher.

Civilian casualties remain unclear. South Ossetian officials on Wednesday said 1,492 civilians in the breakaway province had been killed.

The investigative committee of the Russian prosecutor general's office on Wednesday confirmed 133 civilian deaths in South Ossetia, but said it could not be sure of a complete figure because many victims had already been buried.

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said Tuesday that Russia was not only flouting its withdrawal commitment but that its forces were "not losing time" in damaging Georgia by destroying infrastructure.

However, the two nations exchanged 20 prisoners of war -- 15 Georgians and five Russians, according to the head of Georgia's Security Council -- in an effort to reduce tensions.

On the diplomatic front, NATO foreign ministers suspended their formal contacts with Russia as punishment. Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said "there can be no business as usual with Russia under present circumstances."

But the NATO allies, bowing to pressure from European nations that depend heavily on Russia for energy, stopped short of more severe penalties being pushed by the United States.

The Russian Ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, dismissed the impact of the emergency meeting in Brussels, Belgium: "The mountain gave birth to a mouse."

Sens. Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham were headed to Tbilisi on Wednesday, where they were to meet with Brig. Gen. Jon Miller and his team, who only recently arrived themselves to assess the humanitarian needs in Georgia

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:30 PM

Russians dig in as pullback drags on in Georgia By MIKE ECKEL, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 26 minutes ago



SACHKHERE, Georgia - Russian forces on Wednesday built a sentry post just 30 miles from the Georgian capital, appearing to dig in to positions deep inside Georgia despite pledges to pull back to areas mandated by a cease-fire signed by both countries.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says his troops will complete their pullback by Friday, but few signs of movement have been seen other than the departure of a small contingent that have held the strategically key city of Gori



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080820/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:42 PM

I have shown plenty of trustworthy facts. There is plenty of independent verification that Saakashvili campaigned on the promise that he would take back South Ossetia and Abkhazia , and that he has consistently said that that is what he intended to do (some of which I have produced, and some of which has been produced by others). That's all the trustworthy facts we need.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 03:01 PM

"...Saakashvili campaigned on the promise that he would take back South Ossetia and Abkhazia."

He does not have to take them back because they are part of Georgia. The UN and all other international bodies, including the OSCE mentioned above, recognize those two areas as part of Georgia. Only Russia and some militants within those regions claim otherwise.

BTW, the Russians seem to have bribed the Ossetians with full medical, dental and retirement coverage as other Russian citizens have even though the Ossetians have not paid into the system. Russia has been "tampering" with this group of people of a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 03:11 PM

He campaigned on the promise that he would take back control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which amounts to the same thing.

The South Ossetians have always wanted to rejoin North Ossetia. The Russian government doesn't have to do anything to bribe them to want this.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 04:20 PM

Inspiration And Danger In Georgia

By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, August 20, 2008; Page A15

The nation of Georgia is a place of inspiration and danger. I saw both in a single hour.

I was in Tbilisi's Freedom Square during President Bush's visit in May 2005, along with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried. During the Georgian national anthem, the speaker system broke down and tens of thousands of Georgians movingly sang that song without music -- a song that had been illegal to sing under Soviet occupation.

It is shocking to imagine those joyful people now bombed, fearful and occupied.

At the same event, an assassination attempt was made against President Bush. A man threw a grenade wrapped in a handkerchief. Bush was behind a bulletproof shield but within the blast radius of the weapon. The grenade was live but did not explode -- or maybe the explosion in Georgia was just delayed.


A few days ago I spoke with Ambassador Fried -- one of America's finest diplomats -- on his way back from Georgia, after tense negotiations. Sounding exhausted from a "tough few days," he described the French-sponsored cease-fire as flawed but important. He predicted that in 10 years the invasion would be seen as a strategic mistake because it will have branded Russia "as a rogue." Of the Russian government, he vented: "Picking on weak Georgia -- is this the thing that makes them proud?"

Georgia badly miscalculated in this crisis. President Mikheil Saakashvili believed he could quickly gobble up his breakaway provinces through military force, just as he did in Georgia's southwest four years ago. He is a hothead who acted against American advice.

But it was Russia that provoked this provocation, for which it was thoroughly prepared. In December 2007, Russia suspended its adherence to a treaty that required it to report the massing of its troops along borders. Two months before the invasion, hundreds of Russian engineers were engaged in repairing railroad bridges eventually used by Russian troops.

Vladimir Putin is a leader defined and consumed by his grievances, from European missile defense to Kosovo. And now he has adopted the ideology and tactics of the schoolyard bully -- trying to restore Russian self-respect by beating up the weak. It is pathetic and dangerous in equal parts. It has also been a military success. Bush administration officials are now debating how to turn Russia's tactical victory into a strategic defeat.

In the short term, this involves denying Russia some things it wants, such as a coup that deposes Saakashvili. It also involves achieving some things Russia doesn't want, particularly the deployment of international monitors and eventually peacekeepers in the breakaway regions. Russian troops, after all, are not peacekeepers but combatants.

But there also needs to be a broader strategic consequence for Russia. Russia is attempting to combine 19th-century adventurism with membership in 21st-century international institutions. America needs to prove that is not possible -- to demonstrate that there is no place for czarism in the Group of Eight or the World Trade Organization.

Few question this goal, but there are many questions about the method. Does a direct assault on Russia's prickly pride make things worse or better? Should America pick a bruising public fight over G-8 membership or simply begin acting through the G-7, as Secretary Rice has already begun to do? Should America announce its opposition to Russian WTO membership, or merely stop pushing for it?

The worst option would be to excuse Russia by blaming ourselves. NATO expansion did not cause Russian belligerence. The desire to be part of NATO in liberated Europe was fueled, in part, by a justified fear of Russian belligerence. Citizens of the Baltic states, for example, are now glad that NATO expanded with relative speed, or they might be next on Putin's list. Again and again in European history, there has been a temptation to sacrifice the freedom of small countries to the interests of great powers. And it generally hasn't worked out very well, for them or for us.

Georgia has been foolish. But Russia's crude overreach has had one good effect -- revealing the courage of others. Poland has quickly upgraded its relations with America, even under nuclear threat from Russia. Ukraine has been defiant, even though Russia still makes claims on Crimea. These nations have recent memories of Russian national "pride." And their courage should provoke our own.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 04:40 PM

Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Riots in Georgia, please pray

Havemirrc: weblog

Well, we were warned by the US embassy that there were soon to be political disruptions in Georgia with many protests going on. They told us not to worry but just to avoid certain areas of the city.


So on Friday it started, there was an official protest from the opposition party to the government which was supposed to only last one day…it is still going on however. Thousands of people are gathering for now more than five days of rallying to get the president to resign. The main street downtown in front of parliament building has been closed since Friday and has really disrupted all traffic and made even more gridlock in the metropolitan area, with about 2 million people population. There has been lots of chaos and confusion as a result of this.

The group was asking the government to make changes but they keep adding to their list of demands so much so that they now sound like terrorists. President Saakishvili is not giving in and will not give an early election or resign.

There has been increasing rioting in the streets, mob scene starting fighting against the police, and then the special forces came and started shooting teargas and threatening to shoot high pressured water to get the people away. The number of rebels is growing each day now too which started with a few thousand then 30,000 protesters and I am not sure how many now at present time.

People are getting scared, wanting to take kids out of school, or leave the city. It is not looking good at this time. Please pray for Georgia! They have made so much progress with the current president who has done much to help the country economically, socially, and developing many programs for its good to stay independent from Russia. If things are shaken up now, there is no telling what will happen to Georgia.

We really need your prayers!

Just fyi, we live far from the rioting and are obeying the warnings of going further downtown at this time, don't worry. God is good all the time and will protect us.

Posted 11/7/2007 5:06 AM -

'those joyful people'?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 05:10 PM

And what about lasting solutions?

By lasting solutions I mean where civilians interests are served in Georgia, Abkhazia and Ossetia.

I don't mean the states of Russia or America or Georgia or Abkhazia or Ossetia being put in their place or being liberated.

By Civilians interests I mean peace and the preservation of human rights.

That is whay I am starting to disagree with both Carol and Bruce.

Getting bogged down in a whodunnit and consolidating a seige mentality are not good ways to find solutions.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 05:38 PM

From Wikipedia

The 2007 Georgian demonstrations were a series of anti-government protests in Georgia. The demonstrations peaked on November 2, 2007, when 50,000[citation needed] rallied in downtown Tbilisi, capital of Georgia.

People protested against the allegedly corrupt government of president Mikheil Saakashvili. Protests triggered by detention of Georgian politician Irakli Okruashvili on charges of extortion, money laundering, and abuse of office during his tenure as defense minister of the country were organized by the National Council, an ad-hoc coalition of ten opposition parties, and financed by the media tycoon Badri Patarkatsishvili.

Demonstrations occurred both in September and November 2007 and were initially largely peaceful. The protests went downhill by November 6, 2007, but turned violent the next day when the police, using heavy-handed tactics, including tear gas and water cannon, unblocked Rustaveli Avenue, Tbilisi's main boulevard, dislodged the protesters from the territory adjoining to the House of Parliament, and prevented the demonstrators from resuming the protests. The government accused the Russian secret services of being involved in an attempted coup d'etat and declared a nationwide state of emergency later that day which lasted until late November 16, 2007.

On November 8, 2007, President Saakashvili announced a compromise solution to hold early presidential elections for January 5, 2008. He also proposed to hold a referendum in parallel to snap presidential elections about when to hold parliamentary polls – in spring as pushed for by the opposition parties, or in late 2008.'

From the OSCE report 22nd May 2008

'Following the breakdown of dialogue between the government and the opposition. the election process was changed two months prior to the election without concensus among key stakeholders and in a manner viewed by the opposition as favouring the United National Movement

The wide variation of the number of voters registered in individual single-mandate constituencies undermines the fundamental principle of the equality of the vote.'

The distinction between state activities and the UNM campaign was ofetn blurred.
A number of the latest UEC ammendments enabled the use of administrative resources for campaign purposes and allowed political officials to mix campaign activities with official duties contrary to OSCE commitments which stipulate a clear seperation between state and party.

The numerous allegations of intimidation of candidates, party activists and state employees negatively affected the campaign environment . While difficult to verify some of the claims examined by the OSCE/ODIHR EOM were found to be credible........'

lots of room for finding 'solutions' yet - joining NATO is not one of them IMHO

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 09:31 PM

"...the two propositions are identical".   Not so. I'm sorry but that is a misreading of my post.

Certainly, however, I would not be in the least surprised if McCain did get a boost from his empty posturing, bidding fair to succeed GWB in the position of anti-TR. There seem to be quite a few voters who like to shake their fists at a foreign regime, whether or not it's justified and whether they can do anything but splutter or not. And indeed in the case of South Ossetia vs Georgia they cannot do anything but wring their hands and mumble threateningly--as indeed McCain and Bush are doing.

It should be obvious to any thinking being that South Ossetia is not the place to take a stand. ( Whereas Poland and Ukraine certainly are.) And spare us the tired "appeasement" tripe.


But of course calm reasoning is not required to vote. After all, consider all the Bush voters of 2004--not exactly clear thinkers--who fell for the two propaganda lines of that year-- the "dirty bomb" line and the "homosexuals marrying will threaten your marriage" line.

Jingoism and propaganda work. That's no surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 10:34 PM

The DEAN of foreign policy matters posted on the NYT today. He wants to spread the blame around:

What Did We Expect?                      By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

If the conflict in Georgia were an Olympic event, the gold medal for brutish stupidity would go to the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin. The silver medal for bone-headed recklessness would go to Georgia's president, Mikheil Saakashvili, and the bronze medal for rank short-sightedness would go to the Clinton and Bush foreign policy teams.

Let's start with us. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, I was among the group — led by George Kennan, the father of "containment" theory, Senator Sam Nunn and the foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum — that argued against expanding NATO, at that time.

It seemed to us that since we had finally brought down Soviet communism and seen the birth of democracy in Russia the most important thing to do was to help Russian democracy take root and integrate Russia into Europe. Wasn't that why we fought the cold war — to give young Russians the same chance at freedom and integration with the West as young Czechs, Georgians and Poles? Wasn't consolidating a democratic Russia more important than bringing the Czech Navy into NATO?

All of this was especially true because, we argued, there was no big problem on the world stage that we could effectively address without Russia — particularly Iran or Iraq. Russia wasn't about to reinvade Europe. And the Eastern Europeans would be integrated into the West via membership in the European Union.

No, said the Clinton foreign policy team, we're going to cram NATO expansion down the Russians' throats, because Moscow is weak and, by the way, they'll get used to it. Message to Russians: We expect you to behave like Western democrats, but we're going to treat you like you're still the Soviet Union. The cold war is over for you, but not for us.

"The Clinton and Bush foreign policy teams acted on the basis of two false premises," said Mandelbaum. "One was that Russia is innately aggressive and that the end of the cold war could not possibly change this, so we had to expand our military alliance up to its borders. Despite all the pious blather about using NATO to promote democracy, the belief in Russia's eternal aggressiveness is the only basis on which NATO expansion ever made sense — especially when you consider that the Russians were told they could not join. The other premise was that Russia would always be too weak to endanger any new NATO members, so we would never have to commit troops to defend them. It would cost us nothing. They were wrong on both counts."

The humiliation that NATO expansion bred in Russia was critical in fueling Putin's rise after Boris Yeltsin moved on. And America's addiction to oil helped push up energy prices to a level that gave Putin the power to act on that humiliation. This is crucial backdrop.

Nevertheless, today we must support all diplomatic efforts to roll back the Russian invasion of Georgia. Georgia is a nascent free-market democracy, and we can't just watch it get crushed. But we also can't refrain from noting that Saakashvili's decision to push his troops into Tskhinvali, the heart of Georgia's semiautonomous pro-Russian enclave of South Ossetia, gave Putin an easy excuse to exercise his iron fist.

As The Washington Post's longtime Russia watcher Michael Dobbs noted: "On the night of Aug. 7 ..., Saakashvili ordered an artillery barrage against Tskhinvali and sent an armored column to occupy the town. He apparently hoped that Western support would protect Georgia from major Russian retaliation, even though Russian 'peacekeepers' were almost certainly killed or wounded in the Georgian assault. It was a huge miscalculation."

And as The Economist magazine also wrote, "Saakashvili is an impetuous nationalist." His thrust into South Ossetia "was foolish and possibly criminal. But unlike Putin, he has led his country in a broadly democratic direction, curbed corruption and presided over rapid economic growth that has not relied, as Russia's mostly does, on high oil and gas prices."

That is why the gold medal for brutishness goes to Putin. Yes, NATO expansion was foolish. Putin exploited it to choke Russian democracy. But now, petro-power-grabbing has gone to his head — whether it's invading Georgia, bullying Western financiers and oil companies working in Russia, or using Russia's gas supplies to intimidate its neighbors.

If it persists, this behavior will push every Russian neighbor to seek protection from Moscow and will push the Europeans to redouble their efforts to find alternatives to Russian oil and gas. This won't happen overnight, but in time it will stretch Russia's defenses and lead it to become more isolated, more insecure and less wealthy.

For all these reasons, Russia would be wise to reconsider Putin's Georgia gambit. If it does, we would be wise to reconsider where our NATO/Russia policy is taking us — and whether we really want to spend the 21st century containing Russia the same way we spent much of the 20th containing the Soviet Union.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 11:38 PM

On the question of what to do for the benefit of the civilians, my own opinion would be to approach it in the same way that Canada handles Quebec and the US handles Puerto Rico. If Quebec or Puerto Rico held a vote or a referendum about whether or not to remain a part of Canada or the United States, and if the majority of people voted to dissolve their union with those countries, this is what would be done.

The South Ossetians held a referendum to become independent from Georgia, and the majority of people there voted for independence. If Georgia was really an open and free democracy, instead of a puppet vassal state of the US empire, it would honor the results of the referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 01:41 AM

Heh. It could be about oil after all...


"But that still doesn't answer the larger question: Why would Saakashvili embark on such a pointless military adventure when he had no chance of winning? After all, Russia has 20 times the firepower and has been conducting military maneuvers anticipating this very scenario for months. Does Bush really want another war that bad or is the fighting in South Ossetia just a ruse for a larger war that is brewing in the Strait of Hormuz?

Mikheil Saakashvili is a Western educated lawyer and a favorite of the neocons. He rose to power on a platform of anti-corruption and economic reform which emphasized free market solutions and privatization. Instead of raising the standard of living for the Georgian people, Saakashvili has been running up massive deficits to expand the over-bloated military. Saakashvili has made huge purchases of Israeli and US-made (offensive) weapon systems and has devoted more than 4.2 percent of GDP (more than a quarter of all Georgian public income) to military hardware.

The chairman of Russia's State Duma Security Committee, Vladimir Vasiliyev, summed it up like this: "Georgia could have used the years of Saakashvili's presidency in different ways - to build up the economy, to develop the infrastructure, to solve social issues both in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and the whole state. Instead, the Georgian leadership with President Saakashvili undertook consistent steps to increase its military budget from US$30 million to $1 billion -- Georgia was preparing for a military action." Naturally, Russia is worried about these developments and has brought the matter up repeatedly at the United Nations but to no avail.

Israeli arms manufacturers have also been supplying Saakashvili with state-of-the-art weaponry.

According to the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, "In addition to the spy drones, Israel has also been supplying Georgia with infantry weapons and electronics for artillery systems, and has helped upgrade Soviet-designed Su-25 ground attack jets assembled in Georgia, according to Koba Liklikadze, an independent military expert in Tbilisi. Former Israeli generals also serve as advisers to the Georgian military." ("Following Russian pressure, Israel freezes defense sales to Georgia," Associated Press)

The Israeli news source DebkaFile elaborates on the geopolitical implications of Israeli involvement in the Georgia's politics: "The conflict has been sparked by the race for control over the pipelines carrying oil and gas out of the Caspian region. . . . The Russians may just bear with the pro-US Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili's ambition to bring his country into NATO. But they draw a heavy line against his plans and those of Western oil companies, including Israeli firms, to route the oil routes from Azerbaijan and the gas lines from Turkmenistan, which transit Georgia, through Turkey instead of hooking them up to Russian pipelines.

"Jerusalem owns a strong interest in Caspian oil and gas pipelines reach the Turkish terminal port of Ceyhan, rather than the Russian network. Intense negotiations are afoot between Israel Turkey, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Azarbaijan for pipelines to reach Turkey and thence to Israel's oil terminal at Ashkelon and on to its Red Sea port of Eilat. From there, supertankers can carry the gas and oil to the Far East through the Indian Ocean." (Paul Joseph Watson, "US Attacks Russia Through Client State Georgia")

The United States and Israel are both neck-deep in the "Great Game," the ongoing war for vital petroleum and natural gas supplies in Central Asia and the Caspian Basin. So far, Putin appears to have the upper hand because of his alliances with his regional allies -- under the Commonwealth of Independent States -- and because most of the natural gas from Eurasia is pumped through Russian pipelines."

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3613.shtml


Personally, I think it's about both. My guess is that the US government played on Saakashvili's stated aim of getting back control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in order to persuade him to go along with their plan to use Georgia as a lever against Russia. I'm guessing the Georgians are beginning to see why it's not a good idea to allow the US to use their country as a pawn in its grand scheme.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 01:56 AM

Here's an interesting perspective...

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3649.shtml


Excerpt -

"Vladimir Putin must have been astounded at how Georgia and its American puppeteers fell head over heels into the Caucasian trap. Ingenuously, facilely, Saakashvili, America's puppet leader of Georgia, sent his US armed troops into South Ossetia shooting wildly at anything moving and challenging Moscow on its home territory. What could be crazier? On that first day, European media showed the Georgian "invasion" of South Ossetia, just as the next day it showed the crushing Russian response that reduced Georgia to the virtual reality of the US proxy state it has become.

For the first time since the collapse of the USSR, Russia went on the offensive. Its victory accomplished in a few hours rewrote the global balance of power. Yet, the American public knows little or nothing of these earth-shaking events. The New York Times and Washington Post, CNN and Fox, speak only of a Russian invasion of Georgia, a country of wine growers and tourism operators. Don't American people even wonder why this sudden outburst of military operations in peaceful Georgia which all of a sudden decided to challenge powerful Russia and invade territories inhabited by Russian citizens? Don't people wonder why and how come Russian tanks are in no hurry to leave "independent" Georgia?

The result of these events is that two decades after the fall of Soviet Russia, the heart of Europe -- I refer to Germany, France and Italy -- despite their warnings to Moscow to withdraw, have never been closer to Russia. If the most pro-American European leader, Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, must choose between Bush and Putin, he will unfailingly choose Putin. This European heart is not about to build the anti-Russian alliance Bush and Cheney dreamed of. Washington doesn't grasp the elementary fact that Russia is an integral part of Europe which today is overflowing with Russian tourists, replacing in many places, such as Venice, the missing Americans. Maybe this unpleasant combination of events is why the NYT and Washington Post, CNN and Fox, didn't tell the people the reality of the two-day military action -- the first day, the Georgian incursion into South Ossetia, and the second, the crushing Russian response. That was the war! Instead, the US media described in Cold War terms the fiction of an unprovoked Russian imperialist invasion of peaceful Georgia.

Only America, its tiny allies of the Baltic region, Georgia, to a certain extent Ukraine and pliable right-wing Poland, believed Russia would do nothing. Poland and the Czech Republic, and most probably the Baltic states, too, today still intent on pushing Russian borders back to the gates of Moscow, will soon come to terms with their European history and their rightful place in it. They will soon realize that their future is Europe, not the America that considers them territory for military installations.

The break between the heart of Europe and these temporary American satellites splits NATO, the European Union and the West in general. But it draws the heart of Europe and Russia nearer. The "war" in Georgia makes this tendency explicit. As soon as Moscow's victory was evident, French President Sarkozy, also current rotating president of the European Union, flew to Moscow, then to Tbilisi, as Europe's representative. Not a peace mediator, his mission was in effect to ratify the Russian victory, to recognize its sphere of influence in the Caucasian region and to seal America's defeat. Georgia can now forget South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as well as its ambitions for NATO membership. Who wants America's satellite in NATO anyway?

This real Europe of Germany, France and Italy are not what imperialist neocon America dreamed of. Most certainly New World Order America didn't count on a resurrected Russia capable of the reconquest of lost territories of the Russian Empire and of a new relationship with Europe. Moreover, not even in its worst nightmare did America dream of exchanging its alliance with real Europe for a string of powerless satellites on the Baltic or happy-go-lucky, romantic Georgians.

Official reactions from Brussels are NATO reactions, that is, US-dominated NATO. And even NATO words are unexpectedly mild -- "firmness" and demands for Russians withdrawal. Russia answers facetiously that its peace-keeping mission in Georgia may last a few more days. Meanwhile in Rome, without haste, Berlusconi plans a trip to Moscow too, in early September. Georgia is not to interfere with the vacation period.

Saakashvili is known to be more American than Americans, his nation armed and supported by the USA. But armed and supported for what? Only for its oil and gas pipelines, of dubious value and a dubious future? Not at all.

The sad truth for Georgia is that its leader overestimated American support for his stupid attempt to retake the disputed territory of South Ossetia peopled by Russian citizens. In a way, this was also a case of the tail wagging the dog, As if the USA, already bogged down by Iraqis and Afghans, would seriously go to war with Russia over Georgia! Something about this reminds me of the American-instigated Hungarian uprising of 1956, crushed then by Soviet tanks.

Russia today is confident. It is not afraid as it was of the multicolored revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia and NATO's advance up to its borders. US humanitarian aid to Georgia or talk of Russia's exclusion from the G-8 do not disturb Putin. He now knows he can count on the real Europe. Russia is not about to surrender to American demands and threats. NATO-USA accuses Russia of invading small countries, Russia charges NATO for supporting the criminal regime of Georgia. While NATO and Russia both claim that their relations will never be the same again, Russian tanks roam around the Caucasus region as they please. Europe has received Putin's message to the world loud and clear. The Russians are truly back.

The question is, has the American public, busily drinking from the fount of NYT and Washington Post, CNN and Fox News, grasped the trap-like situation their arrogant, unrealistic, self-absorbed, narcissistic leaders have lead them into? For it is clear as day that a huge bill is falling due and the American people will ultimately have to pay it."

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 02:49 AM

Also in NYT- Mikhail Gorbachev weighs in:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Russia Never Wanted a War
comments (411)               E-MailPrint Save Share
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalink

By MIKHAIL GORBACHEV
Published: August 19, 2008
Moscow

»THE acute phase of the crisis provoked by the Georgian forces' assault on Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, is now behind us. But how can one erase from memory the horrifying scenes of the nighttime rocket attack on a peaceful town, the razing of entire city blocks, the deaths of people taking cover in basements, the destruction of ancient monuments and ancestral graves?

Russia did not want this crisis. The Russian leadership is in a strong enough position domestically; it did not need a little victorious war. Russia was dragged into the fray by the recklessness of the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili. He would not have dared to attack without outside support. Once he did, Russia could not afford inaction.

The decision by the Russian president, Dmitri Medvedev, to now cease hostilities was the right move by a responsible leader. The Russian president acted calmly, confidently and firmly. Anyone who expected confusion in Moscow was disappointed.

The planners of this campaign clearly wanted to make sure that, whatever the outcome, Russia would be blamed for worsening the situation. The West then mounted a propaganda attack against Russia, with the American news media leading the way.

The news coverage has been far from fair and balanced, especially during the first days of the crisis. Tskhinvali was in smoking ruins and thousands of people were fleeing — before any Russian troops arrived. Yet Russia was already being accused of aggression; news reports were often an embarrassing recitation of the Georgian leader's deceptive statements.

It is still not quite clear whether the West was aware of Mr. Saakashvili's plans to invade South Ossetia, and this is a serious matter. What is clear is that Western assistance in training Georgian troops and shipping large supplies of arms had been pushing the region toward war rather than peace.

If this military misadventure was a surprise for the Georgian leader's foreign patrons, so much the worse. It looks like a classic wag-the-dog story.

Mr. Saakashvili had been lavished with praise for being a staunch American ally and a real democrat — and for helping out in Iraq. Now America's friend has wrought disorder, and all of us — the Europeans and, most important, the region's innocent civilians — must pick up the pieces.

Those who rush to judgment on what's happening in the Caucasus, or those who seek influence there, should first have at least some idea of this region's complexities. The Ossetians live both in Georgia and in Russia. The region is a patchwork of ethnic groups living in close proximity. Therefore, all talk of "this is our land," "we are liberating our land," is meaningless. We must think about the people who live on the land.

The problems of the Caucasus region cannot be solved by force. That has been tried more than once in the past two decades, and it has always boomeranged.

What is needed is a legally binding agreement not to use force. Mr. Saakashvili has repeatedly refused to sign such an agreement, for reasons that have now become abundantly clear.

The West would be wise to help achieve such an agreement now. If, instead, it chooses to blame Russia and re-arm Georgia, as American officials are suggesting, a new crisis will be inevitable. In that case, expect the worst.

In recent days, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President Bush have been promising to isolate Russia. Some American politicians have threatened to expel it from the Group of 8 industrialized nations, to abolish the NATO-Russia Council and to keep Russia out of the World Trade Organization.

These are empty threats. For some time now, Russians have been wondering: If our opinion counts for nothing in those institutions, do we really need them? Just to sit at the nicely set dinner table and listen to lectures?

Indeed, Russia has long been told to simply accept the facts. Here's the independence of Kosovo for you. Here's the abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, and the American decision to place missile defenses in neighboring countries. Here's the unending expansion of NATO. All of these moves have been set against the backdrop of sweet talk about partnership. Why would anyone put up with such a charade?

There is much talk now in the United States about rethinking relations with Russia. One thing that should definitely be rethought: the habit of talking to Russia in a condescending way, without regard for its positions and interests.

Our two countries could develop a serious agenda for genuine, rather than token, cooperation. Many Americans, as well as Russians, understand the need for this. But is the same true of the political leaders?

A bipartisan commission led by Senator Chuck Hagel and former Senator Gary Hart has recently been established at Harvard to report on American-Russian relations to Congress and the next president. It includes serious people, and, judging by the commission's early statements, its members understand the importance of Russia and the importance of constructive bilateral relations.

But the members of this commission should be careful. Their mandate is to present "policy recommendations for a new administration to advance America's national interests in relations with Russia." If that alone is the goal, then I doubt that much good will come out of it. If, however, the commission is ready to also consider the interests of the other side and of common security, it may actually help rebuild trust between Russia and the United States and allow them to start doing useful work together.

Mikhail Gorbachev is the former president of the Soviet Union. This article was translated by Pavel Palazhchenko from the Russian.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Stu
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 04:49 AM

Mark this moment: we're witnessing the end of the unipolar world order.

Regardless of who started this fracas and who's right or wrong, Putin has been shrewd in his actions since the crisis started. His destruction of the military infrastructure in Georgia isn't really an attempt to neutralise a protential threat to Russian security, but is a message to the world the USA is no longer the world's policeman.

Politics aside, the US lost any moral integrity it had when it sanctioned torture and invaded Iraq in the pursuit of non-existent WMDs, so across the world ordinary people don't believe it has the right to impose it's will across the globe any longer. The 'War on Terror' the White House has spent so long propagandising has allowed the balance of power on the world stage to shift; Russian spent all that time dismantling

Georgian military bases built by the USA to show the world US influence in the region is waning. In Europe, people are under no illusion about the potential threat Russia poses as the cold war is not such a distant memory and a return to those dark days is rightly feared. The fact is, if Russian tanks roll into the Ukraine tomorrow, who's going to able to stop them? Not Europe: They would seek a negotiated settlement rather than risk open war in it's own backyard. Not the US; tied up in Afghanistan where it will never win and still committed to clearing up the mess it made in Iraq.

Putin's actions have demonstrated to the world the days of a belligerent US as the key shaper of world events is over. The foundations of Putin's power may be shaky: Russian hydrocarbons won't last forever and the ethnic makeup of the country means many of it's own citizens aren't overly fond of Moscow (and remember the Chinese are not keen on the idea of a resurgent Russia), but with the KGB active internationally again and the world economic clout shifting ever eastwards he is wiley enough to play what aces he holds to his own advantage.

The multipolar world is back; time to get on with making sure it's better managed this time around than the unipolar one it's replacing.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Paul Burke
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 05:08 AM

Unfortunately I can't see the POSITIVE aspects of a bipolar world disorder being repeated this time. I bet you've forgotten what they were, even though most of us (both UK and American) have benefited from it. While communism presented an alternative model of economic and social systems - and it doesn't matter whether that was real or illusory- capitalism was forced to respond by appeasing the population. They simply wouldn't take the social discipline imposed during the Industrial Revolution without a share of the wealth created. The gap between rich and poor narrowed significantly, and this produced the increased social cohesion which led to the affluent and relatively contented societies of the 1940s to 1970s.

Since communism ceased to be a viable alternative in the west- which took from the mid 1950s (Hungary) to the 1980s (taking in such as Dubcek and Walensa on the way), wealth distribution has become decidedly less egalitarian, both worldwide and within developed countries. One result has been competition between ethnic groups of the type typified by the Yugoslavian breakup and rising racism in Europe.

It seems that nationalism, racism and religion will be the tools used in the new model to play off one group against another, preventing concerted socio- economic movements from being effective, and maintaining the control of the oligarchies while they dispute their shares of the proceeds.

And it's clear from other threads that there are plenty of people around willing to help them out.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Stu
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 05:29 AM

I largely agree with this Paul, although I would argue communism has never been practised in it's purest form as the so-called communist countries were actually brutal dictatorships (and in the case of China still are - it's just the PR is better these days). You can bet Marx and Engels didn't have what Stalin and Mao did in mind when they wrote the Communist manifesto.

Also, I don't think we're looking at a bipolar world, but a multipolar one; the old US-Russian axis has been unsettled by the arrival of China and the far east economies on the world stage as major players. This might have some positive outcomes in the terms of it's never good to have one dominant nation in any world order, but I suspect this will be tempered by the fact that the world's population are fast becoming consumers rather than citizens; it's this issue that will ultimately affect the living conditions of our fellow human beings.

Until we find a working alternative to unregulated capitalism, we could be in trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 07:55 AM

Yes - I agree with everthing stigweard says here.

                  Also, I think Mikhail Gorbachev is right about this:
    "Indeed, Russia has long been told to simply accept the facts. Here's the independence of Kosovo for you. Here's the abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, and the American decision to place missile defenses in neighboring countries."

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 11:23 AM

This is getting interesting!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 12:34 PM

Russia blocks Georgia's main port city

By BELA SZANDELZSKY, Associated Press Writer
Thu Aug 21, 7:07 AM ET



POTI, Georgia - Russian forces blocked the only land entrance to Georgia's main port city on Thursday, a day before Russia promised to complete a troop pullout from its ex-Soviet neighbor.

Armored personnel carriers and troop trucks blocked the bridge to the Black Sea port city of Poti, and Russian forces excavated trenches and set up mortars facing the city. Another group of APCs and trucks were positioned in a nearby wooded area.

Although Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has promised that his forces would pull back by Friday, Russian troops appear to be digging in, raising concern about whether Moscow is aiming for a lengthy occupation of its small, pro-Western neighbor.

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili told The Associated Press that Russia was thinning out its presence in some occupied towns but was seizing other strategic spots. He called the Russian moves "some kind of deception game."

"(The Russians) are making fun of the world," he declared.

Nonetheless, a top Russian general troops were moving out in accordance with an EU-sponsored cease-fire.

"The pullback of Russian forces is taking place at such a tempo that by the end of August 22 they will be in the zones of responsibility of Russian peacekeepers," Col.-Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy head of the general staff, said at a briefing.

The truce says both Russian and Georgian forces must move back to positions they held before fighting broke out Aug. 7 in Georgia's separatist republic of South Ossetia, which has close ties to Russia. The agreement also says Russian forces can work in a so-called "security zone" that extends more than four miles into Georgia from South Ossetia.

Poti is at least 95 miles west of the nearest point in South Ossetia.

Russian tanks, trucks and troops, meanwhile, continued to hold positions around the strategically key city of Gori and in Igoeti, about 30 miles west of the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.

Several thousand people rallied Thursday in Sukhumi, the capital of Georgia's other separatist region of Abkahzia. A similar rally was expected in South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali later in the day.

Russian officials, including Medvedev, have indicated Moscow will recognize the regions as independent.

Nogovitsyn said Georgia has "no moral right" to return its soldiers to South Ossetia, where they had held some swaths of land as part of a peacekeeping mission.

The warfare in a nation straining to escape Moscow's influence has sent tensions between Moscow and the West to some of their highest levels since the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Polish counterpart signed a deal to build an American missile defense base in Poland. Last week, a top Russian general warned Poland was risking an attack, possibly a nuclear one, by developing the base.

A spokeswoman for Norway's defense ministry said Russia had told its embassy that Moscow plans to "freeze all military cooperation" with NATO and its allies. Later, Russia's Interfax news agency cited Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko as saying Moscow was reconsidering its cooperation with the military alliance.

About 80,000 people displaced by the fighting are in more than 600 centers in and around Tbilisi. The United Nations estimates 158,000 people in all fled their homes in the last two weeks — some south to regions around Tbilisi, some north to Russia.

A U.S. official in Turkey said three U.S. military vessels were heading through Turkey's Bosporus, a strait that connects the Mediterranean with the Black Sea, to deliver aid to Georgia. Two of the ships were leaving Crete on Thursday. He declined to be named because he was not authorized to give that information to media.

Since Aug. 19, the United States has delivered aid to Georgia's capital, Tbilisi, on 20 flights.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 03:22 PM

Washington Post:

Georgia, Between Hope and Fear

Days After Cease-fire, Russian Troops Remain in Gori
Late last week, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili agreed to a cease-fire with Russia. President Dmitry Medvedev vowed to "begin the withdrawal of the military contingent" starting Monday, Aug. 18, yet Russian troops still occupy the central Georgian city of Gori.
By Redjeb Jordania
Thursday, August 21, 2008; Page A15

I cannot help being anxious about what's happening to Georgia. My daughter is in Tbilisi with my grandson. Her husband, Sandro Kvitashvili, is the minister of health and social services. I don't know how dangerous his job is each day, whether he is on the streets, possibly exposed to gunfire. I don't know how he will cope with all the dead and wounded, how he is helping the refugees. All humanitarian activities are his responsibility, and Russia has blocked many of the routes necessary to transport goods. My daughter communicates with me online and assures me that Tbilisi is relatively calm. She thinks that she is not in danger. But there are frequent disruptions to our connections, and I would worry even if there were not.

Our family's ties to Georgia run deep. My father, Noé Jordania, was president of the first democratic republic of Georgia. He was forced into exile in 1921 when the Red Army invaded and incorporated Georgia into the Soviet empire. I was born in Paris and later moved to the United States; our family could not safely return to Georgia until the Soviet Union fell. Nevertheless, the country of my ancestors was never far from my mind.

When I was a child in French schools, my friends were the children of Georgian exiles. In everyday conversations, Georgia was constantly mentioned. My father told me so many stories about his birthplace, Lanshkhuti, that this village became more real to me in many ways than my French surroundings. The most important day of the year, after my own birthday, was May 26, Georgian Independence Day.

As I became older and learned more about our culture and history, the 1921 invasion of Georgia and even the 1805 takeover by the czar became so clear in my mind that they could have been events I had actually witnessed.

My first visit to Georgia was in 1990. The country was gripped by revolutionary fervor. Demonstrations were taking place everywhere; the Georgian Communist Party was in full retreat. The most significant and emotional moment of my life came then at age 69: I was invited to address the newly elected Parliament as a symbol of continuity between the first republic, of 1918-21, and the free republic about to be reborn. Afterward, I wrote in my diary:

I made a conscious effort not to feel, to hold myself tightly, not to give way to emotion. I knew that if I allowed the slightest chink in my armor, I could easily be overcome. . . . Then I spoke, in my faltering Georgian, and was greeted with tremendous ovations. Only later I realized that it was not what I was saying that counted the most, but the reality of my being there in the flesh, addressing deputies who had been freely elected by a free electorate.

The prospect of a free electorate was unthinkable just months before I addressed the Georgian Parliament. Now, the hard-won freedom that was such a heady prospect 18 years ago is in danger of being suppressed again -- by the same Russians who suppressed our nation and people for almost 200 years. This is extremely painful for all who love Georgia. But it helps that the situation is different this time.

In 1805, the West did not even notice the takeover of Georgia. In 1921, the so-called great powers did not care enough to do anything except make verbal protests. But this year, the whole Western world, led by France and the United States, has taken notice. They have intervened to achieve a cease-fire and are sending humanitarian supplies.

I want to believe that my family will be safe, that diplomacy will prevail and that Georgians will remain basically free. But in what conditions? With what restrictions? I am heartened that people everywhere are paying attention. But history is not on our side. I am filled with as much apprehension as hope.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 03:59 PM

Another interesting perspective...


"Is it possible that this time the October surprise was tried in August, and that the garbage issue of brave little Georgia struggling for its survival from the grasp of the Russian bear was stoked to influence the US presidential election?

Before you dismiss that possibility, consider the role of one Randy Scheunemann, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government, ending his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain's senior foreign policy adviser.

Previously, Scheunemann was best known as one of the neoconservatives who engineered the war in Iraq when he was a director of the Project for a New American Century. It was Scheunemann who, after working on the McCain 2000 presidential campaign, headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which championed the US Iraq invasion.

There are telltale signs that he played a similar role in the recent Georgia flare-up. How else to explain the folly of his close friend and former employer, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, in ordering an invasion of the breakaway region of South Ossetia, which clearly was expected to produce a Russian counter-reaction. It is inconceivable that Saakashvili would have triggered this dangerous escalation without some assurance from influential Americans he trusted, like Scheunemann, that the United States would have his back. Scheunemann long guided McCain in these matters, even before he was officially running foreign policy for McCain's presidential campaign.

In 2005, while registered as a paid lobbyist for Georgia, Scheunemann worked with McCain to draft a congressional resolution pushing for Georgia's membership in NATO. A year later, while still on the Georgian payroll, Scheunemann accompanied McCain on a trip to that country, where they met with Saakashvili and supported his bellicose views toward Russia's Vladimir Putin.

Scheunemann is at the center of the neoconservative cabal that has come to dominate the Republican candidate's foreign policy stance in a replay of the run-up to the war against Iraq. These folks are always looking for a foreign enemy on which to base a new cold war, and with the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, it was Putin's Russia that came increasingly to fit the bill.

Yes, it sounds diabolical, but that may be the most accurate way to assess the designs of the McCain campaign in matters of war and peace. There is every indication that the candidate's demonization of Putin is an even grander plan than the previous use of Hussein to fuel American militarism with the fearsome enemy that it desperately needs.

McCain gets to look tough with a new cold war to fight while Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, scrambling to make sense of a more measured foreign policy posture, will seem weak in comparison. Meanwhile, the dire consequences of the Bush legacy McCain has inherited, from the disaster of Iraq to the economic meltdown, conveniently will be ignored. But it will provide the military-industrial complex, which has helped bankroll the neoconservatives, with an excuse for ramping up a military budget that is already bigger than that of the rest of the world combined.

What is at work here is a neoconservative, self-fulfilling prophecy in which Russia is turned into an enemy that ramps up its largely reduced military, and Putin is cast as the new Joseph Stalin bogeyman, evoking images of the old Soviet Union. McCain has condemned a "revanchist Russia" that should once again be contained. Although Putin has been the enormously popular elected leader of post-Communist Russia, it is assumed that imperialism is always lurking, not only in his DNA but in that of the Russian people.

How convenient to forget that Stalin was a Georgian, and indeed if Russian troops had occupied the threatened Georgian town of Gori, they would have found a museum still honoring their local boy, who made good by seizing control of the Russian revolution. Indeed, five Russian bombs were allegedly dropped on Gori's Stalin Square on Tuesday.

It should also be mentioned that the post-Communist Georgians have imperial designs on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. What a stark contradiction that the United States, which championed Kosovo's independence from Serbia, now is ignoring Georgia's invasion of its ethnically rebellious provinces.

For McCain to so fervently embrace Scheunemann's neoconservative line of demonizing Russia in the interest of appearing tough during an election is a reminder that a senator can be old and yet wildly irresponsible."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080818/scheer2/print

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 09:20 PM

The term "New World Order" has been in use since the very lat 1800s.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Stu
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 03:58 AM

That is chilling Carol C . . .

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 05:36 AM

Yes Carol. Your best post yet.

And if it is true it must be made available to the public as it shows McCain to be a danger to America and the world.

We said of Sakashvilli "what the hell did he think he was doing" and described him as reckless.

But for a potential leader of the USA to behave like that is reprehensible beyond my vocabulary's ability to express.

America, you must do everything you can to stop this guy getting into office.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Stu
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 09:09 AM

"And if it is true it must be made available to the public as it shows McCain to be a danger to America and the world."

Considering the man was tortured and now condones the use of torture as a legitimate method of gathering intelligence, you'd hope the message might have got through already.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 09:21 AM

Playing chicken with a serious nuclear power for the sake of a few votes puts all that in the shade.

Damn - it really is the battle of Chicken Valley.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 12:37 PM

If that is their strategy, it seems to be working. No surprise there, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 12:41 PM

Heh. I guest that would make it "wag the dog" by proxy.


What is the battle of Chicken Valley?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 01:04 PM

Chicken Valley - Tshkinvali

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 07:57 PM

So, what does South Ossetia look like now that it is "independent"?


"It has largely stood empty since nearly all of Tskhinvali's 2,000 Jews fled in 1991 during a war in which South Ossetians won de facto self rule, although the building is occasionally used by a Christian group.

All but 17 of South Ossetia's Jews left during the earlier conflict, mostly going to Israel or Russia, and all but one of those fled during the recent war, the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee says. The one remaining Jew, a 71-year-old woman, apparently sought shelter elsewhere."



"Before the conflict, the province was a patchwork of ethnic Georgian and South Ossetian villages, but many Georgian villages around Tskhnivali were still burning Friday and bore evidence of looting by Ossetians.

Many Ossetians said they would never again live side by side with Georgians. "




Juden AND Georgian frei...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 08:19 PM

Interesting perspective bruce.

I would never have considered the possibility that there was an anti semitic motive behind these events.

I can't help but find the McCain/Scheunemann scenario to be the more compelling of the two theories.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 08:37 PM

McCain acted irresponsibly in blowin' smoke up Saakashvili's butt about how the US was gonna protect poor little Georgia against the mean ol' Ruskies...

McCain shoule be tried as an accomplioce to war crimes right along side of Saakashvili...

Period...

End of stupidity and Cold War crap outta McCain...

And for the record, I am not, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be, a Georgian, thank you... That was more McCain smoke being blown up the butts of the Anmerican people...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 09:26 PM

People often flee from places where there is war happening. Many Ossets have fled from South Ossetia because of Georgia's attack there.

The fact that Jews fled from the earlier conflict is not an indication that they did so because of anti-Semitism, although I guess it might be tempting for some people to try to make it look like they did.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 09:27 PM

From Wikipedia -

The Georgian Jews have traditionally lived separately, not only from the surrounding Georgian people, but even from the Ashkenazi ("European or Germanic Jews") community in Tbilisi.

The community, which numbered about 100,000 as recently as the 1970s, has largely emigrated to Israel, the United States, the Russian Federation and Belgium.
As of 2004, only about 13,000 Georgian Jews remain in Georgia. According to the 2002 First General National Census of Georgia there are 3,541 Jewish believers in the country.

Just a few Jewish families remained in the old Jewish quarter of Tskhinvali where the recent Georgian bombardment seems to have been particulary heavy; several blocks of one- and two-storey homes were said to have been totally destroyed by bombing by Reuters reporters.
All but one of those Jewish residents fled during the recent war, the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee says. The one remaining Jew, a 71-year-old woman, apparently sought shelter

A a century-old brick empty synagogue provided a safe shelter for about 50 people, mostly women and children and several elderly men, not so fortunate on Tskhinvali's Shaumian Street.
Limited to the few supplies they brought with them, the refugees endured excruciating thirst and hunger while agonizing over the sounds of war outside, but all survived.

About a block away, a line of houses was reduced to splinters and cinders by rocket fire. A rocket exploded in the synagogue's yard, shattering some windows but leaving the structure intact.'
- Associated Press

Despite the strong condemnation of the Georgian assault on South Ossetia by the president of the World Congress of Russian Jews, Boris Shpigel, there does not seem to be any evidence of antisemitism in this internal seperatist stuggle.


'LSO conductor Valery Gergiev leads pro-Russia concert in Ossetia'

Gergiev -- who grew up in the neighboring Russian region of North Ossetia -- visited the devastated Jewish Quarter of South Ossetia's capital, Tskhinvali, before conducting a special concert on the town's central square.

'The program was specially designed to combine pomp, grandeur and defiance with pathos and grief.

Shostakovich's Leningrad Symphony, written on the orders of Stalin to rouse Russians against the Nazi invasions, was followed by the delicate strains of Tchaikovsky's Pathetique symphony.

Russian soldiers perched on the top of armoured personnel carriers, straining for a better view, as Orthodox priests, Jewish rabbis and even an imam passed through the audience granting benedictions to a self-proclaimed nation united in victory.'

Telegraph.co.uk 22 Aug 2008

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 09:29 PM

And by the way, Georgians have been conducting massacres of Ossets for hundreds of years. So I think the Ossets have a good reason to not want to live with them.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 09:56 PM

"The Georgian Jews have traditionally lived separately..."


                Probably not a good idea!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 11:29 PM

"How else to explain the folly....?"

Actually the simplest answer seems the most likely. Just pure stupidity on the part of Saakashvili. He didn't think about the likelihood that Russia would not only throw enough military weight into the crisis that the Georgians would have no chance, but would also take advantage of the situation to strengthen the breakaway provinces in their separation from Georgia.

No conspiracy theory needed.   Why oh why are so many Mudcatters so enamored of conspiracy theories?

This one sounds like classic post hoc propter hoc.

That won't wash. We need some actual evidence. If Saakashvili himself has said something about an agreement for US backup against Russia in his move against South Ossetia, that would be something concrete. So let's have some direct quotes--if they exist.

Everything I've read indicates the US constantly cautioned him against his attack--and he ignored the advice.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 11:38 PM

"Conspiracy theory" is a nice ad hominem sort of attack to lob at people, but more often than not it has no substance or merit.

Anyone who thinks that there are never conspiracies behind major world events (or who even think they are unusual) is not very observant.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 11:45 PM

Fine, Carol. Now let's have some evidence. I have patience, and I'll be glad to wait for you.

I don't deny conspiracies exist. The most obvious one is Bush's conspiracy to hoodwink the US public into his planned attack on Iraq. But for that one, there is evidence, to say the least.

So far, for this one, nobody has provided any evidence.

You do know about post hoc propter hoc, I trust.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 02:59 AM

The Vietnam war was a conspiracy on a grand scale (Gulf of Tonkin, and the Pentagon Papers are my evidence for this). We didn't have proof of the conspiracy until many years later. Many people suspected there was a conspiracy involved and they talked about it in much the same way we are discussing the possibility of one here in this thread. The people who discussed the possibility that there was a conspiracy behind the Vietnam war were not conspiracy theorists. The people in this thread who are discussing the possibility that there is a conspiracy behind Saakashvili's decision to attack and invade South Ossetia are also not conspiracy theorists.

So far, people have only suggested the possibility of a conspiracy, and they've shown their reasons for considering it a possibility (in my case, I only posted articles that I felt contained some interesting possibilities, and they provide their own justifications for the things they postulate). When they (we) get to the point where we are stating it, not as a possibility, but as a fact, that's when people can start demanding proof.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 08:18 AM

A request for evidence is always a reasonable idea at any part in a discussion. Unless of course the goal is just to let off steam or run off at the mouth.

I've made my views on the war in Georgia pretty clear--that Saakashvili always planned to drag South Ossetia and Abkhazia back into the fold against their wills--that was virtually a campaign promise -- and that US politicians who are trying to act tough by condemning Russia's opposition to this are pathetic individuals--and basically the anti-TR---since there's virtually nothing the US can do to stop Russia from supporting South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Also that said US politicians are just pandering to the rather large number of Americans who like to shake their fists at foreigners.

I also hold no brief for McCain. He's been dead wrong on Iraq from the start--the problems in Iraq are still there and at some point it is still likely to break up. Also he is using his tough-guy image to appeal to the same jingoists mentioned above.

None of this excuses those of us on the other side from actually thinking and insisting on evidence, rather than excusing a temporary setback for us by a conspiracy theory which so far appears to be the imaginative meanderings of a columnist.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 09:39 AM

Here's a conspiracy theory:

1. The US knew Russia was pissed about what's happened in Kosovo (and who could blame them?)

2. The US wanted to plant missile bases in Poland

3. The US leaked information to Saakashvili to lead him to believe that if he moved on South Ossetia, the US would do whatever it takes to back him up--after all, look how Kosovo has gone so far.

4. Saakashvili moves into South Ossetia with confidence in the information from the US.

5. Suddenly, the US develops amnesia

6. Russia moves and Poland panics, and agrees to the US missle bases.


          Everybody got what they wanted but Saakashvili, but maybe he could be indicted for war crimes or something, to shut him up and make him go away.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 01:34 PM

Evidence is only needed when one is saying that something is fact, or making an argument for or against something. Opinion and speculation do not need evidence. If someone feels that he or she has a right to dictate how other people discuss their opinions and speculations, that person has an unhealthy need to control others.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 01:54 PM

Well, one thing for sure, rigs, is that blow-hard McCain certinly gave the Georgians every reason to think that the US had their back... That is not a conspiracy theory... That is fact, down to hiring their lobbiest to advise him on Georgia affairs...

Then the "We are all Georgians" proclamation cemented it...

Problem is that this is the way McCain really thinks and that is why he is for re-establishing the draft... so he can keep muti-wars going forever... McCain is the poster boy for the neocon movement...

War, war and more war... Can't get enough war... That is the only paradyme that the man understands...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 02:05 PM

Frankly, while I see him as a strong militant, I don't see McCain as a "neocon." Maybe the word means something different to me.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 02:40 PM

Before 2000, I didn't see him as a neocon, either. But he has been toeing the neocon line since 2000, and he's got neocons pretty high up on his staff.

McCain said in his autobiography that he didn't decide to run for president because he wanted to make a difference. He said he decided to run for president because one day he simply got the ambition to be president. If someone simply has an ambition to become president, and they're not doing it out of concern for the issues, getting the neocons to back them has proven in the past to be a very good way to get elected. In order to get the neocons to back you, it's necessary to help them implement their agenda.

The neocon agenda is global hegemony for the US and Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 04:00 PM

Latest is that the Russians are to leave a force in Poti the main port in Georgia, probably to stop the Americans rearming the Georgians.

My My.....the biter bit indeed.
As i said earlier, the balance of power is shifting and instead of laying blame, we should be pondering on how this shift is going to affect us......and it will.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 04:05 PM

Personally, I don't like my country being the world's hegemon. It's not a good thing for anyone, in my opinion. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And the government of this country is absolutely corrupt.

This shift in the balance of power doesn't have to be a problem for us if we handle it properly.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 04:43 PM

Problem is Carol, that we are governed by madmen.

As Medvedev said, "You know the difference between lunatics and normal people is that when they smell blood it is very difficult to stop them,"

Our lunatics will never stop 'till the whole world lies in ruins.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 04:58 PM

Madmen and criminals. But I still see a possibility for some hope.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 05:50 PM

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely

So does weakness.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 06:45 PM

Depends on how "weakness" is defined.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 06:48 PM

Lunatics - and sharks?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 08:14 PM

"The neocon agenda is global hegemony for the US and Israel."


                I would define it a global hegemony for Israel through the US.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 08:40 PM

Horseshit.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 09:02 PM

From the NY Post. Read it and fuckin' weep.


U.S. JEW HATERS
15 PERCENT ARE ANTI-SEMITIC
By NEIL GRAVES


November 2, 2007

Nearly 35 million American adults - 15 percent - hold views consistent with making them anti-Semitic, according to a survey released yesterday.

The Anti-Defamation League survey, conducted from between Oct. 6 and 19, also showed that 31 percent of Americans believe that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to America, and just over a quarter - 27 percent - believe that Jews were responsible for the death of Christ.

The survey showed that the nearly 35 million adults Americans who held views making them "unquestionably anti-Semitic" increased the rating 1 percentage point from the 14 percent of the 2005 survey.

In 1998, the number of Americans with hard-core anti-Semitic beliefs was as low as 12 percent.

However, the survey found that some stereotypes die hard. It said 27 percent of adult Americans still believe Jews were responsible for the death of Christ, down from 30 percent in 2005 but up from 25 percent in 2002.

It also said 15 percent believe Jews have "too much power in the U.S." - unchanged from 2005.

But what really riled Abraham Foxman, executive director of the ADL, was the 31 percent who believe Jews are more loyal to Israel than America, down from 33 percent in 2005 - but not enough, he says.

"Since we started the survey 40 years ago, that is one question that has never budged - one in three continue to say that," he said.

"This is very sinister. It is a classic anti-Semitic canard. They used it on Dreyfus in France, and Hitler used it. It is very serious."

On the other hand, Jews received high marks in questions that related to ethics and family.

Seventy-five percent said they believe that Jews provided an "emphasis on the importance of family life," 65 percent said that they "contributed much to the cultural life of America," and 55 percent said that Jews provided a "special commitment to social justice and civil rights."

In addition, the survey showed men are more likely than women to hold anti-Semitic views, particularly unmarried men without a college degree.

Foxman said that compared to Europe, the United States is a bastion of tolerance. In a survey earlier this year, half of the Europeans said they believe Jews are not loyal to their home nation.

neil.graves (at) nypost.com

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 09:18 PM

And that relates to the discussion how?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 09:23 PM

"The neocon agenda is global hegemony for the US and Israel."


I would define it a global hegemony for Israel through the US.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 09:24 PM

And what the fuck does that have to do with a war in Georgia?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 09:53 PM

A lot of people in Israel (I'm talking about regular civilians and not members of the government) feel like the US is using Israel to accomplish its agenda more than the other way around. I don't have an opinion on which country is using the other more myself, but there are people in both countries who perceive the other country to be the one who is pulling the strings. Maybe it's some of both. Either way, the agendas of the governments of both countries are so much in lock step that it probably doesn't really matter all that much in the long run.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 11:11 PM

"And what the fuck does that have to do with a war in Georgia?"


                  It doesn't. I was simply responding to something somebody else posted. But please keep in mind, I was responding to the world the way I thought "neocons" understood it. Not the average American citizen. Paul Wolfowitz and Richar Perle come to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 12:40 AM

I think it might be productive to look at the whole question of loyalties from an entirely different angle, anyway.

To me it looks like what we have now is more like a franchise operation. The US, the UK, some of the former Soviet satellite countries, and Israel, all being franchises of a larger enterprise (an emerging global empire), and that the loyalties of those in power are to the larger enterprise rather than to their own individual countries. Of course, they no doubt think that what is good for the larger enterprise is also good for their own countries, so they probably don't see their loyalties as being divided at all. Others of us might tend to see things differently, because we see an inherent conflict between what's good for our own country and what the neocons think is good for the world.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 12:44 AM

This is not at all about countries, imo. It is about rich people controlling economies. It is not specific to "The US, the UK, some of the former Soviet satellite countries, and Israel,". I would add citizens of China, Japan, the various oil countries: Qatar, Saudi Arabia and others. It is about money, about control.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 01:19 AM

It's definitely about control. But the neocons in the countries I mentioned are working together on a collective goal that many of the citizens of their respective countries see as not being in their best interests. This is true for people in the US, the UK, and also in Israel. And now, I think that some of the people in some of the former Soviet satellite countries may be starting to see it as not being in their best interests either. And that is going to have a tendency to look to the ordinary citizens of those countries as being divided loyalties on the part of their leaders.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 01:46 AM

Read this link, Carol.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 02:00 AM

As a btw, I think that is the most important research on the www regarding the neocons and 'how' the agenda is being accomplished.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 02:28 AM

This bit right here from that link gives me some pause...

The historical record does not support that position to any large degree but it has become the mantra of the socialist left and their cronies, the media.

If he thinks the media is a crony of the left, I think he's a seriously deluded person.


However, I don't disagree that there is certainly a group (or a collective of groups perhaps) that is pushing an agenda for global governance (and not a democratic type of global governance, either). But it looks to me like some countries are not a part of that agenda, and that in fact, some of them are resisting that agenda. Russia being one of those countries. Others being Iran, Venezuela, China, Cuba, North Korea and possibly Syria (there may be others as well, but they're not in the news right now).

It's because these countries are resisting being absorbed into the new world order that they are the subject of so much bellicose rhetoric from the governments of countries like the US, and also that the government of the US, with the help of its cronies, is arranging to try to break these countries up and/or dispose of their governments.

Which brings us back to what's been going on between the Russians and the Georgians, and the way the US has involved itself in that dispute.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 05:59 AM

From akenaton:

"Our lunatics will never stop 'till the whole world lies in ruins."

Our lunatics will never stop if we deliberately choose *not* to stop them.


"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 08:11 AM

I'm not sure how it relates to the War in Georgia, but I would agree that there are people out there who think that they can direct the course of the world simply by controlling capital. I think this has been demonstrated on a number of occasions, by directing funds from the World Bank or the International Monitary Fund. They seem to think that by gaining complete control of the world's capital, they can make world populations do whatever they want it to do.
                  It remains to be seen if these are just a few wing-nuts, are an orchestraded group of powerful players.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 10:52 AM

Good to know, Carol, that you never make an argument for or against anything. Since you obviously don't feel evidence is necessary. That of course might raise the question as to why it would be worth discussing anything with you. But I'm sure you have a good answer for that.

Naive Mudcatters like me actually always hope to learn something when we read posts. And without actual evidence it's hard to see what we might learn. Otherwise BS threads--at least political ones-- tend toward the waste of time category.

Maybe naive Mudcatters like me will finally learn that.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 11:51 AM

It's easy to make straw men and then knock them down, as we can see in the above post. It takes effort to make a rational argument.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 03:51 PM

Just don't go confusing a rational argument with anything that has anything to do with truth or facts. For that you need to have a positive relationship with reality.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 04:13 PM

I'll keep that in mind.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 05:03 PM

Putin in the Shadow of the Red Czar
By SIMON SEBAG MONTEFIORE
London

AT the center of Gori, Georgia, where every window has been shattered and Russian T-72 tanks patrol, the marble statue of the world's most famous Georgian — Josef Stalin — stands gleamingly, almost supernaturally unharmed.

As this vicious colonial war turns into an international battle over spheres of influence, Stalin is Banquo at the feast, metaphorically present in the palaces of the Kremlin, the burning houses in the villages, the cabinets of Europe's eastern capitals.

Today, as far as Moscow is concerned, the Georgian cobbler's son and Marxist fanatic has been laundered of any traces of Georgia and Marx. He is now a Russian czar, the inspiration for the authoritarian, nationalistc and imperial strains in today's capitalistic, pragmatic, swaggering Russia. In this crisis, and in who knows how many future ones, Stalin represents empire, prestige, victory.

When Vladimir Putin presented Russian teachers with their new textbook last year, Stalin appeared as "the most successful Russian ruler of the 20th century" — Peter the Great-meets-Bismarck. Stalin, the book gushes, expanded the empire further than any Romanov and created a Russian nuclear superpower. And his killings were a tool of necessary, if excessive, discipline. Recall that when America's World War II envoy to Moscow, Averell Harriman, congratulated him on the Red Army's taking of Berlin, Stalin fired back: "Yes, but Alexander I made it to Paris." Stalin liked to sit over dinner in one of his Abkhazian villas on the Black Sea, poring over maps: "Yes, we haven't done badly."

This was quite some leap for the Iosif Dzhugashvili, born in Gori in 1878. It is hard to describe how foreign Georgia is to Russia. It has its own history as an ancient kingdom under a thousand-year dynasty, its own literature and language as different from Russian as Cantonese is from English.

During one of their earliest rows, Mr. Putin — now the prime minister, but clearly a paramount leader — supposedly told President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia, "Thanks for giving us Stalin." In other words, in today's strange re-creation of Stalin, the imperial, victorious bits are Russian; the nasty bits must be Georgian. (Oddly, both men, who despise each other, have personal links to the Soviet dictator: Mr. Putin's grandfather was his chef; Mr. Saakashvili's aristocratic grandparents hid young Stalin from the czarist secret police.)

However valid some Russian grievances over Georgia may be (and some truly are), however flawed our Western record may be (and it is flawed) and however imperfect Georgian policies were (and they were impulsive), the fact is that Russia wants to dismantle Georgia, a democratic state that is worth saving for itself but also because it is the first domino of the Near Abroad.

History offers no neat repetitions, but Russia's power gambit in the Caucasus and challenge to the post-1991 order would be entirely familiar to Stalin. After World War II, Stalin seemed at the height of his prestige after years of revolution, terror and war — just as today Mr. Putin's Russia seems muscular and resurgent after the humiliations of the 1990s. Stalin had Eastern Europe; Mr. Putin has an imperium of oil and gas. And they share the same confident swagger combined with a feeling of seething resentment toward Western hypocritical sanctimony.

It isn't just a question of spheres of influence; it's about domination. Stalin remarked that his armies would impose his political system on Eastern Europe. Likewise, Moscow's Georgian invasion aims to remove American-style democracy, replacing it with Russia's strain of managed authoritarian politics. The Kremlin, then and now, is basically against anything that we are for.

If we are returning to cold war, the Berlin Crisis is the most useful precedent. Stalin tested the West in Berlin 1948 much as Mr. Putin is doing in Georgia today. Once again, in Georgia the daunting challenge for America is to maintain and restore a fragile entity, to defend a line, without going to war. Beleaguered Georgia will need American resolve, ingenuity and daring equal to that of the Berlin Airlift if it is to be restored.

In the Caucasus, Stalin literally wrote the book on imperial-colonial control: his "Marxism and the National Problem," commissioned by Lenin in 1912. In it, Lenin and his Georgian henchman offered ersatz rights of independence to the minority peoples of the czarist empire — which they would, of course, never be permitted to exercise. The Soviet Union was designed for Muscovite rule, not for division into independent republics. Yet the latter is exactly what happened in 1991 — and the Kremlin has never accepted it.

"Daddy used to be a Georgian," Stalin's son, Vasily, once said. Actually, the dictator didn't truly become Russian; he remained Georgian culturally. Yet he embraced the imperial mission of the Russian people. He designed the Soviet Union using his knowledge of Caucasian ethnic feuds to create republics within republics, including Ossetia and Abkhazia, as Russia's Trojan horses, and they have outlived Stalin's great project.

I've spent a great deal of time in the Caucasus since 1991, having met with all three Georgian presidents, always analyzing the longstanding Russian game of undermining and controlling Georgia by Stalinist means. Russia's recent policy of encouraging rebel skirmishing in South Ossetia and offering Russian passports to its citizens was a classic trap. As colonial puppeteer and successful restorer of Russia as imperial superpower, Mr. Putin is Stalin's consummate heir.

Stalin was equally expert in annexations justified as protecting ethnic Russians — think eastern Poland, Bessarabia and the Baltics in 1939. Today's rhetoric of protecting Russian citizens is both genuine and Stalinist doublespeak: after all, some Ossetians have only been Russian citizens for a few weeks. Ukraine, on the other hand, really is half-Russian. Few in Kiev should be sleeping soundly.

While most know the young Stalin was a seminarian, few realize that he was also a Georgian patriot, a published romantic poet. (Curiously, his enemies deprecated him as Ossetian; in truth his father was of Ossetian descent but the family was long since Georgianized.) Yet he found it impossible to be both a Marxist internationalist and a Georgian nationalist. In 1904, he was accused of heresy by top Bolsheviks and made to humiliatingly renounce Georgian nationalism. Driven out of Georgia for leading bloody bank robberies, he referred to it as a "parochial swamp." In 1921, he engineered the Red Army's invasion and annexation of the newly independent Georgia. His vengeance perhaps continues.

Georgians mourned Stalin at his death. When Nikita Khrushchev denounced him in 1956, Georgians rioted. Yet today Georgia has embraced pro-Western democracy, while the Russian rehabilitation of Stalin is best illustrated by those tanks parked protectively beside the white marble temple around the humble birthplace of Iosif Dzhugashvili. This is what Vladimir Putin meant in 2005 when he said that the fall of the Soviet Union was "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century. And what the poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko meant when he warned, "Double, triple the guard in front of this tomb, / Lest Stalin should ever get out." Perhaps it's too late.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 05:53 PM

Talk about not having a good relationship with reality.

Both South Ossetia and Abkhazia have a history that precedes Stalin by many centuries.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Aug 08 - 09:42 PM

"It takes effort to make a rational argument".   Bingo.

And I'd be curious to know how somebody who is against requiring evidence plans to make a rational argument. It must demand a lot of creativity and imagination, and must be a very useful skill--especially for a politician, for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Aug 08 - 09:49 PM

Politicians rarely use evidence, look at Barack Obama!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Aug 08 - 10:26 PM

Evidence of that statement, please, Rig. Otherwise your statement also becomes a waste of time to read.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Aug 08 - 11:35 PM

He doesn't use evidence!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Aug 08 - 11:48 PM

Like I said... it's easy to create straw men and then attempt to knock them down. It's easy to put words in other peoples' mouths and make up stories about what they have said. It's not in the least bit honest to do that, but it's a lot easier than making any kind of legitimate argument.

Please show me where I ever said I "never" make and argument for or against anything. Or even that I'm against requiring evidence for my arguments. When that task is completed, I will answer the rest of it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 01:27 PM

Washington Post:

Next Steps on Georgia

As Russia violates the cease-fire it signed, there's plenty the United States can do in response.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008; Page A12

ASTREAK of defeatist thinking about Russia's continuing occupation of Georgia has had it that there is little the West can do about the crisis, first because Moscow's cooperation is needed for more important matters, such as the containment of Iran, and second because the United States and Europe lack practical means of leverage over Vladimir Putin's regime. Several days ago we addressed the first part of this canard, pointing out that the "strategic partnership" that President Bush once sought to build with Mr. Putin has been little more than an illusion. Now, with Russian troops still dug in around the Georgian port of Poti in blatant violation of a cease-fire agreement, it's becoming urgent to reexamine that second assumption about Western impotence. Fortunately, it, too, is groundless: There is, in fact, much that could be done to raise the cost of the ongoing occupation and to weaken Mr. Putin and the sinister circle around him.

The reason Russian troops are still blockading Georgia's largest port, planting mines along its railroads and stopping traffic on main road arteries is that Russia has yet to accomplish its central objectives: to depose Georgia's president and destroy Georgia's fragile democracy. The United States and its allies can still prevent that from happening, if they act quickly and energetically -- and thereby inflict an endgame defeat on Mr. Putin. Mr. Bush's order that U.S. ships and planes deliver humanitarian aid to Georgia was a good first step. But what's needed now is a large and conspicuous supply and reconstruction operation that will ensure that the Russian occupation cannot cause a collapse of the Georgian economy. Promised international observers -- which Moscow agreed to -- must meanwhile be deployed as quickly as possible, to keep Russian forces from staging provocations that might lead to further fighting.


The Russian economy, dependent on Western investment and technology, has already suffered a sharp reversal thanks to the invasion: Foreign currency reserves plummeted this month as investors withdrew money from the country at the fastest rate since the 1998 ruble crisis. Steeped in nostalgia for the ways of the Soviet Union, Mr. Putin may be insensitive to Russia's vulnerability to the pressures the U.S. Treasury can apply in 21st-century capital markets. But the corrupt circle of oligarchs around him, who have deposited billions in Western banks and bought up mansions and soccer teams, could quickly and legitimately be squeezed. There is certainly no reason why U.S. and international agencies should not vigorously pursue the numerous allegations of corrupt practices by Russian firms. If Kremlin-connected companies violate Georgian or international law through their actions in the occupied provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, their assets -- gas stations in the United States, for example -- could be subject to seizure.

The Bush administration, we're told, is planning to withdraw a nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia from Congress. It retains the options of abrogating the bilateral U.S.-Russian agreement needed for Moscow's membership in the World Trade Organization and suspending negotiations on arms control. If Mr. Putin does not comply with the cease-fire agreement in the coming days, such bilateral sanctions will be needed. In the meantime, the administration should be working hard to ensure that Georgia's government and economy emerge stronger from the crisis -- and that Russia realizes it will only be weakened by its continuing occupation of a neighboring nation.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 03:50 PM

'KHETAGUROVO, South Ossetia (Reuters) - Georgian troops arrived Khetagurovo on August 8 in a storm of steel and bullets, killing eight people and badly damaging the village of ethnic South Ossetians.

When they left two days later, harried by the Russian forces that crushed Tbilisi's bid to restore control over its breakaway region, locals say their took four prisoners with them and forfeited any chance of reconciliation.

Passions were still running high when Thomas Hammarberg, a European human rights official, arrived in the village on Sunday to witness the release of two Georgian tank crew as a goodwill gesture by the Ossetian authorities.

"Why are you releasing these bloody Georgians if they don't release my husband who is held hostage there?," village book keeper Rita Bestayeva shouted at Hammarberg, the Council of Europe's Human Rights Commissioner.

Russian soldiers held angry villagers at bay as the two Georgian servicemen -- captured when Russian troops retook the village -- were whisked away in a car in the direction of Georgia, a gesture Hammarberg said he would use his influence to push Tbilisi to reciprocate.

"I know that it is very difficult for people in this village to accept that those two prisoners have been released," he told reporters during a break in the visit, which was closely chaperoned by the Russian military.

"I respect their reactions but I am convinced that this is a way to secure that those people missing from this village come back as soon as possible," he said.

What remains of Khetagurovo, set in the hills of South Ossetia amid orchards and vineyards, bears the marks of war and the buildings still standing are pockmarked with shrapnel and bullets.

The conflict has left a lasting legacy in the minds of those like pensioner Yuza Khasiyeva, who saw one neighbor lying in his courtyard killed by a shrapnel head wound and another elderly resident lying dead.

The village is surrounded by a ring of ethnic Georgian villages inside South Ossetia, but asked if the two communities could live together after the latest conflict, she snorted:

"Are you mad? It's better to die than live with them."

"My grandparents told me that in the 1920s they were already killing us, so what we see now is already a third wave of their terror against the Ossetians."

Ossetians say they were a target of ethnic cleansing in the years of Georgia's short-lived independence after the collapse of the Russian empire in 1917. They backed Russia's Bolshevik rulers when they moved to retake Georgia in the early 1920s.

The region broke from central Georgian control in the early 1990s with the breakup of the Soviet Union, and book-keeper Bestayeva agreed reunification was now out of the question.

"There can't even be any talk of it. This is the third wave of genocide. Enough is enough."

Hammarberg's convoy drove through destroyed ethnic Georgian villages but did not stop in the largely deserted settlements.

"What I can see here now is the result of the madness of war," Hammarberg told reporters after surveying the damage to the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali earlier.

"What happened here, a couple of weeks ago, shall never be repeated because this is an insult to people's human rights," he said after being shown around the so-called Jewish Quarter, a section of the town damaged by Georgian shelling.

In Khetagurovo, housewife Ofelia Dzhanyeva said she had lost her brother during the war in the early 1990s when South Ossetia threw off Georgian control, and after the latest conflict nothing would induce Ossetians to accept Tbilisi's rule.

"None of the Ossetians is even thinking of reconciliation with Georgia now," she said. "In 1991 our children turned into refugees. Now they have grown up to defend their homeland."'

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Georgia/idUSLO45165720080824?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0



'Congratulations to Timothy Giannuzzi. He has provided the most even-handed and insightful commentary on the Georgian crisis I have read so far. President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia was indeed "monumentally foolish" in invading South Ossetia. The media and western governments have avoided trying to justify Saakashvili's action.

At the heart of the matter is Russia's fear of being isolated by NATO. As NATO grows in strength, so does Russian paranoia. Russia is understandably upset at Poland agreeing to host part of a U.S. missile defence system. Let's be fair. How would the U.S. react if Cuba agreed to host a Russian missile defence system?

In 1943, I was one year old when my parents fled from the Soviet invasion of Estonia, so I am particularly sensitive to maintaining peace along the Russian periphery. Sabre-rattling is not the answer. Russia has been invaded many times and has always shown extraordinary determination and courage when tested to the limit. If you want to convert this generally amiable "bear" into a fierce beast, corner it and make it feel threatened. The better approach would be to treat the Russians with the respect they are due, seek compromise and try to understand why history has made them what they are.'

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/letters/story.html?id=95de5b1a-8663-4c93-8068-c82f8a3ec2cf

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 05:13 PM

thank you for your various extensive history of Georgia that you took the time to post here.

You may rest assured now that Cindy McCain is being dispatched to Georgia in order to acess the situation of the survivors and casualties.
Dick Cheney is soon to follow.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 09:56 PM

"Opinion and speculation do not need evidence". No problem. As long as all parties realize that the Scheuneman theory as of now, is totally baseless---since no evidence has been provided. It's just somewhat amazing how many people seem eager to salute the article cited as a wonderful brilliant explanation--when, so far there are precisely zero facts to support it.

It is in fact a conspiracy theory--as is recognized even by the author--who even acknowledges the idea is "diabolical". To call it a conspiracy theory is only offensive to somebody so supersensitive as to read "ad hominem" into any criticism, even obviously justified.

And, as noted earlier, opinion and speculation--with the caveat that no evidence is required--mean that anybody trying to actually learn something about the topic is wasting time.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 09:59 PM

"He doesn't use evidence". Examples please. Or is this remark another great special straight off the shelves of Smears R Us?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 11:45 PM

I reiterate:

Please show me where I ever said I "never" make an argument for or against anything. Or even that I'm against requiring evidence for my arguments. Or perhaps it won't be possible to do that since the accusation that I said that was a complete fabrication in the first place.


It astonishes me that I would need to explain this to a fully grown adult, and an educated one, no less...


spec·u·late --

a: to meditate on or ponder a subject : reflect b: to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively


opin·ion --

1 a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b: approval, esteem2 a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b: a generally held view


ar·gu·ment --

a: a reason given in proof or rebuttal b: discourse intended to persuade

http://www.merriam-webster.com/


Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 01:34 PM

Evidence is only needed when one is saying that something is fact, or making an argument for or against something. Opinion and speculation do not need evidence. If someone feels that he or she has a right to dictate how other people discuss their opinions and speculations, that person has an unhealthy need to control others.


As we can see, I said that evidence is not needed for opinion and speculation. This is because one of the reasons people are speculating and stating opinions on the subject in question (instead of making arguments about it one way or another) is because there aren't enough facts available to make an argument. If there was enough evidence for to make an argument, people would be making an argument instead of speculating and/or offering opinions.

In my case, however, I didn't do any of these three. All I did was post an article that I found interesting, which is another thing altogether.

However, any observant person who has taken any time at all to read any of my posting history knows that I have no problem with making arguments when I feel I have enough facts available to me to do so, and that I do so regularly.

So I would suggest spending some time learning the difference between speculation, opinion, and argument, and then learning how to discern when people are doing one or the other of these things (or none of them).

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 11:50 PM

And by the way, I notice the person who has been calling the speculation about the article I posted "conspiracy theory" hasn't offered even one shred of evidence that the article isn't true.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 12:03 AM

Ron Davis seems to be playing his own version of the Monty Python argument sketch. Or is it the cheese shop?

I keep expecting him to say him to say he's been deliberately wasting our time. :-D

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 12:16 AM

"And, as noted earlier, opinion and speculation--with the caveat that no evidence is required--mean that anybody trying to actually learn something about the topic is wasting time."


                      No edivence!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 05:35 PM

He is wasting your time, Jack. But I don't think it's deliberate. He just can't help himself. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 04:31 PM

Not to worry, O'bama is going to fix it according to Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 05:30 PM

Most of world population does NOT support Russia in Georgia:



Asian alliance rebuffs Russian plea for support

By OLGA TUTUBALINA and PETER LEONARD, Associated Press Writers
Thu Aug 28, 2:26 PM ET



DUSHANBE, Tajikistan - China and several Central Asian nations rebuffed Russia's hopes of international support for its actions in Georgia, issuing a statement Thursday denouncing the use of force and calling for the respect of every country's territorial integrity.

A joint declaration from the six-member Shanghai Cooperation Organization also offered some support for Russia's "active role in promoting peace" following a cease-fire, but overall it appeared to increase Moscow's international isolation.

Russia's search for support in Asia had raised fears that the alliance would turn the furor over Georgia into a broader confrontation between East and West, pitting the U.S. and Europe against their two main Cold War foes.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev had appealed to the Asian alliance, which is made up of China, Russia and four ex-Soviet Central Asian nations, for unanimous support of Moscow's response to Georgia's "aggression."

But the alliance, which was created in 2001 to improve regional coordination on terrorism and border security, opted to take a neutral position and urged all sides to resolve the conflict through "peaceful dialogue."

"The participants ... underscore the need for respect of the historical and cultural traditions of each country and each people, and for efforts aimed at preserving the unity of the state and its territorial integrity," the alliance's statement said.

None of the other alliance members joined Russia in recognizing the independence claims of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 07:49 PM

Putin is now saying that the Bush administration provoked the war in order to benefit McCain in the election.

             If that's true--and that's a really big if--then the Bush administration is responsible for Obama choosing Biden.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 07:59 PM

Well, be he innocent or insolent, Putin is claiming that he has evidence that American personnel were involved in the Georgian attack on South Ossetia.

He is saying in unambiguous terms that there seems to be some kind of link in his view between this crisis and McCains attempts to get himself elected.

Why the implicit interest in th US election?

Is Obama a commie? (... don't bite ... okay ...)

Which government will be first to collapse under the pressure?

Sakashvilli?

Putin (medvedev)?

or McCain Bush and Son?

What does Putin gain by making this accusation?

And if Obama wins - does that mean Putin works with a US government he trusts?

Why is putin saying what he is saying?

If it's just about power, expansion and anti american posturing, then why the apparent endorsement of Obama?

My mind boggles trying to understand where Putin is coming from.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 08:05 PM

He says this to warn and intimidate that his mafia like control of the movement of Oil is critical to him.

He is sabre rattling to prevent any intervention to Russias OIL TRADE route to Europe.

70,000 barrels flow through Georgia until the only railroad bridge blew up mysteriously and the pipeline terminal that statrs in Turkey and goes through Georgia also exploded.

Russia can hold Europe energy hostage with control of every path that oil and gas take to get there.

He threatens to mobilize troops to Poland if the US unilaterally keeps sending missles to within 90 miles of Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 08:05 PM

I forgot to add ...

... and what evidence is he talking about?

We in the west, especially American voters, need to see it.

Such claims require the production of evidence.

He's made the claim now so there's no turning back or holding back left.

... I'll be keeping my eyes open ...



here's the BBC link.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 08:51 PM

Well folks can we all stand back and take a good look at how things unfolded. Here is the time line:

August, 01

* 08:00 A van carrying six Georgian policemen was blown up by Osettian separatists near Eredvi-Kheti north from Tshinvali on the by-pass road connecting mainland Georgia with Didi-Liahvi valley populated by Georgians. Five out of six policemen were severely wounded. The government of Georgia decided not to hunt the culprits in order not to escalate the situation.

August, 02

*Six civilians and a policemen were wounded by light arms fire from the territory of South Osettia controlled by Russian peacekeepers. This shooting followed the night artillery shelling of Georgian villages inside South Osettia.

*Later that day the Georgian villages Zemo Nikozi, Kvemo NikoziNuli, Avneri, Eredvi and Ergneti got under heavy mortar fire from the Osettian separatists. At first Georgian policemen were shooting back, but then held fire after the order from Tbilisi aimed not to escalate the situation.

August, 03
*In all the Russian media the massive anti-Georgian propaganda has been launched.

*12:00 The separatist government of South Osettia announced evacuation of more than 500 residents including 400 children.

*13:00 The separatist government appealed to volunteers across the whole Russian North Caucasus to mobilize.

August, 04-05

*During two days the Georgian villages were under constant fire from the separatist territories controlled by Russians.

August, 06
*16:00 The separatists rejected the Georgian offer of negotiations and refused to meet with the Georgian special secretary T. Yakobashvili who arrived in Tshinvali for finding a solution for the conflict.

* Later on the Georgian main national TV channel Mr. Yakobashvili announced that the Georgian government was seeking direct negotiations with the separatist authorities in order to tackle the violence in the region and avoid the escalation of the conflict. The separatists refused to negotiate again.

*20:00 The separatists started mortar fire on Georgian villages Eredvi, Prizi, Amneri, Dvani and Nuli. Trying to defend lives of civilians, Georgians returned fire. As the result of whole night heavy cross fire, two soldiers from the Georgian battalion of Joint Peacekeeping Forces were wounded. The separatists reported of their wounded too.

*Despite provocative attacks on civilians, policemen and Georgian peacekeepers, the Georgian government decided not to use heavy artillery in order to avoid casualties among civilians.

August, 07

*09:00 In his interview to Russian media agencies, the leader of separatists E. Kokoity vowed that all the Georgian soldiers who do not leave the territory of the South Osettia would be "cleansed out". The mentioned soldiers were the Georgian peacekeepers legally deployed in South Osettia alongside Russian peacekeepers.

*09:45. A Russian jet bombed the Georgian radar near village Shavshvebi, about 30 km (20 miles) from South Osettia inside proper Georgia.

*15:00. The separatists again refused to negotiate with the Georgian special secretary T. Yakobashvili, who again arrived in Tshinvali for negotiations. .

*16:00. The separatists resumed shelling of Georgian villages Nuli and Avneri.
* Three Georgian soldiers wounded after separatist attack on their armoured carrier, two of the attackers killed and two severely wounded.

* Later the Georgian checkpoint at Avneri was bombed causing several servicemen and civilians dead.

*18:30. Trying to lessen the tension

Now August 7th was when Georgia was supposed to have unleashed this terrible (unprovoked) assault on the completely innocent population of South Ossetia. Everybody please note that at this stage nothing, absolutely nothing had happened with regard to Abkhazia.

Now let's see exactly what unfolded, remembering of course that both South Ossetia and Abkhazia were integral parts of Georgia as ceeded by the former Soviet Union as being parts of the independent state of Georgia. Hey folks please note none of these folks ever bothered disputing their "claim" to independence while the good ol' communists were in charge of things - any explanations for that Ake? I mean life must have been so great under the red flag and the inspiring message of universal communist brotherhood - off course they did not dispute their claim to independence then mainly due to the fact that if they had they would have been massacred in toto. Doubt that people and "fellow travellers" - then tell me me exactly why there is not an independent Chechnya, Dagetstan and Moldova - Tell you why apologists for totally unjustified, naked aggression - that would actually harm the modern day "Soviet" Russia.

Simple statement to who ever wins the next Presidential Election in the United States of America - Put Putin in his place or else you internationally are going to be toast.

PS Yanks being top dog is not a popularity contest.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 09:11 PM

Well putin needs to give us evidence now.

His reputation and the credibility of the pro Russian perspective seems to ride on it.

Russias timing has been at least opportune. The attack on Georgia during the olympic opening ceremony ...

... and then this ... an attack on McCain on the night when Obama triumphantly takes his place as the Democratic candidate.

And how does it affect the election?

Does it make people question McCain?

Or does it make Obama look like he's got Putin in his camp?

Who looks sleazier?

Is it all just a big taunt?

Evidence please Vladimir.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 09:23 PM

I'd like to see some documentation for that timeline. I can't find it anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 09:24 PM

The US withdrew from the ABM treaty and since that time has been doing other things that Russia quite correctly perceives as a threat to it's national security. I think any questions about Russia's motives need to be viewed in light of these facts.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 09:37 PM

"He is saying in unambiguous terms that there seems to be some kind of link in his view between this crisis and McCains attempts to get himself elected."

                   Call it unambiguous, but I didn't hear McCain's name mentioned, only that it involved the course of the American election. That could mean a number of things, like Obama having to take a more militant position in the election.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 12:03 AM

Here's a more complete timeline than the one in the above post...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 05:52 PM

On March 31, 2008 a South Ossetian police post near the village of Okona in the Znaur District was attacked by a group armed with guns and grenade launchers. Military observers from the Joint Peacekeeping Force and the OSCE mission established that the shots were fired from an area controlled by Georgia. Two days before the shooting, Georgian police task force and security officers dressed as civilians had been seen in the vicinity.

On April 2 another armed group fired automatic weapons at a South Ossetian Defense Ministry checkpoint near the village of Andzi-si. The servicemen at the checkpoint did not return fire.

A total of 56 incidents of ceasefire violation by Georgian forces were registered by the Joint Peacekeeping Force in April 2008. Most of them involved random shooting with the purpose of fueling tension in the region.

On May 14 President of South Ossetia Eduard Kokoity said the Georgian special services were planning a terrorist attack in the territory of the self-proclaimed republic against Georgians and Georgian peacekeepers.

On May 15 Captain Vladimir Ivanov, an aide to the Joint Peacekeeping Force commander for contacts with the media, announced a planned rotation of the peacekeeping contingent in South Ossetia. Georgian media then spread information about an alleged expansion of the Russian peacekeeping contingent in the conflict zone, quoting Georgia's foreign minister. A routine rotation was described as a "provocation" and a "reckless enterprise."

On July 3 as Dmitry Sanakoyev, head of the 'alternative' Georgian-backed government of South Ossetia, was driving across the republic to Batumi to attend an international conference, his car was struck by a mine and fired at from the direction of local villages. Sanakoyev's bodyguards returned fire. The shooting went on for several minutes. Three of the guards were severely injured. Sanakoyev himself was unscathed. South Ossetian Interior Minister Mikhail Mindzayev said that the attack on Sanakoyev was orchestrated by Georgia to provide a pretext for invading the self-proclaimed republic.

On July 7 the police in Russia's Southern Federal District detained four military men from the Georgian Defense Ministry in the village of Okon, South Ossetia's Znaur District. Officials of the breakaway region of South Ossetia claimed the detained men were pursuing intelligence activities in the Tskhinvali region. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili considered the detainment a hostage situation. On July 8, the detainees were released.

On July 9, Russia's Foreign Ministry issued a statement concerning the aggravated situation in the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-Ossetian conflict zones, which said that "For the past several days, the situation in the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-South Ossetian conflict zones has intensified. The city of Tskhinvali has been shelled by the Georgian army, with victims registered among civilians. Fighters and unmanned aircraft of the Georgian Air Force have repeatedly violated the conflict territorial air zones. In a terrorist attack, a South Ossetian police officer was killed. Georgian military set up a post at a strategic site near the village of Sarabuki. Additional military equipment was moved from Georgia into the conflict zone without any coordination with the Joint Peacekeeping Forces, which was registered by military observers including by the OSCE mission in Georgia. These actions point to an open and planned aggression against South Ossetia, which is the internationally recognized side in settling the conflict."

On August 1 and 2, the tension in the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict zone was aggravated due to a massive shelling of Tskhinvali's residential districts, which led to numerous deaths among civilians, with six South Ossetians killed and 15 wounded. Georgia claimed this was a response to South Ossetia's gunfire on Georgia's territory. South Ossetia began evacuating the region's residents to North Ossetia, with 2,500 people leaving their homes during the two days after the shelling.

On August 6, South Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity said he would take "the toughest measures" toward "militants firing at the villages." Previously, the breakaway region's Defense Ministry reported that the Georgian side started sniper fire at the South Ossetian villages of Mugut and Didmukha in the Znaur District at around 12:00 p.m. According to South Ossetian sources, the Georgian special forces attempted to occupy Nul Height to gain control over the Znaur road and the South Ossetian villages located along the road. In the afternoon, it was reported that an aggressive battle was taking place at the village of Nul.

Irina Gagloyeva, head of South Ossetia's Committee for Information and the Press, told RIA Novosti that South Ossetian units had forced the Georgian military units out of Nul Height.

Georgia's Interior Ministry, however, denied the reports.

According to the South Ossetian Interior Ministry, on August 7 Georgia started ground fire and shelling of the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali from the village of Nikozi. Then, according to Tskhinvali, the shelling and shooting at the South Ossetian village of Khetagurovo was started from the Georgian village of Avnevi. About 10 people were killed and another 50 received various wounds. The Georgian media, however, reported that the South Ossetian side had been shelling the Georgian villages of Avnevi and Nuli for three hours. According to the information of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces in the conflict zone, it was the Georgian side that started firing first. Also, there were reports that Russian peacekeepers were fired on.

On August 8 Georgia started military operations in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 10:27 AM

Okay! How does any of that involve American civilians trying to stir things up?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 11:33 AM

...."unhealthy desire to control others". Gee, that's an interesting interpretation of a request for evidence to back up an off-the-wall theory. As I said, somebody is rather supersensitive about a request for facts-- which is not in fact an ad hominem attack. She might want to do some research on that term.

No, I'm not about to try to control what others post--somehow I think it might not be successful anyway--except in the lively imaginations of certain Mudcatters.   Though a bit more concern for sense and logic would be a welcome change.

And I'm still waiting for just an iota of evidence supporting the Scheunemann theory so many people seem to think is wonderful.   Or just possibly an admission that the theory in fact has absolutely no evidence to back it up.

As I said, I'm no fan of McCain. But I am a fan of facts and logic.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 11:45 AM

Interesting Article BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7586662.stm

Excerpt 1:
"The Russians' strongest argument in defence of its armed intervention is that blame for the outbreak of a shooting war is shared.

Most observers agree it is, and that Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili acted rashly or wrongly in ordering his army to bombard and take the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali.

He was wrong, too, to speak of Russia "exterminating" his nation.

But in many other ways, Russia's defence of its armed intervention has been found wanting or false.

Russia's official charges of "genocide" by Georgian forces against the South Ossetians were quickly discredited by Human Rights Watch.

Broken promises

Moscow's South Ossetian allies still claim that nearly 1,700 people died in the Georgian assault but evidence has yet to be produced."

Excerpt 2:
"Mr Medvedev argued that Russia had been forced to use force to protect its own nationals in South Ossetia.

But Russia has deliberately engineered that situation by handing out Russian passports to large numbers of local inhabitants."

Excerpt 3:
"Finally, Russia's claim that its motive in Georgia was purely humanitarian was exploded by this week's decision to recognise the independence of the two breakaway regions."

Now how long ago was it that Russia stated that it would withdraw it's troops from Georgian territory? Have they done it yet? Does anybody seriously think that they are ever going to?

This whole thing has been engineered by Russia and they have to shown that they will not be allowed to get away with it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 11:46 AM

Until someone provides any evidence that the Scheunemann scenario is false, it remain in the realm of possibility, and is therefore fair game for speculation. The only person who has advanced an actual argument on this subject is the one who is dismissing this scenario out of hand. Since arguments require facts to support them and speculations and opinions don't, the person who is making the argument that the Scheunemann scenario is false is the only one required to provide any evidence.

So far this person has not provided any evidence whatever. So we may dismiss that person's argument as having no basis in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 11:50 AM

It wasn't engineered by the Russians. Saakashvili has said all along that he was going to do precisely what he just did. He campaigned on that promise. We've been over all of that already in this thread. Some people need to learn to read threads before posting.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 11:59 AM

"This whole thing has been engineered by Russia and they have to shown that they will not be allowed to get away with it." - My opinion CarolC which I am perfectly entitled to thank you very much.

That someone campaigning to become the President and Head of State of a Nation should promise to resolve internal conflicts within the country he hopes to lead is both perfectly reasonable and understandable.

By the bye what about "right of return" to those Georgian refugees who have had to flee from both "South Ossetia" and "Abkhazia" - Population of the latter plummeted from 525,061 in 1989 to just 215,972 in 2003 damn near 200,000 Georgians fled the area, ever heard of ethnic cleansing?

Of course the whole bloody situation was engineered by the Russians, you'd have to something slightly more than bone-thick to believe anything otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 12:23 PM

If it's only an opinion, I won't try to argue with it. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. When someone prefaces an opinion with the words, "of course", it looks like the person is stating something they regard as fact, and not as opinion.

There is, of course, more than ample evidence that the US and Georgia had planned this whole thing for a long time. And it dovetails perfectly with the geostrategic goals the US has in the region. The Russians are perfectly justified in thinking that the US is working to undermine Russia's national security.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 12:28 PM

CarolC,

YOU state: "
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 12:03 AM

Here's a more complete timeline than the one in the above post..."



1. you have presented the same level of supporting evidence for your "facts" as T has. ie, NONE.

2. Since you each list numerous "facts" that are not listed by the other, you cannot claim that it is more complete. T does not make that claim- so it is up to YOU to prove your assertion.



The TWO post TOGETHER might actually provide an accurate picture of what happened, but yours alone is certainly NOT a complete report of even what the RUSSIANS are claiming.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 12:38 PM

scheunemann

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 12:40 PM

more scheunemann

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 12:42 PM

Here's another (I tried getting them onto one post but it didn't work)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 12:44 PM

last one ... I promise ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 01:08 PM

from CarolC: "Until someone provides any evidence that the Scheunemann scenario is false, it remain in the realm of possibility, and is therefore fair game for speculation."


ok. and until it is proven false, it remains in the realm of possibility that Iraq had WMD- right?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 01:40 PM

I believe that one has been proven false.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 01:42 PM

No, most of the missing material is just that- missing and un-accounted for. So I can still speculate.

If I was russia, and chose to ACT on that speculation, can I depend on your support?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 01:42 PM

On the subject of supporting documentation for my timeline as opposed to the other one - precisely. Nobody has offered any supporting documentation. If we discard mine for lack of supporting documentation, we will also need to discard the other one for the same reason.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 01:44 PM

I did not DISCARD either- but I deny that yours is "more complete" as you claim.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 01:46 PM

Comparing WMD in Iraq to whether or not the US engineered the recent war in Georgia in order to help get a Republican candidate elected is a straw man argument.

Nobody is suggesting that Russia did what it did because it believed that the US was helping Georgia attack South Ossetia in order to get the Republican candidate elected.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 01:51 PM

Better tell the Russians that.


Since they mobilized BEFORE the Georgian attack that you claim was the couse for their invasion.


You seem to think that you can present only one side, and deny that the other side exists. IF you look at both sides, you MIGHT be able to arrive at the truth. If you look at only one side, you will never find out what the truth is.

Both your and T's timelines are proabley valid- but you have to accept his if you want to have yours accepted- or show FACTUAL evidence that his is in error- at which point T can show FACTUAL evidence that yours is also in error.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 05:40 PM

Did the West miscauculate by trusting Putin?

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/World/1075763.html

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 06:29 PM

"Since they mobilized BEFORE the Georgian attack that you claim was the couse for their invasion."


                   If seems to me like it's a really big undertaking to mobilize an army. If they thought they might need to confront the Georgians, they would probably mobilize, and then call it off if it wasn't necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 06:36 PM

Russia had good reason to mobilize. Georgia was ratcheting up its attacks on South Ossetia and its violations of the previous cease fire, and the US and Israel were training and conducting military exercises with the Georgian military, as well as arming them rather massively (in proportion to the size of the country).

However, the Russians have not said that they moved into South Ossetia because the US was doing all of this in order to help the Republicans get their candidate elected. They have said they did it because of Georgia's attack on and invasion of South Ossetia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 08 - 03:54 AM

"....the US and Israel were training and conducting military exercises with the Georgian military, as well as arming them rather massively (in proportion to the size of the country)." - CarolC

A US Government source to substantiate that statement?

As far as I have seen reported US equipment and training was confined to a single battalion of the Georgian Army specifically charged with protection of the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan Pipeline.

Now that hardly seems to accord with the US and Israel arming them (Georgia) rather massively - hardly armed them at all it would seem.

One other indication into the great likelyhood that this whole thing was engineered by Russian in cahoots with the South Ossetian seperatists. As stated by BB:

"....they (The Russians) mobilized BEFORE the Georgian attack that you claim was the couse for their invasion."

South Ossetia's only source of income is derived from the collection of tolls for transit through a tunnel on the main road from the Russian border to Tblisi. In the days prior to intervention by the Russians that tunnel was packed with Russian armour and military vehicles - Russia was reacting to nothing, they knew something was going to happen because they and the South Ossetians were going to make damn sure they were going to provoke the Georgians.

From the South Ossetian point of view, you do not cut off your only source of income unless you know for certain that it is for a very short period and you know that the outcome of that temporary closure will be to your ultimate benefit.

From the Russian point of view, you have to have all your pieces in play to guarantee the outcome. Main access is via a road tunnel, the distances being talked about here are tiny, the Russians could not afford to run the risk that the Georgian Army reach the South Ossetian end of the tunnel before themselves, hence the Russian Forces involved (58th Army, I believe) could not be tucked up in their barracks and garrisons at the time Russia felt it had to react, they had to be in place inside that tunnel safely out of sight until they were called on to intervene.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 08 - 06:51 AM

Ethnic Cleansing in South Ossetia:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2646422/Russian-backed-militias-looted-and-burnt-Georgian-villages.html

Possibly CarolC will now post with regard to "Right of Return", or compensation, or demand that those responsible be brought to justice - somehow I rather doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 08 - 08:11 AM

Aw shucks it now turns out that the South Ossetians and Abkhazians (excluding the 193,919 Georgians; 31,671 Armenians and 13,181 Greeks they "ethnically cleansed" from the Georgian province sometime in between 1989 and 2003) didn't want "independence" after all - they wanted to be part of a United Russian State - How convenient for Mr Putin.

Makes "Right of return" a bit easier?

Payment of Compensation? At least the Russians have the wherewithal to pay it.

Naked land grab, pure and simple. Message should be pressed home by the world and it's dog to Russia - Not one more square centimetre, get your troops out of Georgia now and if in future you are going to issue foreign nationals with Russian Passports supply the one way airline tickets with them so that those new "Russians" can transport themselves back within the borders of Russia to live, they are that much easier to "protect" there.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Aug 08 - 08:32 AM

It's Kosovo all over again, but the other side wins this time.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Aug 08 - 11:23 AM

I'm being asked for government documentation from someone who almost never produces any documentation for their posts whatever. How rich.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 08 - 12:11 PM

As you've said elsewhere YOU don't need evidence.

So far there is absolutely nothing at all that substantiates as you have claimed that the US has "massively" equipped and armed the perfectly legitimate armed forces of Georgia.

Reality check here CarolC - You have said that they have done that please provide substantiation or retract the statement or clearly state that that is simply your opinion - but unless substantiation is provided by yourself, whatever you do do not present it as FACT.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Aug 08 - 12:41 PM

I'll provide documentation from the US government when the poster demanding this documentation provides documentation from the Russian government in support of their assertions.

I'll provide other documentation later on when I have time.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 08 - 06:29 PM

So we can take it that it is purely CarolC's opinion that the US and Israel massively armed the Georgian forces.

Truth is they didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 04:01 AM

It's not my opinion at all. I already provided documentation right here in this thread, which anyone who has actually bothered to read the thread would know. So the statement that there is absolutely nothing substantiating what I have said would appear to be another one of those "made-up facts" that I've come to expect from the poster who made the statement.


The assertion that the people who fled South Ossetia and Abkhazia were "ethnically cleansed" from those areas was also addressed previously in this thread, which anyone who could be arsed to actually read it before spouting off, would know.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 04:55 AM

"The assertion that the people who fled South Ossetia and Abkhazia were "ethnically cleansed" from those areas was also addressed previously in this thread"

Eh No it wasn't, somebody said they would get back to on it - they never did - Volgadon I believe.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 05:06 AM

No, it was definitely addressed. By me. Read the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 06:59 AM

Ah CarolC would that be your post of - 13 August:

By the way, here is some background on Abkhazia...

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11670692

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/RMOI-6BT2W3?OpenDocument

"In 1992, Abkhaz separatists and Georgian national army began a war that lasted two years, with sporadic violence continuing until 1999, displacing all ethnic groups within Abkhazia. Both militaries were responsible for targeting the other's ethnic population by burning villages and destroying buildings and farm land. According to the Soviet government census of 1989, the pre-war population in Abkhazia was 525,000, 45% of which were classified as ethnic Georgians and 18% classified as ethnic Abkhazians. Post-war Abkhazia is 80-90% ethnic Abkhazian with the rest comprised of a mixed Abkhaz-Georgian population and some 30,000 Georgians on the border who return for harvesting during times of security.

While the numbers of displaced people is controversial and disputed by both sides, some conclusions have been reached. The largest number of displaced were ethnic Georgians. In addition, between 1992 and 1993 approximately 75,000 Russians and 75,000 Armenians fled to Russia, while close to 15,000 Greeks returned to Greece after centuries in Abkhazia. Ethnic Abkhazians also became internally displaced during the prolonged conflict." - cut'n'paste from www.reliefweb.int link

"The people who fled to Russia, Albania, and Greece were not necessarily fleeing from Abkhazians. Most likely, they were simply fleeing the conflict area." - CarolC's Opinion

Pity that for balance and objectivity CarolC didn't similarly cut'n'paste the following excerpt from the economist link she provided:

"When the Soviet Union fell apart, various ethnic time-bombs planted by Stalin across the Caucasus began to go off. In August 1992 Georgia, itself in near anarchy, began a war in Abkhazia. Nominally under the rule of Eduard Shevardnadze, the country was run by nationalist warlords who recruited criminals to their armies. These troops pillaged Abkhazia, defeating the ill-armed Abkhaz. When the tide of the war turned and the Abkhaz, helped by Chechens and Russian mercenaries, stormed back, they massacred ethnic Georgians. Atrocities were committed on both sides, and some 250,000 of the pre-war Georgian inhabitants (who accounted for 45% of the total population) were forced out through ethnic cleansing. But the Abkhaz look back on the conflict as a war of independence and show little sympathy for Georgian refugees. Their mistrust of Georgia is boosted by Russia's anti-Georgian propaganda.

Russia, which fanned the conflict first by encouraging the Georgians, then backing the Abkhaz, has throughout played a highly dubious role. It claims to be an impartial peacekeeper, but it has strong vested interests. The Russians have ignored sanctions on Abkhazia meant to force the Abkhaz to take back their refugees, and have also given most Abkhaz Russian passports that let them travel abroad. With 90% of the population enlisted as "Russian citizens", watching Russian television, using Russian money and receiving Russian pensions, Abkhazia is barely autonomous. And though the Russians often talk about Kosovo as a precedent, they do not really want to see Abkhazia's independence."

From which I would put a certain emphasis on the following sentence:

"Atrocities were committed on both sides, and some 250,000 of the pre-war Georgian inhabitants (who accounted for 45% of the total population) were forced out through ethnic cleansing."

Now is Abkhazia going to be "independent" CarolC, or is it going to be incorporated into the current Russian State?

You seem to hold great regard for Referenda to decide what is what CarolC. Now with regard to South Ossetia and Abkhazia you feel as though the wishes of the population of those areas post-1991 conflict should stand, i.e. after the refugees have fled. Now in your opinion does the same thing hold good for Israel CarolC? If a Referendum was held in Israel today would you argue so vociferously for the result to stand?

Oh by the bye:

- still no substantiation or verification of the 2000+ South Ossetians killed by the Georgians (International Red Cross reportedly puts the number at 45).

- still no substantiation or verification that the armed forces of Georgia were "massively armed" by Israel and the US.

- still no sign of Russian troops withdrawing from Georgian Territory.

- And as the dust settles we find that neither South Ossetia or Abkhazia will be independent.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 08:44 AM

The UK media have already re-written history.
There is now no mention of the Georgian attack on Ossetia.
Russia has "occupied" Georgia...Russia is evil...We are squeaky clean.
Nice and black and white as usual!

This whitewashing is an attempt at face saving by the West, what fucking hypocrits we are!
Mr Putin has taught us a swift hard lesson. I only hope our leaders have learned something...Won't hold my breath tho'....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 12:02 PM

Exactly what lesson has Mr. Putin taught us Ake?

Fact Russia has invaded Georgia.

Fact Russia has annexed South Ossetia and Abkhazia, it certainly has not "liberated" them.

Land grab pure and simple, nothing else.

Mind you if their (Russia's) actions stand as precedent, my my, the Israelis have got loads of scope to finally resolve disputs relating to the West Bank, all they would seem to have to do apparently is print up a whole rake of Passports.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 12:38 PM

My stance on Israel is exactly the same as my stance on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Palestinians have a right to self-determination in the place where they've been living for many centuries, as do the South Ossetians and the Abkhazians.

I expect that the refugees who left that area would be welcomed back in again if Georgia and the world would recognize South Ossetian and Abkhazian independence (or reintegration back into Russia, if that's what they want), and would sign a non use of force agreement.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 12:46 PM

Amnesty Internationals perspective to the question of war crimes can be found here

And their synopsis of events can be found here

Amnesty is about the only source I trust implicitly.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 12:53 PM

And here's the official summary of their concerns about Georgian human rights abuses in Abkhazia and South Ossetia over the last 10-12 years.

A.I. summary

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 12:58 PM

and here's just one more on the subject of human rights abuses

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 10:17 PM

"Amnesty is about the only source I trust implicitly."


                     Trust for what?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 10:24 PM

Now, don't be cute, Rig. ;-) You know perfectly well what the poster meant.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 02:57 AM

Mr Putin has taught us to remember the geography ...both physical and political, before attempting to threaten or intimadate other nations whom we perceive to be "weak".

It can all be explained in this message Teribus!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 03:11 AM

From: akenaton - PM
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:22 PM

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 04:08 AM

Interesting article in the Times Online...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4607471.ece

Don't pick a fight you can't finish, Mr Miliband

Before making his speech on policy towards Russia in Kiev, Ukraine, later this week David Miliband would do well to ponder some wise advice from a great predecessor. Lord Salisbury, Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister in the days of the British Empire, dispensed immense global power; but that did not mean that he liked playing about with that power.

Faced with proposals for British policy that he understood to be deeply damaging to the interests of other great powers, Salisbury would look his colleagues in the eye and ask simply: "Are you really prepared to fight? If not, do not embark on this policy."

If the events of the past fortnight in Georgia have demonstrated one thing clearly, it is that Russia will fight if it feels its vital interests under attack in the former Soviet Union - and that the West will not, and indeed cannot, given its conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Other Western threats are equally empty. Russia itself pulled out of co-operation with Nato. If a real threat is made of expulsion from the G8, Russia will leave that organisation too - especially since a club that does not include China and India is increasingly meaningless anyway. The threat of being barred from joining the World Trade Organisation is a bit stronger - but Russia has done so well economically without membership that this goal too has lost much of its allure.

Moscow has reminded Nato of the importance of Russian goodwill to secure the supply lines of the US-Nato operation in Afghanistan through Central Asia. Alternatively, Nato can become wholly dependent on routes through Pakistan. From where I am sitting, that does not look like a very good move - and where I am sitting at this moment is a hotel room in Peshawar, Pakistan.

By siding fully with Iran, Russia has the capability to wreck any possibility of compromise between Tehran and the West, and to push the US towards an attack that would be disastrous for Western interests - and enormously helpful to Russia's.

However, if only he will take it, Mr Miliband's speech could be a magnificent opportunity to set British policy towards Russia on a footing of sober reality - strengthening Western unity and resolve on issues such as reducing our energy dependence on Russia; but eschewing empty promises and shelving hopeless goals such as restoring Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia and forcing Russia to change its Constitution to extradite Andrei Lugovoi, accused of killing the former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.

Russia, for its part, will have to abandon or shelve its own hopeless goals such as restoring Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo and forcing Britain to change its laws to extradite Boris Berezovsky and the Chechen leader Ahmed Zakayev.

Above all, Mr Miliband needs to think hard before committing Britain to support Nato membership for Georgia and Ukraine. He should look carefully at the widespread Western belief that Russia "set a trap for Georgia" in South Ossetia. There was no Russian trap. In recent years Moscow has made it absolutely, publicly and repeatedly clear that if Georgia attacked South Ossetia, Russia would fight.

The obvious trap was set by President Saakashvili for the West, and was based on the belief that if he started a war to recover Georgia's lost territories, the West would come to his aid. This didn't work as well as Mr Saakashvili wished, because we have not gone to war for Georgia. On the other hand, every Western government statement offering future Nato membership is an implicit promise that we will do so in future if necessary. How can we make such a promise to a man who tried to involve us in a war without even asking us first?

On Ukraine, Mr Miliband should study carefully a range of reliable opinion polls showing that by a margin of about three to one, ordinary Ukrainian voters are opposed to Nato membership. This is not only because they want good relations with Russia, but because they fear being dragged into disastrous American wars in the Muslim world.

Even when it comes to the wider question of alignment with the West rather than Russia, the Ukrainian majority in favour of the Western line is slim - about 53 to 47 per cent to judge by the last Ukrainian presidential election. We should have learnt by now from the ghastly examples of Bosnia and elsewhere that a narrow numerical majority is simply not enough when existential national issues are at stake.

In other words, it is Nato's eastward drive, not Russian ambition, that is the greatest threat to Ukrainian stability and unity. A realistic British policy towards Ukraine should mean a genuine commitment to help it to develop economically, socially and politically in ways that will gradually draw it closer to the West and may one day make European Union membership possible. Under no circumstances should it mean plunging Ukraine into a disastrous crisis for the sake of a Nato alliance that cannot and will not defend it anyway.

Viewing this conflict from Pakistan gives some interesting perspectives. The first is the absolute insanity of the West's stoking a crisis with Russia while facing such intractable problems in the Muslim world.

It is also striking that the Pakistani media have been very balanced in their coverage of the crisis, despite their traditional hostility to Moscow.

Is this because they have suddenly fallen in love with Russia? Not a bit. It is because when it comes to international lawlessness, bullying and aggression, they no longer see a great difference between Russia and America. The moralising of Western leaders, therefore, no longer cuts much ice in Peshawar - or anywhere else much outside the West itself.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 07:26 AM

"Trust for what?"

A balanced non partisan pespective and therefore accurate non exaggerated reporting.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 08:21 AM

Amnesty International:

"Continuing abuses against civilians

Reports of inter-ethnic reprisal attacks by various sides were a feature of the conflicts in Georgia in the early 1990s over the same disputed territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The first signs of such ethnic targeting have now been reported, including the burning of ethnic Georgian villages in the breakaway region of South Ossetia.

In Russia, there have been unconfirmed reports of Georgians being the targets of violent attacks in North Ossetia and in Moscow. On 11 August a cafe called 'Georgian cuisine' was reported to have been set on fire in Nazran, Ingushetia. Previous heightened tensions between Georgia and Russia have also led to the detention and deportation of Georgians from the Russian Federation in 2006.

Looting has also been reported in South Ossetia, and in the town of Gori and surrounding villages in Georgia proper.

Amnesty International is particularly concerned at the apparent formation in and around South Ossetia of irregular, locally-organized armed groups able to act with impunity, increasing the potential dangers for civilians."

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 09:31 AM

"...wise advice from a great predecessor. Lord Salisbury, Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister in the days of the British Empire,..."


                     A brilliant man, they named a steak after him!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 03:26 PM

BB,

If you check out all the links, you find exaples of human rights abuses on both sides.

Georgia's record in Abkhazia and South Ossetia is not nice, and Russian attitudes o Georgia could do with some improvement too.

To me the whole thing looks like a bunch of pigs fighting over a trough.

Europe is the only true victor in all this. Abkhazia and Ossetia aren't worth much to either Russia or the USA.

They're a couple of spoilt fatsos having a fight in the playground.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 03:29 PM

700 ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 03:36 PM

Equally interesting one from the Guardian today CarolC:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/01/georgia.russia1

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 04:04 PM

Lox,

CarolC had informed me that it was totally, and solely the fault of the Georgians.


I was merely showing that "her" side had a little blood on it's hands.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 04:27 PM

BB,

I understand all that - I've been following the thread.

Carol is a tenacious debater and so are you.

I respect both of you immensely, more so after witnessing the way you have argued this case.

But in entrenching yourselves in the bipolar scenario which exists above (which I understand does not necessarily reflect your personal view) you end up losing touch with the fact that you are contributing to a communal thread.

Your debate is very specific and your reasons and Carols for engaging as you are are complex, and the whole "I was only ... " "well I'm just trying to ..." thing could go on forever.

Carol raises some interesting ideas as do you.

I think you could cut each other a bit of slack. Carol deserves some respect for exploring the deeper sinister side of the whole thing, just as you do for being a spanner in the works for her.

In the end, working together, you fine hone an interesting possible scenario that stands the test of ruthless scrutiny.

Funnily, I actually note what I read to be a consistent note of affection and respect for carol and her ideas in the way you debate with her, despite your stubborn refusal to accept her opinion. She is determined to think for herself and not to be railroaded and that is to her credit.

God help anyone who gets in the way of the two of you if ever you unite on some point.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 04:47 PM

I have stated that Georgia acted in an unfortunate manner- but have not yet gotten across to CarolC that her viewpoint ( IMHO) is not showing awareness of the situation.


"Funnily, I actually note what I read to be a consistent note of affection and respect for carol and her ideas in the way you debate with her, despite your stubborn refusal to accept her opinion. She is determined to think for herself and not to be railroaded and that is to her credit."

That is true- We are often on opposite sides, but when she opens her eyes and sees the entire picture, I do believe that she is well intentioned. I just see her being one-sided, most of the time- more so than myself (IMO) . I would not want her to accept my points without thought- I just would like her to at least think about them.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 05:06 PM

It's like getting blood from a stone ...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 05:08 PM

btw - that remark was tongue in cheek and directed at BB ... but Carol may feel free to take humorous umbridge as well should she so wish...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 05:11 PM

Would it be better if I said " I just see her being one-sided, most of the time- EVEN more so than myself (IMO) "


I try to look at all sides ( and stories) then decide what to believe. I do not see that some others here do that- they seem to decide a viewpoint and then go look for facts to support it. IMO, of course- and I am human, and fallible. But I try to be aware of that...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 05:13 PM

I think you and carol share that view of each other.

I see both of you as being aware of a much more complex world view than your average Joe.

The depth of your discussions and the difficulty you have persuading each other of your views is testament to that.

I learn a lot from both your posts.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 05:21 PM

"I learn a lot from both your posts. "

That is one of the nicest statements I have gotten, here. I cannot ask for a greater complement.

Just make sure it is BOTH our posts- maybe even include some others.
I do not claim to have all the facts, all the time- I do read what CarolC posts, and have modified my views based on that, on occasion.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 05:36 PM

Sorry I haven't been able to get to this--up in PA at a folk weekend. Among other things, singing sea songs while swimming in a pond. That's good exercise.




Re: topic: You can say that any conspiracy theory is possibly true. As my favorite foreign policy analyst, Shania Twain, says: "That don't impress me much".

My points are these:

The Scheunemann theory is in fact a conspiracy theory. It is obviously an alleged conspiracy. "McCain gets to look tough" as a result of a move by Georgia due to the machinations of a McCain advisor. Scheunemann was part of the cabal that engineered the war in Iraq. "There are telltale signs" that he played the same role here.

In fact there are no telltale signs at all that he played the same role here.   Any allegation that he did is the active imagination of a columnist--imagination being a positive attribute in a columnist.    Readers however should actually be using sense and logic--and demanding proof. Too bad many Mudcatters don't seem to want to do this.

Scheunemann (and McCain) have always demonized Russia. Fine. But there is as of now precisely zero evidence that he said anything to Saakashvili or otherwise encouraged Saakashvili's stupid move in August 2008 to try end South Ossetia's de facto independence.

And Scheunemann's alleged plan was obviously not to be made public. Therefore it is--to anybody who can use a dictionary--a conspiracy. And a theory--since it obviously has not been proven.

So it is--guess what--a conspiracy theory.

And, as of now, one with absolutely no supporting evidence. If there is in fact any evidence, it would seem reasonable for any supporters of this theory to start actually providing some.

To call it a conspiracy theory is, far from an ad hominem attack, an accurate depiction of it. In the most charitable interpretation, the poster who called it an ad hominem attack evidently does not know what such an attack is.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 12:02 AM

I notice that at least one poster is still mischaracterizing my stance on this issue. I have already shown in a previous post in what way my stance is being mischaracterized.

The question is not whether or not both sides are guilty of doing bad things. The question is who is responsible for the situation being what it is today.

Since all peoples have a right to self-determination, it is the people who are attempting to deny others that right who are responsible for the situation being what it is today. Which is what makes them the ones who are in the wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 12:08 AM

There is also precisely zero evidence that the article I posted about Scheunemann is not true. Since the person who is calling that article and the discussion about it "consipracy theory" is the only one who is putting forth any kind of argument about it, that person is the only one who has to provide evidence in support of that argument.

No one else is making any argument about it, and so therefore, no one else needs to provide any evidence in support of arguments they are not making.

Duh!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 12:20 AM

The term "conspiracy theory" is something that is misused on these threads, from time to time, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 12:26 AM

The term "conspiracy theory" was invented by people specifically for the purpose of shutting other people up.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 06:06 AM

"The question is not whether or not both sides are guilty of doing bad things. The question is who is responsible for the situation being what it is today."

This situation is appearing more and more to me like a Mafia blood feud.

Who started it?

In my opinion that is the least important point.

In my opinion the most important points are:

1. How is it affecting the civilian populations of all national/racial groups involved.

2. What realistic solutions exist to ensure stability, peace and perhaps even prosperity for those civilians.

Distinguishng who started it won't help, because it is completely unrealistic to expect any of the parties involved to agree on this, or indeed not to become more inflamed by the whole issue.

Your point about self determination is of course entirely correct, but depending on which corner you're in, it could mean that Russia is right to support the self determination of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but it could also mean that Georgia has the right to determine the best way of handling a crisis that is occurring inside its internationally recognized borders.

But all that is a pointless vortex of endless knit picking that I do not intend to indulge any further.

Because while we carry on with that, the two most insincere men in the world (Butt and Pushin)are posturing and flexing their flabby torsos at each other like a couple of motorcycle boys at a gay pride festival.

This whole crisis has nothing to do with Georgis, Abkhazia, Ossetia or even oil. It is about national ego.

(hope you enjoyed the imagery)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 09:19 AM

Washington Post:

Understanding Russia

Moscow's aggression is aimed not at Georgia's territory but at Europe's new democracies.

Tuesday, September 2, 2008; Page A14

THERE WAS a telling juxtaposition of headlines from Russia yesterday. On one side you had President Dmitry Medvedev claiming a "sphere of influence" outside Russian borders and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warning the West not to arm Georgia. On the other side, you had the murder of Magomed Yevloyev, a journalist whose independence had angered the government. He was arrested, shot in the head by police while riding in the back of a police car, and dumped by the side of the road.

This is a moment for clarity in thinking about Russia, which is forcibly occupying sizable chunks of a neighboring country and claiming it has every right to do so. Some in the West are tempted to agree. After all, the United States and its allies invaded Iraq and attacked Serbia; why can't Russia do the same to Georgia? Why can't it have a NAFTA of its own?

Here's why. The United States, Britain and other nations deposed the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein because he repeatedly violated his promises to the United Nations, after his earlier invasion of Kuwait, to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction and prove that he had done so. They invaded Serbia to protect the people of Kosovo from mass ethnic cleansing and destruction. In both cases, reasonable people can argue that it was wrong to act without U.N. authorization; they can make a case that the campaigns were unwise on many other grounds.

What they can't argue is that the allies were motivated by a desire for conquest or occupation; as the presidential campaign has shown, the American people can hardly wait to pull their troops out and leave Iraqis to manage their own affairs. NAFTA, meanwhile, was freely entered into by three democratically elected governments. If Canada wants out, the United States will not seize Ottawa.

Russia, on the other hand, is seeking to overthrow a democratically elected government precisely because that government does not want to be subjugated to Moscow. Mr. Medvedev's claim of a Georgian genocide, after his own government published casualty figures of 200 or so, is deliberately preposterous; he is mocking the very idea of humanitarian intervention. As Russia under president-turned-prime-minister Vladimir Putin has become less and less democratic, it has become increasingly aggressive toward neighboring democracies. The more democratic those neighbors become -- see Ukraine, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia -- the more hostile Russia becomes.

The brave Mr. Yevloyev, who returned to his hometown in the province of Ingushetia despite ample warning that Mr. Putin's thugs were waiting for him, may seem like a footnote to all this. But his death -- like the deaths of Anna Politkovskaya and so many other journalists and liberal politicians before him, like the death of the free press and open debate -- is at the heart of the story. Mr. Putin is turning Russia into something very like a fascist state, and its natural inclination will be to replicate itself abroad. "The Cold War was clearly about ideologies," Russia's ambassador to the European Union, Vladimir Chizhov, noted yesterday, and then claimed: "We are living in a different world today. There is no ground for talk about a second Cold War."

Judging by the E.U.'s feckless response yesterday to Russia's aggression, many European leaders still want to believe Mr. Chizhov. But what is happening in Georgia is very much about ideology, and the longer the Europeans pretend otherwise, the greater the damage they will have to contain.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 09:37 PM

Who is responsible is the most important thing to take into consideration if one is concerned with the wellbeing of the civilians of the area if those responsible intend to continue doing the thing that caused the problem in the first place, because as long as people continue to try to suppress others' right to self determination and to continue subjugating them, the violence will not stop. That's just reality. And the Government of Georgia has made it abundantly clear that it fully intends to continue doing those things.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 11:22 PM

So sorry that at least one poster does not seem to like it when a conspiracy theory is pointed out.

Which part do you not accept--that the Scheunemann theory is a conspiracy or that it is a theory?

Also, the idea that any half-baked idea must be refuted by the target is totally absurd.

The idea that Scheunemann was part of a cabal that allegedly engineered the war in Georgia-- (Georgia's attempt to end South Ossetia's de facto independence)-- has as much validity as the idea that Obama is a closet Moslem.

In each case there is precisely zero evidence to support the theory.

The burden in a theory with zero evidence is on the person who puts forward that theory---and not on the target to refute it.

If Mudcatters don't understand that elementary bit of logic, there is no point in any reasonable person trying to discuss a political topic.

And if you do in fact think there is evidence to support the columnist's Scheunemann theory, you are yet again cordially invited to reveal that evidence. In all honesty I would be happy to see it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 11:40 PM

Well, I guess by that logic, it makes perfectly good sense to assume that Obama is a closet Muslim.

               And moving right along, why would it make sense to determine that on beligeret party is Wright, and the other is Muslim?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 12:37 AM

I'm still waiting for some evidence that the article about Scheunemann is false.


Still waiting...


still... waiting...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 05:30 AM

If I understand carols point then she is saying that she doesn't claim that the article is true.

She is saying that she merely posted the article.

She did not present an argument about whether the article was true or false.

Therefore she does not have to present evidence too support her argument as she never made one.

She appears to be saying that the only argument that has been advance about the article has been one claiming it is false.

Therefore she awaits evidence to support that argument.

My point of view on this question is that it serves no real purpose in the context of this thread or the debate about georgia.

In my opinion, the article helps to provide an interesting perspective that could be investigated further, but until the implications it makes turn into definite allegations supported by evidence, it continues to have "idle speculation" status in terms of real usefulness.

As regards who is responsible, attempting to prove who started it will not provide a solution. Remember whhat I said about messy blood feuds. Well this is one.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 05:55 AM

I disagree with the premise that it is a messy blood feud and that it serves no good purpose to determine who is causing the problem. If we want the problem to be solved, we need to know its cause. Whenever one group of people attempts to subjugate and suppress another people, violence is the result. And when that happens, the violence doesn't end until the subjugation and suppression stop. The South Ossetians are happy to no longer be a part of Georgia. They are happy to receive protection from Russia, against further hostile acts from Georgia. The NATO countries are now ratcheting up the violent rhetoric, as is Georgia itself, instead of just allowing the South Ossetians to get on with their lives and be free.

The other problem is that the US is using the situation in Georgia, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia as a part of its program for increasing its global hegemony. This is not something that we can just sit back and be silent about. They are increasing their stranglehold on most of the world, as well as the people of the US, and they are waging multiple wars of aggression as a part of this agenda. This, of course, stimulates a similar response from countries that rightly perceive themselves to be under threat by the US and its stated goals of breaking up and suppressing any emerging powers that could arise to compete with US supremacy. This is not speculation on my part. It's their stated doctrine. This means endless war. The only way to make it stop is for people to recognize what is going on and to take corrective action in their respective countries. For those of us in the US, that means making sure as many people as possible know what is going on. And that means identifying the source of the problem, and pointing it out for everyone to see. This is what I am attempting to do, along with speaking up for the right of all peoples to self-determination.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 06:06 AM

Carol,

I think you are right about America's power play, but I think that Russia is doing exactly the same thing and I think the Goergia Ossetia thing is just as much an excuse for Putin as it is for Bush/McCain to rip their shirts off and beat their chests.

Putin - Me shoot tiger (in humanitarian way)!

Bush - Me tougher than man who shoot tiger!

tossers!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 06:15 AM

The problem with that perspective is that Russia has been reacting to the US, not the other way around. The US started it when it withdrew unilaterally from the ABM treaty, and it has been pursuing many other programs that Russia rightly perceives as a threat to their national security.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 07:46 AM

Fair enough, but how has the US influenced Russian state sponsored murders of journalists, ex spies, billionaires etc?

Russia is no innocent bystander.

I suspect that what you are describing is the tip of the iceberg - just as that is likely to be the case in the localised Georgia/Ossetia conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 08:52 AM

It's hard for me, as someone who lives in the country that brought the world the big lie of the incubator babies in Iraq (not to mention the WMD), to trust the US and the UK when they accuse Russia of murdering those people. The government of my country has been fomenting a lot of big lies about a lot of people in other countries who have tried to maintain their country's independence from the US empire, and they have been doing it for the purpose of creating justifications for all kinds of illegal and immoral things that they wanted to do.

Do a Google search on "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 01:02 PM

Fair point again, but the difference between the Iraq war and the whole litvinienko thing was that the latter was a massive scandal over here that stood the test of media scrutiny, unlike the gulf war which was well and truly picked to pieces by the all the main British News channels well before the invasion took place with the result that a million people demonstrated in Hyde park in Britains largest ever public demonstration of dissent.

There was plenty of media scrutiny of the Litvinienko affair that found itself drawn consistently in the direction of the KGB, not least because Litvinienko himself approached the media and the police for help before he was poisoned warning them that he was a target of the KGB and he feared for his life.

His fears turneed out to have been well founded.

As for the Billionaire in the cage - I have deliberately provided a partisan link here, but google will offer plenty of others to choose from on the subject of Mikhail Khodorkovsky

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 01:07 PM

And here's the BBC article about the murder of Russian Journalist Anna Politkovskaya

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 03:02 PM

Does this news article tell us anything?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2669248/Dick-Cheney-to-take-fight-against-Russias-oil-dominance-to-Az

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 03:38 PM

That page is unavailable (the one in the Telegraph about Dick Cheney).

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 03:51 PM

? Here is the text:

Dick Cheney to take fight against Russia's oil dominance to Azerbaijan
Dick Cheney, the US vice-president will arrive in the Caucasus on a mission to prevent Russia from gaining a stranglehold over Central Asia's vast reserves of energy.

By Damien McElroy in Tbilisi and Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Last Updated: 12:36AM BST 03 Sep 2008

As he starts a tour of Georgia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine, Mr Cheney will try to allay fears that Russia's campaign in Georgia has fatally damaged a cornerstone of the West's energy policy.

That message will be particularly potent in Azerbaijan's capital Baku, once the capital of the Soviet oil industry and now a pivotal ally of the United States.

The Caucasus region, between the gas-rich Caspian Sea and Turkey, provides the only energy pathway from Central Asia to Europe that does not traverse Russia or Iran.

"If Azerbaijan tilts to Russia there goes 15 years of US energy diplomacy," said a Western diplomat in Baku. "Cheney has the history and personal clout to make this trip clearly focused on energy."

Mr Cheney's unparalleled reputation as a defender of US interests and close ties to the oil industry means the vice president is uniquely placed to deliver a tough message to Russia.

John Hannah, his national security advisor said: "The overriding priority, especially in Baku, Tbilisi and Kiev, will be the same: a clear and simple message that the United States has a deep and abiding interest in the well-being and security of this part of the world."

After European leaders bickered over how to deal with Russia at a summit on Monday, Mr Cheney will have to shore up Azerbaijan's confidence in Western support.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the Georgian prime minister Lado Gurgenidze said that without efforts by Gordon Brown, the EU position would have been weaker.

"We are aware that the document perhaps would have read differently if it had not been for the efforts of the British delegation," he said.

The vulnerability of pipelines running from Azerbaijan to Turkey was dramatically illustrated by Russia's war in Georgia, when exports were halted and expatriate energy workers evacuated.

"Russia didn't need to attack the pipelines running through Georgia but by stopping the flow west it ensured that the great fears over the system have been realised," said Andrew Neff, an analyst at research firm, Global Insight. "Cheney must ensure that Azerbaijan doesn't take the wrong message from events in Georgia."

Supplies of Azeri gas are crucial to European efforts to build the 2,000 mile Nabucco pipeline through Turkey to Austria by 2013. Its inauguration would erode Russian's dominant role in energy supplies to Central and Eastern Europe.

America has been a strong proponent of the project. "Without Azeri gas, the Nabucco pipeline is dead on the drawing board," said Mr Neff, who concluded that Russia's campaign in Georgia had given it a "de facto veto" over energy flows through Georgia.

Russia has already attempted to coax Azerbaijan away from its Western backers. President Dmitry Medvedev used a visit to Baku in the spring to herald "co-operation prospects" between the two states.

Gazprom, the large Russian oil firm, has offered to pay market rates for its gas, which at a time of rising prices is more attractive than the long-term supply deal prices proposed by the West.

Ilham Aliyev, Azerbaijan's president, has been solidly pro-Western since succeeding his father in 2003.

However, despite its rapid economic growth, Azerbaijan remains vulnerable to Russia intervention in the breakaway enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. As in the Georgian territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, separatists in Nagorno-Karabakh rely on Russian backing.

Diplomats have urged Mr Aliyev not to succumb to the short-term pressures of Russian expansionism. "It's 'don't lose sight of the long-term goal for a short-term fix'," said one official. "Ultimately Azerbaijan needs direct access to the Western market to remain independent of Russia."

Senior American conservatives have rallied behind Mr Cheney's trip, possibly his last significant act before President George W Bush's term ends in January. "The security of Georgia and Azerbaijan are vital American interests for a variety of reasons," said John Bolton, a former US ambassador to the United Nations. "Including the critical corridor they provide to get oil and natural gas out of the Caspian Basin region without transiting Russia or Iran. Europe should also understand this key point."

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 12:04 AM

Do you think Obama is a closet Moslem? If not, why do you think the Scheunemann theory has any more validity than the "closet Moslem" theory? Neither is graced with one shred of evidence.

Therefore anybody who brings either up--without clearly stating that there is no basis for it--is a rumor-monger. Not surprising in a columnist. But again, readers should be more astute and discriminating.

Again, the burden is on those who purvey arrant nonsense to give their evidence--not on the target to refute the drivel.

Just saying you are bringing it up as a possibility is no defense. That's just what the fools--or worse--who talk about the "Obama as closet Moslem" idea say. Is that fine with you?

It's time for people all over the political spectrum to stop spreading stupid conspiracy theories. And that's what both of these are.

The Scheunemann theory, foolishly in my view, relies on a conspiracy theory rather than the stupidity of political leaders--a much more reliable source of problems.

And, as I say, the burden is clearly on anybody who believes the Scheunemann theory to--finally--start coming up with some actual evidence. Or admit there is none.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 12:13 AM

Yes, it's time for Obama to come out of the closet!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 12:13 AM

I notice the person who is demanding that I provide documentation for arguments I have not even made is unwilling to provide any documentation whatever for their own arguments, both in this thread as well as in the Palin for VP thread (about her fighting corruption in her state).

People who behave like that have no credibility in any kind of discussion.

As I said before, my guess is that this person just hounds people for no good reason because they take pleasure in gratuitously abusing others.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 12:14 AM

Either that, or they are a troll. (Probably some of both.)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 04:42 AM

Ron

"Therefore anybody who brings either up--without clearly stating that there is no basis for it--is a rumor-monger. Not surprising in a columnist. But again, readers should be more astute and discriminating."

But there is no evidence either way, so Carol is in no more of a position to state it as false than she does tpo state that it is true.

In the meantiime, as this is a discussion forum, not a court of law, she is perfectly entitled to draw our ettention to articles which contain information that is of relevant interest and which could be interesting to bear in mind in the event that any more information surfaces which lends them credence.

You either find it interesting or you don't.

If you don't, why are you going on about it.

I think the The scheunemann link is interesting as I observe several interesting coincidences in it, those being the reason that it was posted.

I don't state it is either true or false as I have no evidence to support either statement.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 06:01 AM

BTW, I'm not going to be able to address the points about the journalist and the oligarchs right away. They require a lot of thought and reading, and I have a storm to prepare for.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 10:31 PM

Sorry, it should be obvious to any thinking person that neither the "Obama as closet Moslem" idea nor the idea of Scheunemann being behind the Aug 2008 attempt by Georgia to bring its restive provinces back into the fold--in order to try to elect John McCain-- have any validity whatsoever.

And anybody who wants to bring up the Scheunemann idea is therefore just as guilty of smearing as anybody who wants to bring up the "Obama as closet Moslem".

"Just discussing it". As I noted earlier, that's just what the "closet Moslem" fools and bums say. Is that fine with you? Yes or no?

Which one you sign up for is determined by who you want to smear.

As I've said before, it's time for people all over the political spectrum to stop spreading stupid conspiracy theories.

I would hope that Mudcatters, as intelligent people--aside, of course from the CEO of Smears R Us, and other similar giant intellects/ jokesters--would be capable of critical thought--critical even of people on your side of the political divide.

I would also hope that such critical thinking--even of your own side-- would not be a foreign concept.

If it is a foreign concept, there's obviously no point to trying to discuss any political issue with you, since you are determined to hold firmly to your double standard, being blinded by partisanship.

The irony of it is I support Obama as strongly as anybody--but I still want evidence before signing on to a conspiracy theory involving the McCain campaign.

And I'm still of course willing to read any actual evidence of the Scheunemann theory--but so far the silence has been deafening.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 11:26 PM

Evidence and documentation, please, instead of just opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 04:53 AM

Ron

You seem to misunderstand what is interesting about the "scheunnnemann Theory" as you call it.

First of all, it isn't a theory.

It is an observation.

What is that observation?

1. McCains foreign policy advisor is Randy Scheunemann.

2. Was a lobbyist for Georgia.

3. He was a member of the group who pushed for the Iraq war.

4. He went with McCain to Georgia in 2006.

Those are accepted facts and not disputed by anyone.

This information has been posted here from 4 different sources.

To an enquiring mind they raise the following quesion:

Is there something dodgy afoot?

That is not a theory either.

It is a question.

You can't prove a question.

In the absence of more information it is not possible to answer that question definitively.

As a question cannot be baseless, it would be nonsensical for carol or anyone else to attempt to describe it as such.

The reasons for asking that question on the other hand are clear and easily observed.

As such it remains valid and useful in the context of this thread, while your criticism that it is a baseless theory have come to a dead end.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 10:04 PM

Fine, Lox. Problem is: those facts are not the crux of the article cited.

Crux of the article is the totally unfounded accusation--in rather slippery, slimy language--that Scheunemann was the agent provocateur behind the attempt by Georgia to bring its restive provinces back into the fold against their wills. And furthermore that this was done specifically to maximize McCain's chances of being elected this fall.

This accusation--with absolutely no evidence relating to the specific August 2008 war between Georgia and its provinces (with Russian backup obviously decisive)--is nothing more than a vicious rumor. And a rumor put out for specifically political purposes--in other words, exactly like the vicious rumor of Obama as closet Moslem.

If somebody can't see this, that person is, as I've said, blinded by partisanship.

If Mudcatters don't believe this, where, for the n'th time, is the evidence of this specific accusation---relating specifically to August 2008?

And the request to me for documentation is, I'm sorry to say, singularly stupid--and indicates the writer has a problem reading--we've already discussed that topic.
The burden of proof, for the n plus 1'th time, is always on the purveyor of groundless conspiracy theories, not on the target. As I said earlier, do you think the burden should be on Obama to prove he is not a closet Moslem? Yes or no?

The principle is exactly the same.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 10:23 PM

"There are telltale signs" Scheunemann played the same role in "engineering" the August 2008 war as he did the Iraq war.

If that is so, exactly what are these signs--that he specifically engineered the August 2008 war?

I'm sorry to have to tell all possibly logic-impaired Mudcatters that just because he was an advisor to both Georgia and McCain, and strongly anti-Russian it is still a huge leap of logic to say he "engineered" the war.

It is a sloppily written column--and I'm disappointed in fellow Mudcatters that they don't realize it is nothing but innuendo and post hoc propter hoc.

Again, what are the specific signs that Scheunemann specifically engineered the August 2008 war?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 12:05 PM

Please show me the post in which I indicated I had evidence that might support what the article I posted had to say about Scheunemann. I don't recall making such a post.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 12:17 PM

The post I was responding to in my last post has disappeared (probably from lack of a name on it).

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 12:54 PM

Now this is interesting. Starting to back off a bit? You've been rather defensive, to say the least, up to now--trying to require that I prove the article's thesis is wrong.

As I've said over and over, a vicious rumor need not be proven false by its target--it's up to the purveyor to prove it has some foundation. And this one is classic post hoc propter hoc----just a politically motivated smear--exactly like the stupid revolting rumor of Obama's being a closet Moslem---as I've been saying for quite a while.

I wonder if your change is because you finally realize there is not one shred of evidence to back up the Scheunemann conspiracy theory---( that he "engineered" the August 2008 war)---which was applauded by other Mudcatters also, you might note. Don't worry, I don't expect you to admit there's been a change in your attitude--but anybody who reads this thread will see it clearly.

Well, if you now realize the article has absolutely no foundation-- contrary to the "telltale signs" remark, there is not an iota of evidence which supports the theory--that's all I'm looking for.

Now we can all go back to the business of electing Obama--without smearing anybody else in the process.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 01:01 PM

No, I was up all night with a tropical storm and a tornado and I don't have any patience for assholes right now.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 01:01 PM

*tornado watch

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 01:08 PM

(BTW, the person who's question I was responding to in my 06 Sep 08 - 12:05 PM post is not the asshole.)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 04:15 PM

The unnamed poster was me.

Sorry I didn't attach my name.

If it could be retrieved with my name on it I would be grateful as it took me some time and effort to type and there was nothing irelevant or inflammatory about it.

---

The Post from Lox:

Ron.

The article in the nation makes two key assertions that exceed what I posted before.

1. It asserts that there are telltale signs that he played a similar role in the recent Georgia flare-up.

2. It asserts that in 2005, [Scheunemann & McCain] supported [Sakashvilli's} bellicose views toward Russia's Vladimir Putin.

It asks why Sakashvilli would think he could take on Russia unless he felt he had the support of the USA and deduces from that that there is something amiss. This is presented as a tell tale sign.

It is up to the author to inform us what the other tell tale signs (plural) are.

I suppose it can be easily researched whether the second assertion is true or not.

The question is, did the Americans back Sakashvilli's efforts?

And if so why?

Was it to make McCain look good and Obama look bad?

Or was it somehow for oil?

Why the hell did Sakashvilli think he would get away with his actions? What the hell was he thinking?

And if he was mad, why the hell is America taking such a partisan stance against russia?

How do we explain this paradox?

I would like to point out that I have not expressed an opinion, but given a synopsis of the substance of the article as I understand it.

The author is indeed acountable for the "information" he provides.

However,

I maintain that the article is still relevant to this thread as it challenges us to ask the same question and it offers a surprising perspective on a question where other suggestions are notably lacking.

In addition, I still see no grounds to support the claim that any poster to this thread is pursuing a conspiracy theory, much less that they are responsible for providing documentation to support it.

Anybody who does wish to argue a view based on the Article or indeed who wishes to debunk it should provide evidence to support their view.

Ron, that includes you.

______________________________


Carol,


I read an earlier post of yours to mean that you are in possession of evidence that might support a theory based on the Scheunemann question.

If I understand you correctly, you will provide evidence that it is true to counter any evidence provided that is used to support a claim that any such theory is false.

You seem to be saying "I'll show you mine WHEN you show me yours", not "IF you show me yours"

If I have read that correctly, I would be curious to see such evidence as I am sure other mudcatters would who are not involved in this argument but are interested to see how the thread develops.

I would obvoiusly be happy if you would pm it to me, but happier still if you would post it here as it would be of significant usefulness.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 04:24 PM

Carol,

What I meant was, in light of the following quote,

"I'll provide documentation from the US government when the poster demanding this documentation provides documentation from the Russian government in support of their assertions.

I'll provide other documentation later on when I have time."

Could that imply that you have evidence which you refuse to make available on demand or is it just a simple rebuttal.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 05:39 PM

Ron

"Now this is interesting. Starting to back off a bit? You've been rather defensive, to say the least, up to now--trying to require that I prove the article's thesis is wrong."

Do you mean me or Carol?

If you mean me, you'll find that I participated to explain carols point and then went on to show that you are wrong to assert that anyone on this thread is arguing any kind of conspiracy theory, let alone have to defend it.

If you mean Carol, I think you'll probably be disappointed if you think she's backed down one iota.

In the meantime, I would like to ask you for your opinion on the same troubling question.

Where do you think Sakashvili got his confidence to attack an area patrolled by the Russian army?

If the USA thought he was misguided, why did they not speak out against what he did?

Why in fact have they backed him up to the hilt?

That is the paradox brought to light by the article, and it goes on to attempt to find some kind of explanation that stands the test of scrutiny better than the official noises coming out of washington.

The article writer decides to look for some kind of skullduggery in the US/Georgian Alliance.

And he finds Scheunemann.

A key advocator for an unjust war in Iraq that included theft of oil fields, torture of Iraqi soldiers and civilians and a trumped up load of nonsense about nuclear weapons as an excuse to do it all, and all in a manner that completely undermined the authority of the most important peace and stability serving body we have: the UN.

And scheunemann is MaCains foreign policy advisor - presumably expecting a job as secretary for foreign affairs - and he's been to Georgia with McCain before this crisis began to support Sakashvillis "stand against putin".

This proves nothing about any theories, but it does leave you wondering - "who is this guy, if that's his record then what is his game in Georgia, and what kind of foreign policy is he going to be selling for America.

A prosecutor wouldn't have enough to prove anything in court, but no specific charge has been levelled so that is not required.

A policeman on the other hand, would have enough indication of suspicious circumstances to persuade his boss that they needed investigating.

Especially now that we see Cheney going to Azerbaijan to reassure them that their oil pipeline (the same one that runs through Georgia) won't be affected cuz the USA is shoulder to soldier ... yawn ...

Why is America so partisan in Georgias favour?

It seems to me that there is a big fat rat stinking the place out because the smell is unbearable.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 06:43 PM

I figured that's who the unnamed poster was.

I'm going to have to go back and look at the context for that quote from me, so I can get a better sense of what I was thinking about when I wrote it.

I haven't had any sleep since yesterday morning, so I might not have enough focus to do it today.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 06:47 PM

I spent all the day before yesterday and part of yesterday hauling lumber and bales of straw from my outdoor piles and putting it under cover, and getting things secured and ready for the storm. With that and no sleep last night, I can't remember much of anything I've said in this thread lately.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 06:51 PM

Excuses excuses ... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 06:52 PM

;-P

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 08:06 PM

"Why is America so partisan in Georgias favour?"


You mean like we were partisan in WW I and WW II towards Great Britain?

Maybe because ( in the opinion of the US) Georgia is in the right, and Russia in the wrong?

(see statements by Present US government, McCain, and Obama)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 09:25 PM

Ok, this from me...

I'll provide documentation from the US government when the poster demanding this documentation provides documentation from the Russian government in support of their assertions.

I'll provide other documentation later on when I have time


...is not about Scheunemann. It's about the US and Israel arming the Georgians and training them. I didn't provide the documentation in question after I made that post because I realized after I made it that I had already provided it, so I just sent the questioner looking through the thread for it. It wasn't the same person as the one who is still flogging the dead, rotting, oil spot in the middle of the road that used to be a horse, on the subject of Scheunemann here in this part of the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 02:21 AM

"The article writer decides to look for some kind of skullduggery in the US/Georgian Alliance.

And he finds Scheunemann.

A key advocator for an unjust war in Iraq that included theft of oil fields, torture of Iraqi soldiers and civilians and a trumped up load of nonsense about nuclear weapons as an excuse to do it all, and all in a manner that completely undermined the authority of the most important peace and stability serving body we have: the UN." - Guest lox.

Priceless, absolutely priceless.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Goose Gander
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 02:39 AM

The US has as much business in Georgia as Russia would have in Mexico . . . let's bring the troops home and leave the slavs and the europeans and the muslims alone . . . seriously!!!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 08:16 AM

MM,

Let us rather say "The US has as much business in Georgia as Russia would have in Cuba."


So, we should send in troops and "liberate" those poor Cubans, destroying their military?

That appears to be what you are justifying.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 08:37 AM

The US has business to be wherever it is invited and wherever its help is sought. As far as I am aware the Russians have never been invited into anywhere.

To those who uphold and find reasonable the actions of Russia with respect to Georgia and the two areas of the state of Georgia known as South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Take a look at a map of the area and take a look at the rather dangerous precedent Putin has created.

The Russian view is that it is perfectly legal to issue citizens of another country with passports, provoke unrest then dash in to the aid of "your citizens" and then annex not only the territory that they claim plus whatever other chunks of land that take your fancy.

So all Georgia has to do is print up Georgian passports by the truck load and distribute them in Chechnya and Ingushetia - The Russians of course being great believers in freedom and self determination will immediately vacate those provinces.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 11:15 AM

BB,

Of course, when Georgia rocketed Tshkinvali and killed all those civilians and put russian peacekeeping troops with a mandate to be there under threat, and russia took on Americas role as local international policeman, that was comparable to Garmany conquering most of western europe without provocation and murdering millions of jews.

Of all people on this site I am most surprised to see you draw that comparison.

"Maybe because ( in the opinion of the US) Georgia is in the right, and Russia in the wrong?"

Is that why America got involved in WWII? was it that arbitrary? And there I was thinking it had something to do with Germany's 100% unprovoked conquest of Europe.

Teribus,

1. "The US has business to be wherever it is invited and wherever its help is sought. As far as I am aware the Russians have never been invited into anywhere."

Russia has had legitimate mandated peacekeepers in the region for more than ten years.

They were there when Georgia attacked tshkinvali.

The US has no such legitimate mandate.

2. "priceless"

Thank you for your weak attempt to belittle me, maybe you'll say something intelligent next time ... I won't hold my breath ...

____________

To those who think:

a) that I support the russian action,

or

b) that I am an advocate of a conspiracy theory

please cut and paste from any of my posts evidence of how I support the russians on the one hand or evidence of what theory "I" have advanced on the other.

_____________

In the meantime, expect me to scrutinize every point I read.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 11:29 AM

Lox,

From ALL that I have been able to find, contrary to CarolC's conclusion I have found enough out to determine (IMHO) that the attacks by the dissidents in South Ossetia were the cause of the Georgian attack- they had been and were attacking Georgians, while Russia encouraged them( and as "peacekeepers took no action) and deployed military forces far beyond the "peacekeepers" ( which included Georgians, as well) in positions to attack Georgia. Georgia was wrong in it's attack ( they should have gone to the UN and waited a while while nothing was done and THEN attacked): but they had a valid reason to attack.

The US DID train some Georgian troops- and probably supplied some US material. This was the Georgian unit that was supposed to protect the oil pipeline from terrorist attack ( such as the South Ossetians, when they use violent action to change political status). Since this pipeline concerns other countries ( or at least the contents that were going through it) it might be considered appropriate that other countries help to protect it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 12:01 PM

BB

The whole thing has been mishandled from start to finish, and I am sticking to my view that it is about two big slimy superpower showoffs (Russia and America) shoving their oar into a local blood feud for the purpose of their own self aggrandizement.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 12:11 PM

To add to my last post,

when I first started posting to this thread, I was afraid what might be happening in the world and how it might affect me.

Now it feels like old news, and I feel like I was a bit of a sucker for letting it bother me in the way it did.

Now it bothers me in an entirely different way.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 08:45 PM

Priceless - Attempts to belittle yourself???

Example: "an unjust war in Iraq that included theft of oil fields"

Guest lox please give me one single example - Otherwise retract the statement and shut the fuck up.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 02:59 AM

I didn't have an opinion about the piece about Scheunemann before, but I do now.

There's certainly no hard evidence that the attack by Georgia on South Ossetia was intended (at least in part) to help McCain in the election. But there's plenty of circumstantial evidence. Not enough to convict someone in court, but certainly enough to raise questions and to merit pursuing lines of inquiry.

My own opinion is that the US probably did encourage Georgia to do what it did, and that, if they did, they probably had several objectives that they were hoping to get out of it. The Bush people seem to always try to kill many birds with one stone as possible. I think the idea that the US encouraged Saakashvili to attack South Ossetia is entirely within the realm of possibility, and that if that is the case, it is also within the realm of possibility that helping John McCain's campaign would have been one desired byproduct of that action. But I definitely don't think they would have done something like that without several compelling objectives.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 03:27 AM

"The Theft of Iraqi Oilfields By the USA"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/2699789/China-marches-past-USA-to-stake-a-claim-to-Iraqs-oil.html

Damn clever that, isn't it Guest lox??

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 05:12 AM

Stop Press!!!!!!

China in "signing a contract with the Iraqi government" Shocker!!!!

Today it was revealed that Chinese oil companies have set up business deals in Iraq.

Scandalous!

After America and her pals spent all that money killing and torturing Iraqis!

America has earned the right to that oil!

They sent their young, poor and unemployed to die for it!

"those darned Chinese didn't torture or maim one single Iraqi - what have they done to deserve this" a fictional source is quoted as saying.

From your mudcat correspondent charlie clevercloggs.


Meanwhile in other news, documents
turned over by the Commerce department, dated 2001, concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Taskforce, show a definite pre-war interest in Iraqi oilfields as well as a definite interest in what international oil companies were involed at that time.

We can see on closer examination that China was negotiating deals then too! (horror)

Thanks joe for clearing up the mess.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 07:39 AM

Guest lox,

Please give me one single example of the supposed theft of Iraqi oil fields by the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 09:50 AM

I posted a link to a thread entitled "23 billion are you serious?" or something like that which led to a Panorama investigation about US corruption and $23 billion dollars of regeneration money that went AWOL after the war.

At the end of this investigation there was a pretty clear map drawn showing how the oilfields in Northern Iraq had been divided up in the favour of Cheneys pals.

Sadly the links are old now and don't seem to be working, but if you care enough to argue you may feel free to look for a working link or contact the BBC to get a DVD of the program so you can draw your own conclusions.

Meanwhile, the link above shows clearly that the Oilfields of Iraq featured prominently in Cheneys energy policy.

Hence the trumped up WMD excuse.

So Chinese business has moved faster than the American behemoth ...

well that's no surprise to me ... I grew up in Hong Kong so I m fully aware of the chinese instinct for a business opportunity.

How arrogant the 5 main oil companies wre for thiking they could bargain so hard with Iraq and ignore the competition.

Red faces all round I'd say.

Serves 'em right!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 11:10 AM

Still no example of an Iraqi oil field stolen by the USA, just a lot of meaningless chatter.

So anyone, or any organisation, who has maps of a country's natural resources is guilty of "plotting" to steal them - Ludicrous.

The plain hard truth of course is that no Iraqi oilfield has been stolen by anyone - Now all you have to do, is be honest enough with yourself and admit that your plain statement that the US had stolen Iraqi oil fields was false, libellous and a complete fabrication based upon absolutely nothing.

In your link containing what you rather fancifully deem to be "evidence" is a list of foreign companies interested in Iraqi oil field development - take a look at the dates of the agreements most are in the mid to late 1990's - Oh and NONE of them are American - wonder why.

So you can now tell us who among Cheney's friends quartered up Iraq's oilfields, and how and when they did this.

And no Guest lox I am not going to waste my time chasing about looking for something I know does not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 11:21 AM

The Bush administration tried like hell to steal, not the fields, but the rights to a large percentage of Iraq's oil. They were trying to coerce the Iraqi parliament into agreeing to this by using it as one of the "benchmarks" for withdrawal of US forces.

Looks like they failed. I see that as good news.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 01:26 PM

Wrap yourself firmly in this simple thought with regard to Iraq's oilfields CarolC:

It only looks as though the US failed to steal Iraq's oilfields purely and simply because they never tried to do it in the first place.

As I have stated many times on this forum - you cannot "steal" an oilfield, once again the anti-war, anti-Bush chatterers have levelled the accusation and totally failed to prove it - begs the question when are they going to desist from regurgitating this fiction.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 01:33 PM

No, they didn't try to "steal" any oil fields. What they did try to do is coerce the Iraqi parliament into signing over the rights to most of Iraq's oil. And this is what they have so far failed to do.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 01:36 PM

BTW, what I said in my 08 Sep 08 - 01:33 PM post is the same thing as what I said in my 08 Sep 08 - 11:21 AM post, which anyone who had actually read my 08 Sep 08 - 11:21 AM post would know.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 01:46 PM

"What they did try to do is coerce the Iraqi parliament into signing over the rights to most of Iraq's oil." - CarolC

Utter rubbish, the rights to ALL of Iraq's oil remain where they have always been, the natural resources of Iraq belong to the Iraqi people, and that situation will be maintained.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 01:46 PM

"And no Guest lox I am not going to waste my time chasing about looking for something I know does not exist."

I've supplied you with a reference teribus.

It is (as I stated) a panarama investigation described in brief here.

Just as I do not have to attach a book or witness to an essay, I do not have to provide you with the actual video. A reference will do.

I've already explained how it is relevant.

If you wish to check the credibility of the source that's up to you.

As for the list, how do I put this so you'll grasp it - the information supplied to the Cheney energy group or whatever they're called is (concentrate) about their competitors.

Hence no American companies.

see?

no?

never mind.

I've also seen other BBC rticles talking about other negotiations between China and Iraq in 2006.

In the meantime, remember how there were all those fantasy weapons in Iraq?

Well as a result there were sanctions.

Forgotten?

Yeah - so no foreign trade - to cripple Iraq.

That's why Iraq needs the help of foreign oil companies now.

China beat the USA to it and I am glad.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 01:52 PM

Yes, the rights remain with the Iraqi people, as I said before. That's why I said that the US government failed in its attempts to coerce the Iraqi parliament into signing them over. Failure means lack of success.

But it wasn't for lack of trying.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 02:31 PM

China reviving oil deals with Iraq in 2006

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 02:45 PM

Meanwhile, let me repeat that these
documents show that Iraq's oil fields were at the centre of cheneys energy policy for the USA in 2001

And on the subject of oil theft, have a look at this.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 02:58 PM

Here's something useful too that puts the documents posted into perspective.

And here is a useful paragraph from that link.

"These documents are significant because during the 1990s, U.S. policy- makers were alarmed about oil deals potentially worth billions of dollars being signed between the Iraqi government and foreign competitors of the United States including France's Total and Russia's LukOil."

You see?

the list of foreign competitors?

no?

never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 03:53 PM

Guest lox go and find out how the international oil & gas industry works, most of what you refer to then will make sense.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 04:05 PM

Don't know if this website has been featured here before or not but I found the link interesting.

www.halliburtonwatch.org

Meanwhile we have here the recent story of Cheney consolidating his oil interests in Azerbaijan.

Cheneys pals in halliburton made a corrupt fortune in Iraq from the war and I have no doubt that he hoped for similar assurances on his stake in Iraqi oil to the ones he is getting from the azerbaijanis.


Anyway, getting back to point, Scheunemann was tied up in the whole thing too.

Nothing is certain, but there are more than enough grounds to feel disgusted at the amount of sleaze and cronyism going on.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 04:19 PM

Thank you teribus, It makes perfect sense to me already.

Halliburton (cheneys old company that he ditched for government) are corrupt to the core as are their subsidiaries.

Cheney wanted that oil.

He didn't count on China whipping it out from under his nose.

The look on his face must have been ... er ... "priceless".

"understanding the oil and gas industry", even with your deep and talented insight, won't help me accept the corruption, the human rights abuses, the lies or the trumped up WMD accusations.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 09:51 PM

"circumstantial evidence" indicating that Scheunemann played the same role in August 2008 as in the Iraq war--i.e. he was one of the neoconservatives who "engineered" the attempt by Georgia to drag its restive provinces back into the fold.

OK, so let's be specific. What exactly is this "circumstantial evidence"? We've been at this since 21 Aug--and exactly zero evidence has been revealed. There is no evidence in the article in question, which reads amazingly like a hatchet job on McCain. We're coming to the "fish or cut bait" portion of the program. The audience has been primed and the tension is building. We've sat through all the annoying ads. Surely there will be some actual evidence and facts to back up what otherwise so far bears an amazing resemblance to a politically motivated smear--that McCain's close advisor "engineered" a war to maximize his candidate's chances in the fall election. Just like the politically motivated smear, on the other side, that Obama is a closet Moslem.

"Tune in next week" will not do as an answer.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 10:38 PM

The circumstantial evidence is in the article I posted. Read it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 11:08 PM

For those who can't read, however:

Scheunemann used to be a lobbyist for Georgia and Saakashvili was his boss. Scheunemann now works for McCain. Scheunemann worked for McCain in the 2000 election as well, after which he headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. He was also the director of the Project for a New American Century during the run-up to the war in Iraq. These are the people (along with the other neo-cons), who are responsible for our going to war against Iraq.

"In 2005, while registered as a paid lobbyist for Georgia, Scheunemann worked with McCain to draft a congressional resolution pushing for Georgia's membership in NATO. A year later, while still on the Georgian payroll, Scheunemann accompanied McCain on a trip to that country, where they met with Saakashvili and supported his bellicose views toward Russia's Vladimir Putin."

Scheunemann is found standing in the observatory over the body of Professor Plum, and he's got the smoking gun in his hand. We can't prove he pulled the trigger, but we can suspect that he did.

This isn't to say that helping get McCain elected would have been his only reason for wanting Georgia to attack and invade South Ossetia. There's plenty of other possible reasons. He is a neo-con, after all, and what they are about is world domination (by their own admission). But as I said, they tend to kill as many birds as they possibly can with one stone. And getting McCain elected helps Scheunemann accomplish his other, larger, neo-con goals of increasing US hegemony around the world.

I have not seen any good explanations why Georgia would take on a country like Russia that is vastly more powerful, militarily than it, other than that one.

None of that is hard evidence, but it's definitely circumstantial evidence. It proves nothing, but as I said, it's perfectly reasonable to question under the circumstances.

That Obama comparison, by the way, is bogus. There has been plenty of proof that Obama is not a Muslim. I have seen nothing that proves that Scheunemann was not instrumental in some way in helping to instigate Georgia's actions toward South Ossetia, and plenty of things that point the finger in his direction. If someone should provide proof that he had nothing to do with it, I will reexamine whether or not I still consider it a possibility.

Remember, I said "within the realm of possibility". I did not say I considered it to be fact. There's a big difference, and until someone proves that it didn't happen this way, it remains within the realm of possibility, no matter how much huffing and puffing anyone wants to do here in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 01:20 AM

CarolC's post of 08 Sep 08 - 11:08 PM, the sting comes in the tail:

"Remember, I said "within the realm of possibility". I did not say I considered it to be fact. There's a big difference, and until someone proves that it didn't happen this way, it remains within the realm of possibility, no matter how much huffing and puffing anyone wants to do here in this thread."

Anything can dwell "within the realm of possibility" CarolC and as such it is pointless to discuss them unless you are working towards migrating them to "probability", in which case hard evidence has to be considered as opposed to subjective opinion from biased sources.

Is it possible that a former lobbyist based in the USA engineered a conflict between a tiny state against its extremely powerful neighbour, that the tiny state would know it had no hope of winning just to help a candidate win the US Presidential Election in November 2008? Yes I suppose it is possible.

Is the same thing probable - I would say that it would be highly unlikely, there are far too many unknowns and variables for such a plan to ever have even the remotest chance of success.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 01:38 AM

It's not pointless to discuss if I find it interesting. The the point in discussing it is that I find it interesting. And maybe others might find it interesting, too. That's all the point it needs as far as I'm concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 10:49 AM

Ah well if it is only the possibilities that are being discussed, enjoy discussing them to your hearts content, you may even finally work round to discussing what other possibilities might equally apply to the subject.

But pleased to see that the Russians have stated that they are going to station on a more-or-less permanent basis detatchments of 4,800 troops in both Abkhazia and in South Ossetia. That will at least in the short term provide some form of economy for the inhabitants as I doubt, for the South Ossetians, that there will be much trade now passing through the Roki Tunnel from Russia to Tbilisi. As the Russians can see no possible objection to this in order to ensure the security of the borders of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, they can surely have no possible objection to say US or NATO forces being stationed in Georgia to ensure that the sovereign territory of that state is safeguarded.

We can all then muster round and fervently campaign for the "Right of Return" for the 193,000 odd Georgians who were ethnically cleansed from Abkhazia, then who knows? They might possibly hold another referendum in which all the people who belong to the province get a vote.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 02:18 PM

We shall see.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 02:19 PM

My last was in response to points made at 09 Sep 08 - 10:49 AM.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 02:20 PM

I see the guest post has been removed.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 03:18 PM

"they can surely have no possible objection to say US or NATO forces being stationed in Georgia to ensure that the sovereign territory of that state is safeguarded"

They have actually been requesting this very publicly for a while now. They haven't specified NATO troops, but they have been requesting an impartial foreign presence.

You will find evidence on past news reports on BBC, Channel 4, SKY, ITV, CCTV (English speaking - chinese state tv), Al Jazeera (english) and Russia Today.

Regardless of what people write, you seem fixated on a "USA is good Russia is bad" vs "Russia is good USA is bad" form of argument.

Just as you appear to want a "USA is good Iraq is bad" vs "Iraq is good USA is bad" argument.

You seem incapable of understanding that argument can be a constructive learning process and that there are ways of arguing that don't include being adversarial, but which do involve advancing hypotheses and testing them via constructive scrutiny.

You also seem not to understand that a theory does not have to be proved to work.

Did you know that Einsteins theory of relativity has not been proved?

That is why it is still called a theory.

According to you, if it ain't proved, its just idle speculation.

Yet without it Neil Armstrong would have set foot on empty space.

A theory that works stands until it is disproved.

And what generally happens with most scientific theory is not that it is scrapped, but that it evolves.

The "scheunemann theory", so titled by its critics, is actually part of a wider thoery concerning the actions and intentions of the perceived Bush/Cheney/Halliburton Mafia.

So far it works, even though it hasn't been proved.

I trust it enough to agree with its implication that if the perceived Cheney/Scheunemann/McCain Mafia remain in control after the next election we will see increased polarization between east and west and we will see more blatant energy foothold consolidation, not to mention a weaker and weaker UN as Russia and the USA decide more and more to act unilaterally where their overseas interests are threatened.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 10:19 PM

Your "evidence" (8 Sept 10:38 PM) contains precisely nothing that connects Scheunemann specifically to the August 2008 attempt by Georgia to drag its restive provinces back into the fold.

Perhaps you're unaware that life is not quite as neat as a game of Clue. I'm afraid I have to say I'd hate to try to employ you as a PI. With you representing me I'd be sued all the time for wrongful arrest.

"But, your honor, it was within the realm of possibility."




Curiouser and curiouser. First we have the indignant protest that anybody who criticizes the article is committing an ad hominem attack. Then the poster says I must prove the thesis of the article--which is nothing but an obvious smear with no evidence--is false. After trying to gently to guide her to the obvious truth that it is not the target of a smear but its proponent who must come up with evidence, and after weeks of no supporting evidence being revealed, despite repeated requests for it, the poster tells us she never took a stand on the validity of the thesis. (Then why, one wonders, the refusal to admit there is no evidence?) Then we're told of "circumstantial evidence", though none is forthcoming. Now the level of proof has sunk even further--now it's "within the realm of possibility" What's next--"I thought it was true."?

Sorry, "within the realm of possibility" is the retreat of somebody who, after weeks, can't come up with one iota of actual evidence--just like the allegation that Obama is a closet Moslem. The fools and scumbags--including some Mudcatters-- who like to spread that smear-- point out that his father was a Moslem and that he went to school in Indonesia, at one point a Moslem school. Your evidence to convict Mr. Scheunemann of "engineering" a war to benefit his candidate is no stronger than the Obama-closet Moslem evidence. That is to say, each one is a politically motivated smear. The only other explanation in the Scheunmann case is that the columnist was facing a deadline--hence not overly concerned about evidence--of which there is none.

The mystery then becomes: why the Mudcat hosannas for a crackpot theory? And why the need to try to defend an obviously lost cause? If you were bound and determined to lash yourself to the mast, why didn't you try to find a vessel more likely to be seaworthy?   Do you like being shipwrecked?

And as I've said, more than once, I believe: the burden in a theory with no evidence is on the proponent of said theory, not on the target to refute it.

Is the burden on Obama to prove he is not a closet Moslem?   Yes or no?



Another bit of friendly advice. Using foul language--in fact losing your temper at all--is the surest way to lose a debate. Sharks can scent blood in the water rather easily. It's possible that Teribus has learned this.

But perhaps that's your normal way of speaking. If so, carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 10:34 PM

Please learn the difference between hard evidence and circumstantial evidence, and also the difference between an opinion and an argument.

As I have said repeatedly, since the one saying that the article I posted is not true is the only one who is making any kind of argument, that person is the only one who has to provide any proof. Since I only voiced an opinion about what is possible rather than an argument about what is necessarily true, I do not have to provide any proof whatever.

Since I have seen no proof, or even any evidence or any facts to support the argument that the article I posted is not true, I think we can safely say that the person who is demanding proof from me for an argument that I am not making is engaging in gross hypocrisy, is not willing to put up or shut up or to hold themself to the same standards they are holding others, and does not deserve to be taken the least bit seriously.

When this person behaves in the same manner they are nagging others to behave in, that's when I will consider taking that person seriously. I don't expect that to ever happen.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 11:03 PM

BTW, on the subject of Khodorkovsky, it's my opinion that he and the other Russian oligarchs (crooks) belong in prison. I'll have to do some more reading before I can comment on that journalist, and that will have to wait until after Saturday (JtS' 50th birthday party).

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 05:30 AM

I write to clarify on a point of information, not to express my opinion.


Circumstantial evidence.

Basically suspicious circumstances.

Like those described in this thread for example.

Not proof, but a theory doesn't need to be proved to work.

And it can remain a useful model to help us understand what's going on until it is either proved or disproved.


Though I reiterate, no specific theory has been argued here.


What has been said is that circumstances are suspicious in the extreme.




"4 results for: circumstantial evidence Browse Nearby Entries
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
circumstantial evidence
–noun proof of facts offered as evidence from which other facts are to be inferred (contrasted with direct evidence).

Also called indirect evidence.


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

[Origin: 1730–40]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
circumstantial evidence

To learn more about circumstantial evidence visit Britannica.com

© 2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This circumstantial evidence   
n.   Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute.


(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This circumstantial evidence

noun
evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute [ant: direct evidence]

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: circumstantial evidence
see EVIDENCE"

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 05:40 AM

BTW, friendly advice is of course warmly welcomed.

I would ask though that you refer to patronizing and insulting use of the word "priceless" in this thread that was then defended with (since deleted) foul language when it was challenged.

If there was blood in the water it was because the alleged victim bit off more than he could chew.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 10:39 AM

"they can surely have no possible objection to say US or NATO forces being stationed in Georgia to ensure that the sovereign territory of that state is safeguarded" - Teribus

"They have actually been requesting this very publicly for a while now. They haven't specified NATO troops, but they have been requesting an impartial foreign presence." – Guest lox.

Now what on earth makes Russia think that it can dictate to the world who can go where and do what Lox? Russia having stoked up and engineered this land grab of theirs "requests" an impartial foreign presence in Georgia? Patently ridiculous of course.

Considering the amount of western investment in the country (BTC Pipeline) and its importance to the overall economy of Georgia I would venture the point that the US or EU have got damn sight more reason to be in Georgia than Russia has to being in the former Georgian territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

"Regardless of what people write, you seem fixated on a "USA is good Russia is bad" vs. "Russia is good USA is bad" form of argument.

Just as you appear to want a "USA is good Iraq is bad" vs. "Iraq is good USA is bad" argument.

You seem incapable of understanding that argument can be a constructive learning process and that there are ways of arguing that don't include being adversarial, but which do involve advancing hypotheses and testing them via constructive scrutiny." – Guest lox

Well just goes to show how carefully you read things doesn't it? If someone comes out with a particularly one-sided view to discuss "the possibilities" – I will normally respond with a counter view which I think falls in with your "constructive learning process". In putting forward that view I will normally include the reasoning behind what I write, I always ask questions on points known, or reported about any given situation - which accords with your "advancing hypotheses and testing them via constructive scrutiny".

In this particular thread I have stated why I believe that this was a situation engineered by Putin and I have questioned the "theory" that this was all done at the behest of a political party in the US in order to improve the chances of getting their candidate elected. An idea I still find utterly preposterous, as previously stated too many unknowns and too many variables for it ever to have even the remotest chance of success. Russian gains on the other hand are far more tangible, evidence exists of their pre-knowledge of what was going to happen and when – The Russians then made sure that all their pieces were in place, standing by and at full readiness – Very few unknowns, very few variables over which they exerted no control – Beneficial Russian result guaranteed.

"USA is good Russia is bad" vs. "Russia is good USA is bad" – That has been my personal experience over the last 60 years. I have never heard anyone praise Russia for its contributions, or interventions, to the good of mankind within that period. I have on the other hand heard many, many people curse them roundly (Hungarian refugees who came to Scotland in 1956 were the first I believe). Russia's various political "experiments" round the globe have killed millions, and caused untold suffering, in remembrance of those victims of the beneficence of Russia and her rulers it is not my place to forgive and I most certainly will not forget.

As for the, "USA is good Iraq is bad" vs. "Iraq is good USA is bad" argument, I do not believe I have ever argued, or discussed any subject concerning USA/Iraq affairs in those terms. Do I believe that Iraq under Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Regime was an evil dangerous place? Most certainly, and that would be an opinion I share with all of the man's neighbours.

I have clearly stated this to others on this forum, I now state it to you, do not put words in my mouth and then attempt to take me to task for them. Do not attribute points of view to me that are not my own and only exist in what your perception of what I have said is.


"You also seem not to understand that a theory does not have to be proved to work.

Did you know that Einstein's theory of relativity has not been proved?

That is why it is still called a theory." – Guest lox

Which one of Einstein's Theories are you talking about Guest lox? Special Relativity or General Relativity, both came about through known physics and mathematics in an attempt to fully understand gravity, but you see Guest lox while it is true that a theory does not have to be proved to work, it does have to be based upon something, as does any challenge mounted to prove or disprove the theory.

"According to you, if it ain't proved, its just idle speculation." – Guest lox

Now that Guest lox, is a classic example of you putting words in my mouth. According to me Guest lox, if someone comes up with a possibility in relation to any given situation and provides no substantiation, logic or reasoning for their adopted point of view, or perspective, then it is just idle speculation, and I feel completely at liberty to challenge it.

"A theory that works stands until it is disproved.

And what generally happens with most scientific theory is not that it is scrapped, but that it evolves." – Guest lox

Couldn't agree more Newton and Einstein are good examples of exactly that.

"The "Scheunemann theory", so titled by its critics, is actually part of a wider theory concerning the actions and intentions of the perceived Bush/Cheney/Halliburton Mafia.

So far it works, even though it hasn't been proved." – Guest lox

What Works? So far we have had bald statements supported by not one shred of substantiation or evidence. Apart from someone who clings to the one truth that "USA evil and bad irrespective of stance, subject or situation" the so-called theories you refer to have been based upon absolutely nothing – That is what people on this thread are trying to extricate from the proponents of these "Grand Conspiracies".

Now let's see first we have the "Bush/Cheney/Halliburton Mafia" who do what exactly Guest lox? This next bit I know might get people on this forum frothing at the mouth:

Element 1 – Bush – George Walker Bush – Elected President of the United States of America in November 2000 (Ask Al Gore, he conceded the election) and again in November 2004 (Much to the chagrin of many who post here). Now that makes him in point of fact the Head of State and Commander-In-Chief of the United States of America. He does not take decisions completely off his own bat, he is supplied with information and advised by many experts both within his own administration and in many government departments and agencies. His first term of office was marked by the worst attack on America by foreign nationals in the history of the USA. Those particular terrorist attacks he responded to robustly and effectively, which is more than can be said about his predecessor in office, GWB also called for evaluations to be made to assess and identify the greatest threat facing his country. Here too he responded robustly and effectively in the removal of such threats from rogue states such as Iraq (threat identified in 1997/8); Iran (Nuclear weapons programme halted, probably only temporarily, in 2003 according to last NIE Report); North Korea and Libya. Entirely due the actions taken by the USA the most dangerous illegal covert nuclear proliferation programme in the world was uncovered and stopped in its tracks. Contrary to popular left-wing beliefs the USA under George W. Bush did not act unilaterally, they went to UN who then completely failed in its handling of what the USA felt were justified concerns – Please note, Guest lox, this is the complete opposite of what Putin and the Russians did in Georgia.

Element 2 – Cheney – Richard Bruce Cheney – Elected Vice-President of the United States of America in November 2000 and again in November 2004. He has a long history of public service and was an extremely successful businessman. Prior to becoming George Walker Bush's running mate in 2000 he relinquished his ties with the company he had run (Halliburton) and signed over any future benefits from that company to charity.

Element 3 – Halliburton Mafia – Who or what is this? As you appear to believe that they exist Guest lox maybe you could provide something by way of substantiation. I know the company, in fact I know it rather well, so I'd be interested in reading why you term them, and regard them, as being a "Mafia".

Then we have what you term as the, "Cheney/Scheunemann/McCain Mafia" who you appear to fear so much. How come Guest lox? What threat does this "axis of evil" pose? Let's have a look at it:

Element 1 – Cheney – The self same Richard Bruce Cheney who was elected in 2000 and in 2004. Please correct me if I am wrong here Guest lox, but I was under the distinct impression that Dick Cheney was not running for any political office in November 2008. That being so, can you tell me how, being a private citizen, he will be in a position to influence anything within the ranks of any McCain Administration? Also correct me if I am wrong here, but weren't they political opponents in both 2000 and in 2004? What has happened to put him at the head of this evil alliance as you perceive it? I take it that you do have some sort of reason for stating all this, that there is some sort of rationale that has some basis in fact and can be substantiated in some way? Or is it only a vague possibility, based upon nothing bar subjective and biased opinion?

Element 2 – Scheunemann - Randall J Scheunemann, McCain foreign affairs advisor and registered lobbyist. Randy Scheunemann will be what exactly in the McCain Administration Guest lox? You obviously know something as it was you and you alone that came up with this "evil alliance" that will "possibly" dominate the next US Administration, i.e. the, "Cheney/Scheunemann/McCain Mafia" despite the fact that as of now all that is known about it is as follows:

-        Come January 2009 Richard Bruce Cheney will be the ex-Vice-President of the United States of America and a private citizen;
-        Come January 2009 Randall J Scheunemann will be a private citizen;
-        Come January 2009 John McCain MAY BE President of the United States of America.

So then Guest lox give us the scoop, what is it that you know but we all don't, or is this just another of your vague possibilities, based upon nothing bar subjective and biased opinion?

Element 3 – McCain Mafia – Is there one?? How has it manifested itself? You obviously appear to think that it exists, care to share any reasoning as to how and why? Or is this yet another of your vague possibilities, based upon nothing bar subjective and biased opinion?

Much as it may surprise and astound him, I am completely with Ron Davies on this subject. You cannot just trot out anything that takes your fancy, or grips your fevered imagination, then refuse to provide substantiation or reasoning for your point of view and attack anybody who doesn't agree with you.

As to your predictions for the way things may possibly develop post election, which I find are extremely limited in outlook at best, nostalgic even. Russia failed as a "Super-Power" in the 1980's, it is not a status Russia will ever regain, there are simply not enough of them and their economy is nowhere near developed enough. Russia must turn into a trading nation to reap any benefit of her abundant natural resources and she is not going to attract many trading partners by aggressive behaviour.

The UN has been an ineffectual joke for more years than I care to remember and urgently requires radical reform and complete transparency which it continues to fight tooth and nail.

The Super-Powers of the 21st Century Guest lox – USA; China & India.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 06:01 PM

>"USA is good Russia is bad" vs. "Russia is good USA is bad" – That has been my personal experience over the last 60 years.

Shall I assume you still don't trust the Germans or the Japanese?



>Now what on earth makes Russia think that it can dictate to the world who can go where and do what Lox?

At which point did the word "request" become synonymous with the word "dictate"?

To explain in easy words ... no they appear not to have any objections ... shall I join the dots for you?


As for what you have been doing ...

Your first post in relation to any comment I made was a cut and paste of my post followed by the word "priceless!"

>You cannot just trot out anything that takes your fancy, or grips your fevered imagination, then refuse to provide substantiation or reasoning for your point of view and attack anybody who doesn't agree with you.

Attack? Why not engage in the discussion before throwing words like "priceless" around willy nilly.

When you used that word I challenged you to say something intelligent instead.

At that point you told me to f*** off.

You display a measure of hypocrisy in accusing me of attacking you that is only matched by your bilious bitter hatred of ... well ... I can't quite identify it - but whatever it is, you hate it with furious destructive fervour.


As for your blinkered loyalty to the boss, well you can keep it. I have lost interest in your point of view.

But I will finish with the thought - how exactly does Russia benefit from having Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

Without the rest of Georgia, the oil remains out of their grasp, the strategic importance of the black sea coast, the closeness to Iran ... damn ... even if they had Georgia those reasons would be tenuous ...

Abkhazia and South Ossetia give Russia no advantage, strategically, financially or politically.

What remains?

A blood feud in Georgia between three different groups - now seperated.

I don't trust putin very much but I'm stuck for reasons for him to dominate these two little areas.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 10:20 PM

I suspect it's not so much hate as clinging to empire and a supremacist ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 10:34 PM

If the US is running around the world big-assing it's way into everybody's business, why wouldn't one expect Russia to do the same thing?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 10:41 PM

Why indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 01:01 AM

The simple answer to Rig's question is that the former is capable the latter is not.

My post of 07 Sep 08 - 02:21 AM, in which I made the comment "Priceless, absolutely priceless.", that Guest Lox appears to object so much to, is merely a comment, or reaction to what he/she has said - Anybody here telling me that that is not allowed?? If so then what about all the LOL's, the ROTFLMAO?? What I found as being priceless was the trotting out of the same old trite left-wing, anti-war, anti-Bush crap that has been spouted on this forum, and largely disproved, for six years now.

"When you used that word I challenged you to say something intelligent instead.

At that point you told me to f*** off." - Guest Lox

Eh No, Guest Lox, you were invited to provide us with one single example of the US stealing an Iraqi oilfield - it was after all you who had stated that Scheunnemann had been instrumental in such thefts in Iraq. You were asked to provide one single example, a case in point or shut the fuck up about it - Now then Guest Lox can you please tell me where and when I told you to f*** off - Or is this another example of you putting words into my mouth???

By the bye Guest Lox - You never did furnish us with that example did you? You owe Mr. Scheunnemann an apology, you accused him of theft which he has not committed. There again, you seem to be the type that tends to throw wild, ill-considered and ill-founded accusations about.

What makes you think for one second that the Russians, unhindered and unopposed, are going to stop with just Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Guest Lox???

I also note that as with the request to substantiate your claims regarding US theft of oilfields, you have also refused to answer all my other questions related to your other flights of fancy. You know the ones Guest lox or do I have to repeat them? Just think of all those "mafia's" running about in post-election USA all bumping into one another, getting all their little schemes tangled up and muddled - As I said before, priceless, Guest lox, absolutely priceless.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 02:08 AM

Just as I thought. Might makes right. If we use that standard to justify throwing our weight around whether everyone else likes it or not, instead of the rule of law, we are no better then Hitler or Mussolini. It's the same mindset.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 02:11 AM

On the subject of Russia stopping at South Ossetia and Abkhazia, since it was the Russians who requested international peacekeepers to be stationed in Georgia, I think that's a pretty good indication that they don't have any interest in taking over that country.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 05:55 AM

"since it was the Russians who requested international peacekeepers to be stationed in Georgia, I think that's a pretty good indication that they don't have any interest in taking over that country. "


And since the US and coalition requested international peacekeepers to be stationed in Iraq, I think that's a pretty good indication that they don't have any interest in taking over that country or it's oil. So no more claims about that, if your comment reflects your actual belief.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 10:46 AM

Well yes CarolC let's take a look at the two cases shall we:

US goes into Iraq and into Afghanistan and keeps both nations intact, i.e. the sovereign territorial integrity of both nations is fully respected. They head an internationally backed major reconstruction effort and train and equip the fledgling police and armed forces of both nations, while encouraging foreign trade.

The Russians go into Georgia and steal two rather large lumps of it and decree that that is the way it is going to stay. They then set up a regime of ethnic cleansing and banditry inside Georgia itself surround the country's main seaport to restrict what can and cannot be landed, then declare that Georgia, an independent state recognised as such by the UN, cannot rearm in order to defend itself. They then apparently have the gall to state which set of "international" peacekeepers they will allow in.

I can see a number of differences there CarolC. I take it that you still do not have any take on this "Right of Return" business for Georgian refugees wishing to return to Abkhazia, they must number at least 250,000 by now. Now if you are looking at an example of "might is right" look no further than their expulsion from their homes.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 12:24 PM

Well, there's the little problem of the US pressuring the Iraqi parliament to sign over the rights to most of their oil, and making that a "benchmark" for withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

Their doing that makes the argument that the US isn't there for the oil look pretty ridiculous. Which of Georgia's resources has Russia tied the withdrawal of its forces to?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 12:29 PM

We didn't respect the sovereign territorial integrity of Serbia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 12:47 PM

But then again nobody invaded Serbia did they, Bill Clinton was against having "boots on the ground", that's why so many died. There was also that little matter of ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide in Kosovo (Read the UN Charter CarolC, that is what compelled them to act).

Withdrawal of MNF Troops from Iraq is tied exclusively to the UN Mandate that they operate under and the will of the Iraqi Government - Nothing else.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 01:19 PM

And Georgia was bombing the crap out of South Ossetia.

People can twist their rationales to fit their agendas all they want, but that doesn't change the ultimate truth of the situation, which is that the US, the UK, and the coalition of the coerced don't care about sovereign territorial integrity when it suits their purposes not to. And I think that for the people in Iraq and Afghanistan whose countries have been completely destroyed by the US, the UK, and the coalition of the coerced, such niceties are probably not foremost in their minds.

The truth of what is happening is that the US (and by extension the UK) are waging wars of imperial conquest over small relatively defenseless countries, for reasons of global hegemony and control of resources.

The thing that will change this equation will be the emergence of other large powers, one of which is still Russia, regardless of what the US might think about that.

Personally, I'm all for having some balance of power again. The US is no better than any other despicable despot when it's holding all the cards.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 06:25 PM

Ok Teribus I'm starting to get an idea of how your mind works.


Example 1,

I provided evidence that Iraq featured centrally to Cheneys energy policy.

I also provided evidence that Halliburton, the company he ran right up until he got into government was pumping iraqi oil long before the new Iraqi government put the rights to do so up for tender.

They got the contract to do this without any competition.

This occurred because Cheneys government decreed that the circumstances overrided normal rules of fair competition.

So In other words, Cheneys government, with an energy policy focussed on Iraqi oil, decrees that Cheneys old company should be allowed to pump Iraqi oil because the war started by Cheney is a circumstance that denies other companies the right to bid for the contract.

KBR, a subsidiary of Cheneys company, then ripped off America and Iraq to the tune of $23 Billion, because Cheneys Government had contracted them to clean up the mess caused by the war started by Cheneys Government.

(KBR by the way have contracts in Georgia and Afghanistan too – well sourced evidence here



I haven't specifically named an oilfield as you requested.

So that clearly exonerates Cheney and Halliburton of any suspicion of wrongdoing.


Example 2.

You told me to "shut the fuck up".

You didn't specifically tell me to "F*** off"

So that clearly exonerates you of any wrong doing and supports your view that I have been attacking you.



Well there you are - I stand corrected.


(By the way Teribus, I'm not sure if you've picked up on it, but just in case you haven't, that last remark was sarcastic.)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 06:46 PM

Sorry, I forgot to add that you have of course conveniently ignored my comments concerning the lies told by Cheneys Government about Iraqi WMDs and the human rights abuses and murders Committed by the US army and Blackwater security.

For a reminder of Blackwaters professionalism

Check this

and this

WARNING: I must point out that due to the graphic nature of these videos you must be a responsible adult to watch them.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 07:49 PM

"I provided evidence that Iraq featured centrally to Cheneys energy policy."

Cheney's energy policy??? Now you just tell me Guest Lox exactly when it was that "Cheney's Energy Task Force" transformed itself into "Cheney's Energy Policy" then further transmuted itself into being the "Energy Importation Policy of the Government of the United States of America".

Pssssst!!! Guest Lox go to any Oil & Gas exhibition and you will have exactly the same maps of "oil fields" thrown at you. If you do manage to catch them and take them home - would you then be guilty of planning to "steal" someone elses natural resources??? Of course you wouldn't you fuckin' idiot. By the bye what other maps did they have?? Or didn't you enquire??

Now Next:

"I also provided evidence that Halliburton, the company he ran right up until he got into government"

Well no exactly Guest lox he parted company with Halliburton a long before he decided to run on the Bush/Cheney ticket but whatever don't let accuracy spoil your little fabrication - PS It's never stopped a left-winger yet - Me I'd rather deal with the truth, but there you go.

Now let's see Halliburton, according to you, "...was pumping Iraqi oil long before the new Iraqi government put the rights to do so up for tender." Was it really Guest Lox!! And who got paid for it?? How much Iraqi Oil did they pump Guest Lox?? Any idea what the effects of a sudden stop of pumping oil does to the infrastructure that is installed to produce oil does Guest Lox?? Now I know for a fact that you don't and I do - go on Guest lox prove me wrong - you come up with what happens to Production infrastructure during a sudden shut-down (PS - this is "my game" I've done it for over 35 years)

"They got the contract to do this without any competition.

This occurred because Cheneys government decreed that the circumstances overrided normal rules of fair competition."

Well no actually they didn't. If you take a look into US Government contracts awarded in 1998 you will find that during the Presidency of one William Jefferson Clinton a services contracted was awarded under competitive tender to Halliburton for a period of five years for services in support of the US Military overseas. Now then Guest lox, I know that you are fairly smart so you do the maths - What is 1998 + 5?? What year do you come up with?? Waxman? Or whatever the fuck he is called gave up beating this drum a long time ago - my advice to you, along with accusing completely innocent people of "stealing" Iraqi oil fields, would be to pack it in and do just a modicum of research - It will save save a marked degree of embarassment.

"So In other words, Cheneys government, with an energy policy focussed on Iraqi oil, decrees that Cheneys old company should be allowed to pump Iraqi oil because the war started by Cheney is a circumstance that denies other companies the right to bid for the contract." - Guest lox

Now that is a statement of something that is completely unsubstantiated and without any basis whatsoever. Now just for the benefit of Guest lox, let's just rip this to shit:

Point 1 - It is not, nor ever has been, Cheney's government - FACT

Point 2 - There has been no "Energy Policy" based, or focused, upon Iraq's oil. US imports or Iraq oil amount to approximately 500,000 barrels per day out of the 20,000,000 that the US consumes every day, and that I believe is a "charity" buy, after all they NEVER - EVER - relied on Iraqi oil before. Now Guest Lox is telling us that it is the be-all and end-all of the energy policy of the United States of America - Priceless Guest Lox, absolutely priceless.

"KBR, a subsidiary of Cheneys company, then ripped off America and Iraq to the tune of $23 Billion, because Cheneys Government had contracted them to clean up the mess caused by the war started by Cheneys Government."

Well then Guest lox, while we are at it let's rip this to shit as well:

- KBR, Kellog Brown & Root, subsidiary of Halliburton - please state what Richard Bruce Cheney's stake in either company was as of 1st November 2000 - Don't tax yourself Guest lox it was 0, nada, zilch. Can you then substantiate your statement that either Halliburton, or it's subsidiary Kellog, Brown & Root were "Cheney's company". If you cannot do that Guest Lox, shut the fuck up about it - You really do not know what you are talking about.

- Do accounting systems go haywire in extraordinary circumstances?? Of course they do - they go haywire in perfectly normal circumstances.

- "Cheney's Government"??? what is that Guest Lox??? When were they elected??? I take it that you do have a date??

This next one is, I imagine, supposed to be down-right scary:

"(KBR by the way have contracts in Georgia and Afghanistan too – well sourced evidence here"

Em Guest lox, can you please come up with any reasonable explanation as to why the foremost company in the world in terms of oilfield services and pipelines should not be involved in oil exploration, production and transportation from any oil producing region in the world - I mean over here in Europe we're dealing with them all the time - Or didn't you know that Guest lox, as you left that fact off your list.

"I haven't specifically named an oilfield as you requested.

So that clearly exonerates Cheney and Halliburton of any suspicion of wrongdoing."

I suppose that that is an admission of sorts. So let's lay it out as it actually is, so that at some later stage you can actually display a bit of honesty:

Point 1 - Mr Randall Scheunnemann did not advocate, instigate, supervise or preside over the theft of any Iraqi Oilfields.

Point 2 - Richard Bruce Cheney did not advocate, instigate, supervise or preside over the theft of any Iraqi Oilfields.

Point 3 - Halliburton, a Company with which said Richard Bruce Cheney has had no connection with since before Novenber 2000, did not advocate, instigate, supervise or preside over the theft of any Iraqi Oilfields.

Point 4 - In short Guest Lox the USA has not stolen or attempted to steal any of Iraq's oil.

"Example 2.

You told me to "shut the fuck up".

You didn't specifically tell me to "F*** off"

Then you now can explain to everyone exactly why it was that you attributed to me a remark that I never made - Suit your purpose did it? Or do you just spout what ever drivel comes to mind irrspective of accuracy?? By the bye I have never contended that it was you who were attacking me - that honour rests with CarolC.

Sarcasm Guest lox - lowest form of wit.

If you wish to enter a debate do so armed with fact, backed up by evidence and some form of substantiation - so far you have brought nothing apart from myth, lies and half-truths to the table.

Before getting into an arguement with me Guest Lox - Go away and do some bloody research - Left-wing, anti-war, anti-Bush, populist clap-trap just doesn't hack it - Best come loaded for bear, so far you've only shown that you are no more than air-gun qualified.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 08:49 PM

From: Teribus - PM
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 10:39 AM


"You cannot just trot out anything that takes your fancy, or grips your fevered imagination, then refuse to provide substantiation or reasoning for your point of view and attack anybody who doesn't agree with you"

Lets analyse that shall we ...

" attack anybody who doesn't agree with you"

The post is aimed specifically at me.





From: Teribus - PM
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 07:49 PM


"By the bye I have never contended that it was you who were attacking me - that honour rests with CarolC."


Hypocrite.



"Best come loaded for bear"



I'd best come loaded for Bull.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 09:40 PM

Moving on, and stepping over the mess of bile and filth that Teribus has chosen to immerse himself in ...

Here's the Video I referred to earlier about the $23 Billion.

I knew I'd find it somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 10:00 PM

Don't worry about a thing. Sarah Palin is prepared to deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 10:09 PM

In the event of any dispute, I would like to clarify where this thread started to go wrong.

The three posts over the duration of which Teribus appeared to take on the role of Destroyer of Lox (or Guest lox as he prefers to call me) exist at the following locations.


From: Teribus - PM
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 02:21 AM


"The article writer decides to look for some kind of skullduggery in the US/Georgian Alliance.

And he finds Scheunemann.

A key advocator for an unjust war in Iraq that included theft of oil fields, torture of Iraqi soldiers and civilians and a trumped up load of nonsense about nuclear weapons as an excuse to do it all, and all in a manner that completely undermined the authority of the most important peace and stability serving body we have: the UN." - Guest lox.

Priceless, absolutely priceless.


From: Lox - PM
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 11:15 AM


"priceless"

Thank you for your weak attempt to belittle me, maybe you'll say something intelligent next time ... I won't hold my breath ...



From: Teribus - PM
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 08:45 PM

Priceless - Attempts to belittle yourself???

Example: "an unjust war in Iraq that included theft of oil fields"

Guest lox please give me one single example - Otherwise retract the statement and shut the fuck up.


He then goes on to ignore the majority of what I posted and increases the barrage of abuse in the mistaken impression that I am either remotely intimidated or otherwise impressed.

Guess what - I'm not.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 10:16 PM

Interesting. Still not a bit of evidence to back up the Scheunemann theory. Not surprising, since there is none. As I said, what's probably more surprising is the reaction to the first posting of the article: "Chilling", "Your best post yet", and others in that vein. When actually a more sensible response would have been along the lines of: "What drivel", " Incredibly flimsy--what a hack job."    Sorry, you cannot jump from events in 2005 and a knowledge that Scheunemann is advisor to both McCain and Georgia to a conclusion that he "engineered" the August 2008 war--without an iota of evidence.

And--once more with feeling--it is the responsibility of the purveyor of a theory without any evidence to provide same--not the target to refute. I note nobody has directly answered my query as to whether Obama has the burden to refute the garbage smear of being a closet Moslem. No mystery why--any thinking person is well aware the object of a smear has no obligation to provide evidence as to why the smear is not valid. Neither Obama nor McCain has that burden. Nor does anybody defending either against the two smears in question.

But in the Scheunemann case, there was no attempt by most Mudcatters to ask for logic or evidence--when the article is, as I've noted, a blatant smear. But I suppose, since it was a smear of Scheunemann--and McCain-- it's fine with many Mudcatters. It would be progress if Mudcatters learned it's not a good idea to smear anybody--neither Obama nor McCain.   Seems the double standard is still alive and well here.

4 Sept 2008: In response to my request for evidence supporting the Scheunemann theory, the poster was still asking me to prove the Scheunemann theory was wrong-- still on that kick at the time.   Also I was asked for evidence that Palin did in fact fight corruption in AK.   Even though I think Palin is on the wrong side of virtually every issue, I recognize facts. So I provided same. And, mirabile dictu, the poster has not brought up that topic again.

But still has not managed to respond to my request on Scheunemann--though it's my only request to her----except by gradually watering down her own convictions--which are now down to "within the realm of possibility". The Hollywood dream factory may have a use for that creative imagination. But when we're discussing accusations against political figures, it would be actually better if the proof went beyond "within the realm of possibility" to something just a bit more concrete.

As I said, it's too bad for the poster, but the world is actually slightly more complex than a game of Clue.

But at least she's managed keep her temper under control. I'm sure we can discuss without foul language--which is after all the refuge of somebody who is bankrupt of logical argument. And we know that is not the case with the poster.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 03:11 AM

Still wittering on about me commenting on your rather cliched summation of the behaviour of the US as being priceless Lox? If you want someone to actually engage in a serious debate with you it requires one rather important ingredient - you first of all have to say something that at least verges on intelligence - not just trot out the party line (as you did).

I note that that much maligned US citizen Randy Scheunemann still hasn't received his apology from you - Do you habitually go round accusing people of grand larceny without one whit of evidence??

I note that you are similarly silent regarding your strident accusations relating to your self-styled "Bush/Cheney/Halliburton Mafia", or more correctly the "Bush/Cheney/Halliburton" Mafia if you are lumping them together – classic example of someone just trotting out anything that takes their fancy, or grips their fevered imagination, then refuse to provide substantiation or reasoning for the point of view expressed.

Same goes for your assertions regarding the "Cheney/Scheunemann/McCain" Mafia, which as far as can be determined does not even exist, and even if it did, it would consist of two private citizens and a potential President – Hardly a power base is it?? But yet again another classic example of someone just trotting out anything that takes their fancy, or grips their fevered imagination, then refuse to provide substantiation or reasoning for the point of view expressed.

But "The "Scheunemann theory", so titled by its critics, is actually part of a wider theory concerning the actions and intentions of the perceived Bush/Cheney/Halliburton Mafia." Works for you does it Lox?? So you seriously give consideration to and believe that a registered lobbyist in Washington, who is paid to further the interests of Georgia with regard to the United States of America got the President of Georgia to provoke a hostile reaction from Russia, in which Georgia lost lumps of real estate, suffered the loss of its armed forces, had thousands of its citizens robbed of their properties and possessions and displaced – purely in order to improve the poll ratings of a nominated candidate for the forthcoming Presidential election in the United States of America??? That is the "Scheunemann Theory" propounded by CarolC and yourself isn't it??? Well having considered it Lox, far from finding that it works, I find it to be a complete and utter load of cods wallop, for which neither yourself or CarolC has produced the slightest logic, reason or substantiation.

By the bye, Lox I do take it that you do know what industries Halliburton's activities cover??? And for how long they have been engaged in them??? Do you deny that in 1998 during the Presidency of Bill Clinton that Halliburton won by competitive tender a five year "Frame Agreement Services Contract" with the Pentagon??? Do you know what that means Lox??? If they won that five year contract in 1998 Lox, when would it expire??? My reckoning makes it 2003 so it should not come as any great surprise that Halliburton was found working in Iraq and in Afghanistan for the US military – that after all is what they had contracted to do.

But so far we have wrung from you albeit rather obliquely that:

Point 1 - Mr Randall Scheunnemann did not advocate, instigate, supervise or preside over the theft of any Iraqi Oilfields.

Point 2 - Richard Bruce Cheney did not advocate, instigate, supervise or preside over the theft of any Iraqi Oilfields.

Point 3 - Halliburton, a Company with which said Richard Bruce Cheney has had no connection with since before Novenber 2000, did not advocate, instigate, supervise or preside over the theft of any Iraqi Oilfields.

Point 4 - In short Guest Lox the USA has not stolen or attempted to steal any of Iraq's oil.

Point 5 - That at no time at all in the length and breadth of this thread have I ever told you to f*** off.

Where this thread started to go wrong chum was when you chipped in telling people what they meant, attributing remarks to them that they never made and adjudicating as to whether or not points of view have to be substantiated and who must provide substantiation and who didn't have to bother.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 05:07 AM

Teribus,

You have told me to "shut the fuck up" repeatedly in this thread.

In fact, that is your main argumentative weapon.

Now it seems to be repeating yourself.

You lost this argument when you decided, to change the tone of this thread by hurling abuse.

You have yet to make any real substantive comment on any of the other points.

And (if you care to read back) you have yet to tackle my repeatedly stated actual position.

I of course anticipate that being the self proclaimed hunter (methinks hound) that you believe you are you will probably devote all your energies to that pursuit now.

How predictable.

Teribus. As it is clearly considered within the bounds of etiquette to argue on these terms i would like to add the following.

Your contribution is worthless. Absolutely worthless. So why don't you Shut the fuck up.

---

Hmmmm. All I see here are a number of people telling a number of other people to "shut the fuck up." Seems to more-or-less cross the border of civil discussion, doesn't it? Tell you what - I'm going to close this thread, and ask you to start a new, civil discussion in another thread if you like.
-Joe Offer-