BS: War in Georgia (2008)

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.