BS: War in Georgia (2008)

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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:08 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:11 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 - 05:08 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: Lox
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 05:06 PM

It's like getting blood from a stone ...

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 - 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 - 04:04 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: 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: Lox
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 03:29 PM

700 ;-)

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:46 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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.