South Ossetia: Defense against ethnic cleansing, or invasion? (Turns out, Georgia fired missiles first. it was self defense) by SignyM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is where you lose me: explain to me please how a half million Iraqi civies dead to topple Saddam's regime is a good trade off...I will paint you and others as indifferent to human life if you can't offer anything better than 'he would have become the new Hitler' or any of that nonsense...see, decisions about the economy, education, infrastructure all pale next to military decisions- if you're going to cause deaths, it HAS to be a GOOD REASON, not merely a differing 'belief'.
To send peeps to their next existence because yeah, well, everyone was SAYING he had WMD, I swear... just ain't good enough, by any reasonable standard.
Death is kinda final, see, so it provokes a stronger reaction than closing a school or something.

Struggling Chrisisall

The US killed far more people expediting World War II. (And half a million is a bullshit number, but that's neither here nor there.)

Arguments for and against the war have been presented on this board. I can’t believe that you aren’t away of all of them. You simple choose to accept superficially simple argument and hate those who don't, in order to protect yourself from the ambiguity of war. Such a way of thinking is nothing new - it has been going on for centuries and ironically is often the reason for sociopolitical divisions that often lead to war.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 8:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Arguments for and against the war have been presented on this board. I can’t believe that you aren’t away of all of them.

I'm aware of them, I just don't buy into all of them. You yourself have presented the best arguments for slamming Iraq (IMO), but they still seem somewhat sketchy and even apolgetic to me.
From what I knew back then, I didn't buy the WMD thing, I didn't want to expand into Iraq, I wouldn't have used 9-11 to push the Patriot act, and all has unfolded as I have foreseen (unfortunately).

Oh, and I was cavalier with that number, it's more like 100,000- a tenth of a million, not a half. My bad.

Corrected Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 8:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
This is my point. This is the way you justify, not agreeing with me

I don't need to "justify" not agreeing with you. I just don't, isall.

Quote:
by painting me as uncaring of human life.

Well, for someone who claims to care about human life you find a lot of acceptable reasons to kill. So I have to wonder how much do you care about human life? How much is it worth to you, and what are you willing to exchange it for, exactly? For example, do you believe in the death penalty?

ETA
AFA reasons for or against war: Although you acknowledge that projecting the possible consequences of going to war v not going to war is fraught with uncertainty, I have yet to read an acknowledgement from you that ANY of our "interventions" was a mistake, no matter how many lives were lost or how unclear the goal. (Vietnam comes to mind, but I could also point to most of South and Central America, large parts of the ME, Phillipines, and Indonesia.) To you, it's all good. Or if not good, it's **gets out the Magic Eightball** hazy at best. So are you saying that our military policy has always been correct, that we have never made a mistake and killed lots of people for no good reason?
---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 8:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
This is my point. This is the way you justify, not agreeing with me
I don't need to "justify" not agreeing with you. I just don't, isall.

That’s true. You don’t, but you still do. That’s why there‘s this:

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, for someone who claims to care about human life you find a lot of acceptable reasons to kill. So I have to wonder, exactly how much do you care about human life? How much is it worth to you, and what are you willing to exchange it for?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 8:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Arguments for and against the war have been presented on this board. I can’t believe that you aren’t away of all of them.
I'm aware of them, I just don't buy into all of them. You yourself have presented the best arguments for slamming Iraq (IMO), but they still seem somewhat sketchy and even apolgetic to me.
From what I knew back then, I didn't buy the WMD thing, I didn't want to expand into Iraq, I wouldn't have used 9-11 to push the Patriot act, and all has unfolded as I have foreseen (unfortunately).

I don’t fault you for disagreeing with the Iraq war. I have said many times that there are lots of good reasons not to support the Iraq war. I fault you for using support for the war as a justification to demonize as murderers those that don’t agree with you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 8:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
That’s true. You don’t, but you still do. That’s why there‘s this

I am merely trying to do something that you claim I'm not doing: I'm trying to understand you. But when I take an idea of yours for a test drive I ram right up against another idea of yours. You value human life. But, not. Or, sometimes, as long as it doesn't conflict with some other values. Which is taking an idea to an extreme to justify violence.

My God, man! How do you even think{???

*grabs head*
---------------------------------
dizzyisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 8:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
That’s true. You don’t, but you still do. That’s why there‘s this
I am merely trying to do something that you claim I'm not doing: I'm trying to understand you. But when I take an idea of yours for a test drive I ram right up against another idea of yours.

That‘s some dishonest crap. I have never put forth the idea that I am uncaring of human life. You aren’t trying to understand me or take any opinion of mine for “test drive.” You are imposing upon me an opinion designed to demonize me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 8:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
uncaring of human life

Hey, to me if you're caring of human life you will take care of it. It's not how you feel, it's what you do that counts. So, what have you done that shows that you care for human life?

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 8:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
uncaring of human life
Hey, to me if you're caring of human life you will take care of it. It's not how you feel, it's what you do that counts. So, what have you done that shows that you care for human life?

What have you done?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 8:57 AM

SWISH

Wwhere did this article come from, Participant? Because it's really atrocious. Just wrong. Examples:

They essentially invaded South Ossetia and installed a rather brutal military government.Hardly. There were clashes in the early 90s that hurt both sides, and neither side was blameless, but since then the Georgians have stayed out. Even though they didn't want to.

It's true they won't give Ossetia independence (which I think they should), but the Georgian government and military have had no authority and little presence within Ossetia for the past decade and a half. Ossetia is like the Wild West, Georgia claims to own it, wants to own it, but in reality they have no rule there.

It should also be understood that contrary to the 30 years old CIA report that is being circulated, Georgia is now over 60% Moslem, with Moslems controlling the government, and South Ossetia - which is surrounded on three sides by Georgia - is over 80% Orthodox Christian.Nope. Not even close. Has this writer actually been to Georgia? I have. More than once. It's almost entirely Orthodox Christian. Every little village has at least one Christian church, sometimes more. There are a few Muslims in Georgia, but not many at all.

I guess the easiest way to villify a nation these days is to call it Muslim, hmm? Might want to do some research first, or you just sound like an idiot.

Comes last Thursday and the Georgians attack the Russians in South Ossetia. Once again, they are trying to isolate and grab those two oil terminals.There are no oil terminals in Ossetia. The idea is proposterous - the Georgian government can't carry on any kind of engineering project is the area, because they can't even enter it. The oil and gas pipelines that run from Baku to the Black Sea pass through the southern part of Georgia, just south of Borjomi. This is nowhere near Ossetia.

BTW, you'll note that the Russian troops didn't stop at securing Ossetia. They passed south into Georgian territory, to Gori, and from there into the Borjomi gorge. Gori and Borjomi are Georgian cities, through and through. The people there aren't part of Ossetia and don't want to be. This is the root of the whole "over-reaching" charge.

The Russians come in to evacuate the Russian wounded and put fresh troops in place to keep the Georgians and South Ossetians from tearing up Russian cities and killing more Russian civilians in their own country.Again, ridiculous. Fighting between the small Georgian military and the much smaller Ossetia militia - if they even have such a thing in any organized way - is hardly big enough to "spill over" into Russia. Ossetia lies in the Greater Caucasus, a mountain range silmilar to the Alps or the Rockies, and it isn't densely populated at all. This whole idea of Russian cities getting torn up in the fray is pure fabrication.

The Russians tried to send in relief supplies (for all parties) and the Georgians tried to sink the unarmed, civilian transport ship.OK, now we're getting laughable. Transport ship? In the greater Caucasus? And what body of water was it sailing on?

Perhaps the writer is referring to the blockade the Russians set up in the Black Sea. That is no where near Ossetia.

Maps. They're not hard to find.

Because there is strong reason to believe that the US has been aiding the Georgians in the fight (just over 1,500 "advisors" on the ground from "Blackwater" that are demonstrable, and massive shipments of US arms and ammunition for the past 18 months)And what reasons are these? Any evidence at all? Where would all these US troops be materializing out of? Don't you think the press in the states and in Georgia might have noticed?

Still the Georgians have not completely ceased their offensive. They recently began shelling a Russian column that was withdrawing from South Ossetia along the only serviceable road in the region. They waited until the column was dead in the middle of the town of Gori before opening fire.Again the writer shows a complete lack of knowledge of the region. Gori is not in South Ossetia. Gori is part of Georgia proper. If Russian troops were indeed shelled in Gori, they couldn't have been withdrawing from Ossetia at the time.

Indeed, though there is talk and more talk about a ceasefire, Russia has shown no sign of withdrawing. They have only moved deeper into Georgia, into Gori, Borjomi, and toward Tbilisi. Neither side denies this is the state of things, though their stated reasons differ.

They became the main component in a small international (with Azerbaizhan and Tdjikistan) peacekeeping force in the region.Azerbaijan and Tajikistan do not work with Russian in policing Georgia. That's absolutely ridiculous.

The same can be said if the reinforced Georgians resume their campaign of laying waste to South Ossetia and one more shell or rocket falls on a Russian town.And which Russian towns have been bombed? None. This conflict has all taken place within Georgia and Ossetia. In addition, Russia is the vastly superior force. Since the first few days, Georgia has backed off and done nothing but ask for help, because they know the Russian army can crush them.

There was NEVER any intent to occupy Georgia or annex any territory for Russia as Condoleezza Rice is trying to have you believe.So why are Russian troops in Gori? In the Borjomi Gorge? Nearing Tbilisi?

Ok, enough. And this article said it wanted to clear up misinformation - right. Sounds more like old Cold War BS. But it have done better if the writer knew something about the region, or at least bothered to look at a map.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 9:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
What have you done?

I asked you first. I'll answer when you do.

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 9:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
What have you done?
I asked you first. I'll answer when you do.

Why should I justify to you that I'm not a callous son of a bitch, when I've given you no reason to think that? Why should I validate your closed minded attitude towards other opinions? If you want to hate people because they don't share your opinions, then be my guest, but don't expect them to participate in it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 9:12 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
The question is: Now what?

How bout we stay the hell out of it and learn the merits of leaving well the hell enough alone unless it's actually our problem for once ?

Quote:
Let me know when you’re ready to have a discussion about Bush that doesn’t include equating him to Darth Vader, then we’ll find out.

Oh please, Bush couldn't shine Vader's boots with a manual and a dremel buffer...

Besides, Vader rewarded failure with a crushed larynx instead of "heckuva job", didn't he ?

We'd be knee deep in corpses if Shrub could even hold a penlight, much less a candle, to Vader.

Quote:
My God, man! How do you even think{???

It's called Doublethink, Neocon shills are as a whole quite good at it, because there's no actual coherent thought to get in the way, just a big wad of emotions, primarily fear, and automatic reflex when the right buttons are pushed.

Look at how easily PN drives Rap straight into a flying, foaming rage, for example, you GOTTA know by now he's doin that on purpose just to watch Rap flip out.

Once you know where the buttons are, whole masses of political folk become all too easy to manipulate - how else do you think I pull off some of the stuff I do ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 9:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Wwhere did this article come from, Participant? Because it's really atrocious. Just wrong. Examples:

Interesting points. Demonstrating once again that blogs aren’t known for their accuracy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 9:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Why should I justify to you that I'm not a callous son of a bitch, when I've given you no reason to think that?

Just because you're for the death penalty and haven't met a war you didn't agree with and believe in bullying?

Hmm... yes, I see that I would have no reason to think you're callous.

How silly of me!!!!

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 9:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Why should I justify to you that I'm not a callous son of a bitch, when I've given you no reason to think that?
Just because you're for the death penalty and haven't met a war you didn't agree with and believe in bullying?

Hmm... yes, I see that I would have no reason to think you're callous.

How silly of me!!!!

Pretty silly, considering how wrong you are on all the points you attribute to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 9:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well Finn, I now know that you lie.

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 9:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well Finn, I now know that you lie.

Awww I'm struck!!! NOW you think I'm a liar?!! After all this time of you treating me like a murderer, I can't see how you could possibly think I would care whether you think I'm a liar or not.

You went for the big hate too earlier. Once you tell someone you think they are callous towards human life - there really isn't much more you can say to them that will phase them.

Would you like to tell me that I molest children or talk at the theater?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 9:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Would you like to tell me that I molest children or talk at the theater?

LOL....we'd never accuse you of talkin' at the theater...
*BAH-DUM-BUM*

I don't hate you Finn, I just trying to force you into a position where you'll make sense to me of your *seemingly* contradictory ideas of acceptable human loss...I could say that 5% of aborted pre-human cell clusters would grow up to be criminals and/or killers, so why defend that which you have no idea of the outcome of? (wow what a poorly constructed sentence...

)
I just posit that to show how any loss of life can be twisted to be acceptable.
To give credit for having wisdom that surpasses that of you or I to government lackeys of mega corporations seem just a little too self-serving- you don't have the weight of conscious on you then, content that they are making fine decisions that we, the unenlightened masses, are incapable of.

In the end, I KNOW you care, what I really question the decision to trust in THEIR decisions.

Hope I'm understandable hereisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 10:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Would you like to tell me that I molest children or talk at the theater?

LOL....we'd never accuse you of talkin' at the theater...
*BAH-DUM-BUM*

That’s good. ‘Cause them’s fighting words.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I don't hate you Finn, I just trying to force you into a position where you'll make sense to me of your *seemingly* contradictory ideas of acceptable human loss...I could say that 5% of aborted pre-human cell clusters would grow up to be criminals and/or killers, so why defend that which you have no idea of the outcome of? (wow what a poorly constructed sentence...)
I just posit that to show how any loss of life can be twisted to be acceptable.
To give credit for having wisdom that surpasses that of you or I to government lackeys of mega corporations seem just a little too self-serving- you don't have the weight of conscious on you then, content that they are making fine decisions that we, the unenlightened masses, are incapable of.

In the end, I KNOW you care, what I really question the decision to trust in THEIR decisions.

Hope I'm understandable hereisall

Consider this: How many innocent people died directly because of Saddam Hussein’s brutal treatment of the Iraqi people? How many people died in the wars of expansion that he fought? To punish Hussein the international community sanctioned his regime, yet this resulted in even more dieing because Hussein used these sanctions to punish his own country just to defy the international community. Why don’t I accuse you of being callous of human life because you didn’t want to remove Hussein? And it’s not because I think leaving him in power would have resulted in fewer death - I actually believe the war may very likely save lives. In fact over a 10 year period 1.2 to 1.5 million people died in Iraq due to sanctions according to the UN (or Hussein’s mistreatment of those sanctions.) That’s 0.6 to 0.75 million in 5 years - the same time we’ve been in Iraq, during which time far fewer then that have died. So we already have a net lives saved. You see, I can paint you as a son of a bitch for being against the war. So why do you think I don’t accuse you of being callous of human life because you don’t support the war?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 10:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I actually believe the war may very likely save lives. In fact over a 10 year period 1.2 to 1.5 million people died in Iraq due to sanctions according to the UN (or Hussein’s mistreatment of those sanctions.) That’s 0.6 to 0.75 million in 5 years - the same time we’ve been in Iraq, during which time far fewer then that have died. So we already have a net lives saved.

Now I think I'm closer to fully understanding your reasoning...but we didn't go in there to free anyone, we went in because of his world-threatening WMD...the mission statement morphed, I guess...

Quote:
You see, I can paint you as a son of a bitch for being against the war. So why do you think I don’t accuse you of being callous of human life because you don’t support the war?

Umm..because it's an untenable
position?

Or 'cause you're being civil, more likely.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/24/earlyshow/main1649689.shtml

This 2006 article shows both sides of it, I think. I just don't believe an invasion was the way.

BTW, thanks for hashing this out, I appreciate it.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 10:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I actually believe the war may very likely save lives. In fact over a 10 year period 1.2 to 1.5 million people died in Iraq due to sanctions according to the UN (or Hussein’s mistreatment of those sanctions.) That’s 0.6 to 0.75 million in 5 years - the same time we’ve been in Iraq, during which time far fewer then that have died. So we already have a net lives saved.

Yep, you always got a good reason for killing. Except...if we had let UNMOVIC do their job, sanctions would have been lifted. It was in the works. So that reasoning falls down.

Magic Eightball says Try again.

Mmmm.... BTW that special hell... it's warmin' up fer ya!

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 6:09 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Well this is nothing new. The Anti-War Philosophy has always been one that is prone to hateful fanaticism.

I think the exact same thing could be said of the Anti-Choice Philosophy.

[quote[This is the reason why hippies spat in the face of soldiers coming home from Vietnam.

And the same can be said of the reason why right-wing nutjobs set off bombs at women's health clinics.

Quote:
You don’t agree with the Iraq War, which is a perfectly reasonable position to take, but then you take people that you think feel that the Iraq War was necessary and you paint them as feeling that way to satisfy from need for killing or uncaring of human life, because you don’t want to accept their point of view, which is completely unreasonable.

You do agree with the Iraq War, which is a perfectly... well, I find it perplexing, but to each his own... position to take, but then you take people that you think feel that the war was unnecessary and you paint them as un-American, unpatriotic, and feeling that way to satisfy the need to justify the killing, because you don't want to accept their point of view, which is completely unreasonable.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 6:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Now I think I'm closer to fully understanding your reasoning...but we didn't go in there to free anyone, we went in because of his world-threatening WMD...the mission statement morphed, I guess...

The reasons why we went into Iraq had more to do with Hussein pissing off the West then anything to do with saving Iraqis. Nonetheless, based on the track record of the last twelve years we did end up saving lives. Now no one can know what might have been, but no reasonable rational person can accuse me of being callous towards human life once they understand my position, whether they agree with it or not. Some people, like Sigynm, however aren’t interested in what I think, only in hating me because I don’t think what they think. I know that you prefer Signym’s point of view to mine and that you probably don’t agree with me. I have no problem with that, but I ask that you don’t take Sigynm hatred of others for their opinions along with her point of view.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
This 2006 article shows both sides of it, I think. I just don't believe an invasion was the way.

There’s no doubt that invasion was the worst possible option, but every other option required faith in the system, which we didn’t have. We couldn’t trust weapon’s inspectors, because they had been lead around by Hussein too many times. We couldn’t trust the UN because the UNSC had been bought by Hussein. There were options that theoretically were in place to deal with rogue nations like the Ba’ath regime, but we pissed around with our fingers our asses for 10 years and allowed a ruthless dictator to control the process, until we would have to have been stupid to have had any faith at all in the system. Hopefully we won’t make that mistake again, because we’ve seen where it leads.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 17, 2008 6:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You do agree with the Iraq War, which is a perfectly... well, I find it perplexing, but to each his own... position to take, but then you take people that you think feel that the war was unnecessary and you paint them as un-American, unpatriotic, and feeling that way to satisfy the need to justify the killing, because you don't want to accept their point of view, which is completely unreasonable.

I have never done that. That’s your own imagination, so don’t stick that on me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 18, 2008 12:25 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Bullshit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 18, 2008 1:54 AM

I think it's pretty clear what has happened in Georgia, it's what the defence community was talking about some time ago during the initial NATO bid. Georgia isn't contiguous with either the EU or the NATO allies, and it's not even in Europe, there's no reason within the mandate of either NATO or the EU for Georgia to become a member. The reasons it's desired are clear though. Georgia, stupidly, chose to thumb it's nose at Russia, by joining it's classical ex-soviet rivals, rather than playing both off against each other which would have been the best course of action, Georgia picked sides. NATO on the other hand, has never stopped fighting the cold war. Russia did, actually, but NATO did not. Georgia would be the latest ex-Soviet state to join the encircling NATO forces, which is driven more by a desire to humiliate Russia, show it who won, than any firm military requirement.

Yes, Russia is returning to authoritarianism slowly but surely under Putin. But don't forget why Putin is in and holds power, it's because of the upsurge in Russian nationalism at the grass roots, and that is being driven by us, NATO and the western allies. We're humiliating Russia at every turn, hemming it in and encircling it with a military cordon. What the fuck did people expect to happen?

It's clear what's happened. Russia wanted to punish Georgia for attempting to join it's political enemies, and it's been planning this all for sometime, and using the breakaway regions as pawns, as it has done since Georgia became independent in the early 90's. South Ossetian insurgency has increased, undoubtedly with Russian backing. Georgian troops entered South Ossetia, a perfectly legal thing to do, given that South Ossetia is Georgian territory, and claims of genocide appear to have more truth to them in respect to South Ossetian's against Georgians than vice-versa. Russia played a game of chess, and Saakashvili fell into their trap. Russia launched its forces, which were clearly in place and prepared ahead of time, to invade a sovereign country over a purely internal matter.

But, it's no more or less than what the US has been doing for over a hundred years in south America, or other Western Nations for that matter. There's parallels with a number of conflicts, indeed Russia's reasons for entering Georgian territory, are identical to those given by the UN and NATO over operations in Bosnia. Also, George Bush denouncing another power over violating a nations sovereignty is so laughable, I find it incredible he managed to keep a straight face. Russia has a more credible claim to legitimate operations within Georgian territory, than the US does in Iraq. For those who see, as I do, Russia's excuses for it's invasion of Georgia as legitimate as little more than flaky rationalisations and propaganda, remember that to them our excuses for Iraq are just as obvious. When all's said and done, Russia thought it could get away with it's invasion, because we got away with ours in 2003.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 18, 2008 4:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
George Bush denouncing another power over violating a nations sovereignty is so laughable, I find it incredible he managed to keep a straight face. Russia has a more credible claim to legitimate operations within Georgian territory, than the US does in Iraq. For those who see, as I do, Russia's excuses for it's invasion of Georgia as legitimate as little more than flaky rationalisations and propaganda, remember that to them our excuses for Iraq are just as obvious. When all's said and done, Russia thought it could get away with it's invasion, because we got away with ours in 2003.

I'm forced to agree here, Cit.

Hey- Pakistan's President just resigned, and someone we don't like might take his place, and they really DO have WMD, shall we invade them now???

Opportunemomentisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 18, 2008 1:25 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I have never done that. That’s your own imagination, so don’t stick that on me.

Because that's different, man!

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 18, 2008 3:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
George Bush denouncing another power over violating a nations sovereignty is so laughable, I find it incredible he managed to keep a straight face. Russia has a more credible claim to legitimate operations within Georgian territory, than the US does in Iraq. For those who see, as I do, Russia's excuses for it's invasion of Georgia as legitimate as little more than flaky rationalisations and propaganda, remember that to them our excuses for Iraq are just as obvious. When all's said and done, Russia thought it could get away with it's invasion, because we got away with ours in 2003.

I'm forced to agree here, Cit.

Really? Where was the Chapter 7 resolutions against Georgia? I can’t even remember there being any Chapter 6 resolutions against Georgia. According to United Nations Law, Georgia has done absolutely nothing to warrant invasion at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 18, 2008 5:25 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

It's true, there can be no moral equivalence between Georgia and Iraq.

But I do remember thinking as it became clear that charges of Iraqi WMDs had been exaggerated, that invasion under the circumstances was setting an ugly precedent.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 12:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Really? Where was the Chapter 7 resolutions against Georgia? I can’t even remember there being any Chapter 6 resolutions against Georgia. According to United Nations Law, Georgia has done absolutely nothing to warrant invasion at all.

Where was UN support for the invasion of Iraq? Oh, that's right, there wasn't any, the security council voted no. Just because you buy our excuses, but not theirs, doesn't mean that they do the same, or even that ours are really any better.

Both the Invasion of Iraq and the Invasion of Georgia were undertaken as unilateral and illegitimate invasions of another countries sovereign territory. Russia has, arguably, more of an excuse to invade Georgia, because they are on the same continent, and share a common border. Iraq, on the other hand, is thousands of miles away from the US, on another continent on the other side of the world. An argument for Iraq being in the US's field of influence and interest is far flimsier than that of Georgia being under Russia's, especially now you've unilaterally declared that oil is no longer a valid excuse for influence.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Really? Where was the Chapter 7 resolutions against Georgia? I can’t even remember there being any Chapter 6 resolutions against Georgia. According to United Nations Law, Georgia has done absolutely nothing to warrant invasion at all.

Where was UN support for the invasion of Iraq? Oh, that's right, there wasn't any, the security council voted no. Just because you buy our excuses, but not theirs, doesn't mean that they do the same, or even that ours are really any better.

Twelve years of UN Chapter 7 Resolutions and so many sanctions that it created a whole bureaucracy within the UN just to deal with Iraq. Where was that for Georgia? Oh, that’s right, there wasn’t any.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Where was the Chapter 7 resolutions against Georgia? I can’t even remember there being any Chapter 6 resolutions against Georgia. According to United Nations Law, Georgia has done absolutely nothing to warrant invasion at all.

Wait, uhhhh...you want to use UN resolutions as the ticket to an invasion of Iraq, but want to ignore that the UN didn't give the go ahead for it....? See- that's the 'have your cake & eat it too' mentality here...cherry picking to suit 'the cause'. I mean, SEVERE cherry pickin'.

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Twelve years of UN Chapter 7 Resolutions and so many sanctions that it created a whole bureaucracy within the UN just to deal with Iraq. Where was that for Georgia? Oh, that’s right, there wasn’t any.

So the UN is an inept bureaucracy? So why are their Resolutions so important then?

Your whole reasoning for the war just fell apart for me, Finn. Seriously, YOU can't see the logical fallacy in this series of statements?

IF: UN Resolutions important
THEN: UN voting no to invasion is not

Signy's magic eightball says: Try Again.

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Where was the Chapter 7 resolutions against Georgia? I can’t even remember there being any Chapter 6 resolutions against Georgia. According to United Nations Law, Georgia has done absolutely nothing to warrant invasion at all.

Wait, uhhhh...you want to use UN resolutions as the ticket to an invasion of Iraq, but want to ignore that the UN didn't give the go ahead for it....? See- that's the 'have your cake & eat it too' mentality here...cherry picking to suit 'the cause'. I mean, SEVERE cherry pickin'.

The UN decided not to follow it’s own laws because key members of the UNSC were bought off by Hussein. That’s a problem, I agree, but curruption within the system is nothing new. But it doesn’t change the fact that the UN applied Chapter 7 resolution after Chapter 7 resolution to Iraq, until finally two key members of the UN decided to act on the law the UN as a whole refused to act on itself. If you make a law that says murder is illegal, but refuse to act on it, eventually someone’s going to get tired of murderers, whether the law as a whole will do anything about it or not.

But in the case of Georgia, there was no resolution, there was no debate, there was no seeking law to define the issue--it was just Russia practicing Soviet-Era politics.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Twelve years of UN Chapter 7 Resolutions and so many sanctions that it created a whole bureaucracy within the UN just to deal with Iraq. Where was that for Georgia? Oh, that’s right, there wasn’t any.

So the UN is an inept bureaucracy? So why are their Resolutions so important then?

Your whole reasoning for the war just fell apart for me, Finn. Seriously, YOU can't see the logical fallacy in this series of statements?

Can you? Because so many of you threw fits about how important the UN is in justification for the Iraq war, but when Russia invades another nation on the fly, the UN is completely irrelevant to you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Twelve years of UN Chapter 7 Resolutions and so many sanctions that it created a whole bureaucracy within the UN just to deal with Iraq. Where was that for Georgia? Oh, that’s right, there wasn’t any.

The security council voted what Finn?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Where was UN support for the invasion of Iraq? Oh, that's right, there wasn't any, the security council voted no. Just because you buy our excuses, but not theirs, doesn't mean that they do the same, or even that ours are really any better.
Twelve years of UN Chapter 7 Resolutions and so many sanctions that it created a whole bureaucracy within the UN just to deal with Iraq. Where was that for Georgia? Oh, that’s right, there wasn’t any.

The security council voted what Finn?

17 Chapter 7 Resolutions over 12 years.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Can you? Because so many of you threw fits about how important the UN is in justification for the Iraq war, but when Russia invades another nation on the fly, the UN is completely irrelevant to you.

A) Who said the UN was irrelevent?
B) Nice diversion from the argument at hand.
EDIT: C) "eventually someone’s going to get tired of murderers" Advocating vigilantism now?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Can you? Because so many of you threw fits about how important the UN is in justification for the Iraq war, but when Russia invades another nation on the fly, the UN is completely irrelevant to you.

A) Who said the UN was irrelevent?
B) Nice diversion from the argument at hand.

It’s not a diversion. You argued with me, concerning the Iraq war, that the US/UK (key members of UNSC) had to have strict adherence to the UNSC, despite corruption within the UN and years of UN law, so why do you refuse to acknowledge now that Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Georgia is less legitimate then the Iraq war?

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
EDIT: C) "eventually someone’s going to get tired of murderers" Advocating vigilantism now?
Chrisisall

At some point, yes. If the authorities will not act to enforce their own law, then you have chaos unless someone else is willing to take charge. There's a difference between vigilantes (US/UK) who act to uphold agreed upon law that the authorities refuse to enforce, and the criminals (Russia) who act without any base in law at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
17 Chapter 7 Resolutions over 12 years.

Well, I thought you wouldn't need it pointing out, but obviously you do:

No Finn. To an invasion of Iraq the security council voted no. The invasion of Iraq was every bit illegal as the invasion of Georgia. The UN's inability to prevent the imperialistic invasion of Iraq by the United States of America gave the Russian Federation the go ahead. If the UN can't stop America, why should it be able to stop the Russians? America sees the laws as not applying to it, so the Russians think "why should we be bound by the UN?".

You can't ignore the UN when it says no, then use it as justification. America went into Iraq without the support or blessing of the UN, Russia went into Georgia with the same. That you use UN resolutions (while ignoring the decision of the UN no less) as a flimsy excuse for unilateral invasion, while Russia uses protection of it's citizens and 'prevention of ethnic cleansing' as it's flimsy excuse, makes no odds. They're both flimsy bad excuses for entirely illegal wars.

In Iraq you say there were resolutions, they still don't give you the right to Invade. That's still a decision for the Security Council. In Georgia the Russian's say they were protecting their citizens, still not a right to invade, but better than your Iraq resolutions. Then we have the two other excuses, WMD and ethnic cleansing respectively, both of which turn out to be bullshit. The parallels are greater than you admit, and all you can say is "resolutions! resolutions!". Funny how important UN resolutions are to you, given how you ignore the UN's decisions when you don't like them.

You bought our excuses, they didn't. You don't buy their excuses, they do. Personally for me there's a deep smell of manure off what both sides are shovelling. You can't use the UN as a legal justification for war while ignoring the decision of the UN. If you had a murder in court, and the court found them not guilty, you don't have the right to shoot them dead because you think they're guilty and the court is wrong. The UN security council decides how UN resolutions are acted on, not the president of the United States of America, nor Finn Mac Cuhmal of fireflyfans.net.

At the end of the day, the Iraq war was what allowed the Russian's to invade Georgia, it set the precedent for UN member nations to invade sovereign countries without UN backing, and it showed that the UN couldn't really stop America doing whatever the hell it wants, and so why would it be able to stop Russia doing the same?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
17 Chapter 7 Resolutions over 12 years.
Well, I thought you wouldn't need it pointing out, but obviously you do:

Why didn’t Russia seek a UN resolution against Georgia? The US/UK did. Many, many times.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
why do you refuse to acknowledge now that Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Georgia is less legitimate then the Iraq war?

Okay, it's certainly less legitimate...

as in 'less pregnant'

But if the UN is so riddled with corruption, of what relevance is anything it has to say about anything now?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Why didn’t Russia seek a UN resolution against Georgia? The US/UK did. Many, many times.

Like Cit said, we set the precedent, they don't have to ask the UN for squat.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
why do you refuse to acknowledge now that Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Georgia is less legitimate then the Iraq war?

Okay, it's certainly less legitimate...

But if the UN is so riddled with corruption, of what relevance is anything it has to say about anything now?

Therein lies a much better explanation for why Russia may have decided to ignore the UN, then Citizens blame-America idea. I think many people warned that the UN risked becoming irrelevant if it spent too much time ignoring it’s own law. The UN isn’t perfect - it is often riddle with corruption and unresponsive, but it does provide a seed around which international policy can advance from 19th century concept. Until the UN becomes mature enough to have the full faith of nations, some nations will always have to act on their own, but that is not a justification for Russia to completely ignoring the UN. At the very least, Russia should have sought Chapter 7 Resolutions against Georgia - although I suspect that Russia had no real evidence of any of the claims they used as casus belli and probably would not have been able to get Chapter 6 much less the more actionable Chapter 7 Resolutions - in which case, Russia is really just practicing Soviet-Era politics.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Why didn’t Russia seek a UN resolution against Georgia? The US/UK did. Many, many times.

Like Cit said, we set the precedent, they don't have to ask the UN for squat.

Cit is wrong. 17 Chapter 7 Resolutions prove that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Until the UN becomes mature enough to have the full faith of nations, some nations will always have to act on their own

This is the essence of the NeoCon ideology IMO, the rule of law applies- until we think (in our outstandingly objective view) it doesn't.

Meh.

Chrisisdone

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:04 AM