Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: WMCoolmon on August 08, 2008, 06:54:34 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7550354.stm
-
Took you all THAT long to notice? Geesh. . . And it's a war now, not a simple crossing of the border.
-
This just in: War happens!
-
Took you all THAT long to notice?
I was wondering when it would be mentioned here, but didn't have a source handy for anyone to look at
This seems a little out of left field for me. Georgia busted up a Russian espionage ring some time ago and made what seemed at the time very alarmist noises about Russia, which seemed partially vindicated when Russia tried to play hardball over a prisoner exchange until the rest of Europe looked on this shenangians with a decidedly gimlet eye. Still, I've heard little else out of the region since, so this is...unexpected.
Though it does remind me of Pakistan and India's antics over Kashmir...unfortunately for Georgia it doesn't have the 800-pound gorilla in the form of the USN to keep things from going too far.
Now I suppose we see how well the EU can handle it, and whether NATO becomes involved. (IIRC didn't Georgia try to get NATO membership once? A lot of ex-Soviet states have, it becomes difficult to keep track sometimes...)
-
Russia, intentionally or otherwise, has put itself in an interesting position. Having granted Russian citizenship to South Ossetians, it has an obligation to defend them against the Georgian attack, but the question is how far Moscow is willing to go to make sure Georgia stays out. Bombing Georgian civilians certainly isn't going to convince Tbilisi to back down, which may have been the one fatal flaw Russia made. Had they simply rolled into South Ossetia with that massive column of tanks to back the separatists, I'm almost certain Georgia would have at least considered slowing down, if not breaking off the attack just due to the large size of the force sent at them.
This will be interesting to see how it develops.
EDIT: Now it seems Abkhazia is considering opening a second front against Georgia...better hope for some sort of resolution quickly or Georgia is going to fall apart.
-
I wouldn't write Georgia off too quickly, mind you, that country could prove a tougher nut to crack than Russia thinks.
That said, I wish there was a clear picture of what was going on, the Russians are denying air raids that are being reported by foreign media, which never looks very kosher...
Edit: Oh, and I wouldn't rely on the UN at the moment, if there's one thing that organisation cannot do, it is make a decision in a crisis, too many egos.
-
I'm not saying in any way Russia will be able to necessarily defeat the Georgians in the long run. Are they perfectly capable of destroying the vast majority of the Georgian military and razing Tblisi to the ground? Yes. Will Georgians lay down arms even afterwards? Not likely. Then we see Russia bogged down fighting an insurgency, with South Ossettia in bad shape, and Abkhazians using the war as cover for ethnically cleansing the 250,000 ethnic Georgians that live in its borders.
Russia doesn't need to defeat Georgia for the country to melt down.
Also, I didn't necessarily mean "Resolution" as in what the UN may do, but rather "resolution", as in an agreement between the parties involved to end the conflict before it spirals out of control.
-
I think I remember a news article posted in this forum a few months back, with a video of a georgian unmanned aircraft being shot down by a russian fighter plane. I think russia claimed it was rebels, even though it was obvious fronm the recovered camera that the plane was expensive, well kept, military issue and that the guy flying it knew what he was doing.
-
Of course this is rather ironic when you compare the Russian response to their own separatists in Chechnya.
-
I wonder how confused many US Citizens would be when the media announced that Russia is invading Georgia. :nervous:
-
Last time they heard of Georgia and Russia, they started the "We must nuke the Communist bastards".
-
Last time they heard of Georgia and Russia, they started the "We must nuke the Communist bastards".
It was the Soviet Socialist Republic of Gruzia at that time... :nervous:
-
It was recent, and they meant the russians by calling them "commies". Some people in the western world ( especially USA ) still think that Russia is a Soviet nation. . .
-
I wonder how confused many US Citizens would be when the media announced that Russia is invading Georgia. :nervous:
Well, to answer your question, I haven't seen anyone packing up their deer rifles or shotguns yet, but I'll let you know if they do.
-
I wonder how confused many US Citizens would be when the media announced that Russia is invading Georgia. :nervous:
Well, to answer your question, I haven't seen anyone packing up their deer rifles or shotguns yet, but I'll let you know if they do.
Most likely because they haven't heard about Russia invading Georgia yet, what with John Edwards having affairs outside of marriage [gasp!] and the Olympic Games starting up and presidential election stuff going on...
-
We have the Internet just like everyone else, fortunately.
-
...Most likely because they haven't heard about Russia invading Georgia yet
It's all over CNN.
what with John Edwards having affairs outside of marriage [gasp!] and the Olympic Games starting up
These news are dwindled by the Georgia conflict, even if the Edwards thing is local and the Olympic Games are global.
I'm only wondering how many will have to be told, "No, this is not our Georgia, but a small country in Europe."
-
Of course this is rather ironic when you compare the Russian response to their own separatists in Chechnya.
Chechnya doesn't have a big brother to fall back on when they get bombed.
South Ossetia does.
-
Rather than comment in any meaningful way, I'll comment in a comical and unrelated way.
WOLVERINES!
-
...Most likely because they haven't heard about Russia invading Georgia yet
It's all over CNN.
Fair enough, but is it on the Fox News? :p
...but this isn't really related much on anything.
It's a pretty interesting political situation there indeed, what with the recent acknowledgement of Kosovo's sovereignty after one-sided declaration of independence. S.Ossetia declared independence in 1992, and at that time Georgia did start military ops at the region, but Russia pressured them to back down then. I dunno if the Kosovo thing really sparked the separatists' actions, and I don't know if the stories of ethnic cleansenings by Georgian troops are true, but I don't really think Russia should be playing the white knight in protecting S.Ossetia's claims for independence while keeping Chechenya as tight under their heel as they can...
All that is now needed is someone big supporting Georgia on the matter and things might get really interesting. Of course the definition of "interesting" in this case might come from the movie Serenity... :nervous:
-
Rather than comment in any meaningful way, I'll comment in a comical and unrelated way.
WOLVERINES!
You win.
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/09/georgia.ossetia/index.html
TBLISI, Georgia (CNN) -- Georgia's parliament approved a request by President Mikhail Saakashvili on Saturday to impose a "state of war," as the conflict between Georgia and Russia escalated, Georgian officials said.
Saakashvili accused Russia of launching an unprovoked full-scale military attack against his country, including targeting civilian homes, while Russian officials insist that their troops were protecting people from Georgia's attacks on South Ossetia, a breakaway Georgian region that borders Russia.
Russia's Interfax news agency said the death toll was at least 2,000 in the capital of South Ossetia and claimed that the city has been destroyed.
Separatist-backed South Ossetian sources reported that about 1,600 people have died and 90 have been wounded in provincial capital Tskhinvali since Russian forces entered the territory Thursday.
-
The real problem for Russia, politically, is probably that nobody invited them in. They just decided it would be fun. If there had been a well-publicized request for assistance, it would have helped them a lot. As it stands, even if they produce evidence of such a thing now it's not going to help them.
-
So, expect a high-ranking military official or two to end up being removed or stepping down when all this is over?
-
People on each side need to catch flak for this--Georgians for completely leveling Tskhinvali and the Russians for Goli.
-
What I find disgusting is the simple minded, bloody manipulated way how the Western media portrays the whole issue.
In other words:
-anything that lessens Russians influence - GOOD! (Giving Kosovo independence)
-anything that extends Russian influence - BAD! (Giving/preserving Ossetian independence)
On ethnic cleansing: Bollocks! Simply put these people still wage the tried and true form of war - genocide. All that "illegal combat" crap is just us westerners going soft...there's nothing inherently inconceivable about it. I can't believe my kind keeps spouting the same explanation: "I can't believe they could do that!"
-
-anything that lessens Russians influence - GOOD! (Giving Kosovo independence)
-anything that extends Russian influence - BAD! (Giving/preserving Ossetian independence)
Sounds like a plan to me.
-
-anything that extends Russian influence - BAD! (Giving/preserving Ossetian independence)
If Russia were to preserve South Ossetia's independence in a way which didn't involve indiscriminately bombing Georgian civilians without reason and blatantly ignoring basic rules of armed combat, then I doubt the world would disapprove as much.
On ethnic cleansing: Bollocks! Simply put these people still wage the tried and true form of war - genocide. All that "illegal combat" crap is just us westerners going soft...there's nothing inherently inconceivable about it. I can't believe my kind keeps spouting the same explanation: "I can't believe they could do that!"
So you approve of genocide/ethnic cleansing then?
-
Genocide is in any case counterproductive both in the short and long term.
-
I'm not so sure genocide is analogous to total war, which is a tried and true method of fighting a conflict (bombing/burning the **** out of anything that can produce or store anything). Total war tends to kill a lot of civilians because civilians tend to live in places like industrial centers...and cities. Genocide tends to kill even more civilians because, well, that's the point.
-
Russia destabilizes Georgia so Georgia won't be accepted into NATO.
-
I guess this is an invitation for moving all available U.S. Army troops to georgia, there we get an Afghanistan 2 and Cuba gets another set of nuclear missiles.
This is our chance to start a real war, not such pussy 'we-need-moar-oil' fights. Finally we can remove our pathetic race from Earth in the soothing heat of thermonuclear war and in the chilling cold in the nuclear winter. :yes:
-
This is our chance to start a real war, not such pussy 'we-need-moar-oil' fights. Finally we can remove our pathetic race from Earth in the soothing heat of thermonuclear war and in the chilling cold in the nuclear winter. :yes:
I say wait for the space aliens to do that for us. Lazy, and the same result, if not cooler.
[I say space aliens because I don't mean Polish immigrants]
-
What I find disgusting is the simple minded, bloody manipulated way how the Western media portrays the whole issue.
In other words:
-anything that lessens Russians influence - GOOD! (Giving Kosovo independence)
-anything that extends Russian influence - BAD! (Giving/preserving Ossetian independence)
Basically, I agree that many, many people in the western world do have this mindest - but at least the german media do report rather objectively about the whole thing.
But as in any conflict there is no "good" or "bad" side. If Russia would indeed care so much about South Ossetias independence, why don't they officialy recognize its government? They had 16 years now to do so, after all! Instead, they give them russian passports, trying to bind them on Russia.
-
So how long till everyone here stops arguing about nonsense and realises this is over oil and energy supply dominance?
-
Russia has plenty of natural resources and land, so it's not that :p
-
Neither Russia nor Georgia have clean hands in this, Russia will expand if they have the chance, any country would, and Georgia went and gave them a lovely reason to do so.
I do think that Russia is looking to grab a piece of Georgia, but I don't think there would be this much confusion around if Georgia hadn't been so willing to provoke them, and there would have been no hint of an excuse to do so had it not been for the already present internal strife.
-
Guys, if I still can to speak here....
Neither Russia nor Georgia have clean hands in this
I think this is most correct opinion.
Russia will expand if they have the chance, any country would
Well, some of our damn politicians believe that RF borders must be expanded, and one of them about 7 years ago even told that "Our soldiers will be washed boots in the Indian Ocean". Fortunatelly, such politicians are in the minority and this situation will never be changed.
and Georgia went and gave them a lovely reason to do so.
I think it's not about Georgia - not about its territory. There is one serious reason - all South Ossetians have Russian citizenship and RF passports. So, just try to listen our opinion, i know all this materials on russian language but if you want have full vision of the situation, you must translate this: http://lenta.ru/articles/2008/08/08/ossetia/ or read here: http://www.rbc.ru/ or just here: http://www.1tv.ru Anyway, the first Georgian military strike was against civilians, which have Russian citizenship. Personally, I've lost two of my friends there.
-
Sorry to hear of your loss.
The problem is that, rather than simply going in to help the South Ossetians, it's all gone political now...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7552908.stm
I suppose that's what I mean by an 'excuse', Georgia were, by all accounts, treating South Ossetia terribly, and Russia went in to help them. The problem is that the foot is in the door now, and I fear this may get very sticky before it is sorted out :(
-
I think it's not about Georgia - not about its territory. There is one serious reason - all South Ossetians have Russian citizenship and RF passports. So, just try to listen our opinion, i know all this materials on russian language but if you want have full vision of the situation, you must translate this: http://lenta.ru/articles/2008/08/08/ossetia/ or read here: http://www.rbc.ru/ or just here: http://www.1tv.ru Anyway, the first Georgian military strike was against civilians, which have Russian citizenship. Personally, I've lost two of my friends there.
You're right, Russia has a right to defend its citizens.
Keyword: defend. The moment the Russians deployed an air force, it became a war for Russia to expand its reach. With very, very few exceptions, air power is purely an offensive weapon. There's no purpose served in bombing cities, apartment complexes, and Tblisi International Airport, other than to break Georgia's will to fight. Russia has the ground force capability to defend South Ossetia, which is all they need to do.
-
I think it's not about Georgia - not about its territory. There is one serious reason - all South Ossetians have Russian citizenship and RF passports. So, just try to listen our opinion, i know all this materials on russian language but if you want have full vision of the situation, you must translate this: http://lenta.ru/articles/2008/08/08/ossetia/ or read here: http://www.rbc.ru/ or just here: http://www.1tv.ru Anyway, the first Georgian military strike was against civilians, which have Russian citizenship. Personally, I've lost two of my friends there.
You're right, Russia has a right to defend its citizens.
Keyword: defend. The moment the Russians deployed an air force, it became a war for Russia to expand its reach. With very, very few exceptions, air power is purely an offensive weapon. There's no purpose served in bombing cities, apartment complexes, and Tblisi International Airport, other than to break Georgia's will to fight. Russia has the ground force capability to defend South Ossetia, which is all they need to do.
The Battle of Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_battle_of_britain).
-
Hence "very, very few exceptions," though in retrospect "primarily" would fit better than "purely".
-
Good old Russia is back on track.
If Russia were to preserve South Ossetia's independence in a way which didn't involve indiscriminately bombing Georgian civilians without reason and blatantly ignoring basic rules of armed combat, then I doubt the world would disapprove as much.
You know, I could replace Russia with another superpower and Georgia with a certain country located in Middle East in that quote. But it doesn't really matter. Human rights are Western invention and are related to living standard. Besides, I think Rules of armed combat is an oxymoron in itself.
Plus I'd bet Western military companies would be happy to sell all kinds of Stingers and RPGs to Georgia now to get the field testing done.
Mika
-
True, though I disagree that Human Rights are a Western Invention, since many Eastern races had similar doctrines centuries before we did (though much like modern interpretation, the definition of 'human' seemed to change as needed), and even back then, they realised that two wrongs do not make a right.
-
I wrote this for Darkscribes.org, so beware, there's nasty language ahead.
Here's the basics:
Once there was a country called Georgia.
In the last 1000 years they were the *****es of each and every top dog - Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire, Soviet Empire. Even after the great crash they were so-so, since their MP was an old buddy of those same Soviet guys who ran the country for the last 50 years. It was not until a guy called Mikheil Saakashvili decided that a fashion remake was in order: a nationalistic. He ousted the old guys and declared independance.
OK.
There was also a country called Osetia.
Unlike the Georgians they bet on the wining horse: the bolsheviks, while the Georgians threw their lot in with the menseviks...um bummer. Even though Georgia gave such prominent people to the USSR as Joseph Stalin, and Beriya in the long run they were always ****ed by big brother...they weren't trustworthy enough.
Even after the "voluntary" join into the USSR and after the Soviet Crash as well, Osetia remained de-facto independent in the form of the autonomic territory South Osetia as a part of Georgia, and the autonomic territory of North Ossetia as a part of the Russian Federation.
...and then there was an independent South Osetia
When the South Osetians declared independence, they chased out about 30 000 Georgians from the country. The Georgians returned the favor and chased out 80 000 Osetians from Georgia....and of course there was ethnic clensing, rape-rape-rape, kicking babies out of the other's women....the usual stuff, business as usual in these parts.
Then the Russians came in, they stationed troops in South Osetia and put and end to the whole war business. Can you believe that? Big-bad, red Russians, putting and end to a slaughterhouse and bringing peace? Well, yeah, I can believe it fine.
They did it cause having a puffer nation next to Vili's America-Pro turd of a country would come handy. However they were clever about it: they never accepted the existence of South Osetia as an independent country. They merely sent peace keeping forces to the autonomic area of South Osetia to put and end to the ethnic clensing, as well as to protect the Russian minority living in the area.
...and then there was a bunch of others
There's another country called Abhazia, but they're so chummy with the Russians - and have the balls to back it up - that the idea of "integration" never crossed Vili's mind.
However there's a third country Adjara that was also an autonomic region Georgia. For some reason when Vili came to power he reintegrated it into Georgia...and the Adjaranians didn't give a damn.
What the ****'s actually going on now
On the other hand, the Osetians do give: beyond flying the Georgian flag, Vili wants them to give up their two national sports: Black marketing and smuggling....oh and paying taxes. A big no-no.
Vili thought that if it worked once, it should work twice. He ordered the Georgian troops to finally make those Osetian smugglers pay their due. He thought that the Russian peace keepers will get the **** out of the way in as gentlemenly a fashion as possible...
...after all that's what (UN=NATO) peace keepers always do when the going gets tough.
Fat chance. Within an couple of hours 150 Russian tanks crossed the Russian South Osetian border. ****! This didn't go over as planned. But he can't pull out, or they'd call him a soft dicked pussy...so hmm...time to call in those 'mericans, see if they're as good as their word (Bush is very chummy with Vili).
What this is REALLY about
Actually this whole affair isn't about Osetia. It's about Russia demonstrating that Uncle Sam can't do as he pleases in the Russian's Bear turf: yep, Putin and company want to demonstrate that the Caucasus is still their turf, their neighborhood and you can't do **** without asking them first.
It's unlikely that Russia will go to war over the smugglers....but if they pull out of the area, Uncle Sam and the whole NATO will owe them one.
Another thing:
In Western Media, anything that lessens Russian Influence (Independence of Kosovo) = GOOD! Yay!
In Western Media, anything that acknowledges Russian Influence (Independence of Osetia) = BAD! BOO!
As for the nasty way how Russia wages war: WAKE the **** UP! It's war. People are gone die, civvies included. The western media paints the best biased picture it can, since that's what it's payed to do. It's in America's interest to paint the Russians as the devils and turn international public opinion against them.
What the Russians do in South Osetia is no better or worse than whatever America does in...hmm...actually it IS better. They've come to the defense of an area that was invaded by another. They've been stationing peace keepers in South Osetia for years and those troops and the Russian minority as well were ATTACKED BY GEORGIAN troops.
If Georgia can't take the heat he shouldn't have play hard ball in the first place....
...but as I wrote above, it won't come to that. Russia will eventually pull out, and Uncle Sam and NATO will owe them one.
-
Thank god for a decent post that paints an objective picture. Thumbs up, Flaser. I do think it's worrisome how the supposed occurance of genocide is currently being handled in the media. It's a word which shouldn't be used so hastily, but it seems to have become a playball for politicians on both sides.
-
You know, I could replace Russia with another superpower and Georgia with a certain country located in Middle East in that quote. But it doesn't really matter. Human rights are Western invention and are related to living standard. Besides, I think Rules of armed combat is an oxymoron in itself.
If you're trying to say I'm pointing the finger at Russia for Georgia, but not at the US for Iraq, then you're wrong.
As for the nasty way how Russia wages war: WAKE the **** UP! It's war. People are gone die, civvies included. The western media paints the best biased picture it can, since that's what it's payed to do. It's in America's interest to paint the Russians as the devils and turn international public opinion against them.
What the Russians do in South Osetia is no better or worse than whatever America does in...hmm...actually it IS better. They've come to the defense of an area that was invaded by another. They've been stationing peace keepers in South Osetia for years and those troops and the Russian minority as well were ATTACKED BY GEORGIAN troops.
I understand civilians die in war. It happens.
I said before, Russia has every right to defend South Ossetia. What it doesn't have the right to do is bomb apartment buildings and airports of an enemy that has clearly fled with its tail between its legs and is now offering a chance for a cease-fire, or ignite a second front in Abkhazia. If people plan to point the finger at the US for its military action resulting in sectarian warfare and collateral damage in Iraq, then Russia needs to be to be blamed for doing whats its doing to Georgia.
If you're trying to paint the Russians as the "heroes" here by saying they were awesome in the past, it won't work. The fact they're bombing Georgian civilians in the first place and clearing not backing down even when given the chance to makes them just as guilty as Georgia for invading South Ossetia.
Russia needs to pay for what its done to Tblisi and the other Georgian cities its attacked since this has started just as much as Georgia needs to pay for what they did to Tskhinvali.
-
Something else: A Hungarian guy put together this map, I've hastily put English tags on it.
(http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/2905/caucasushv1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
-
Admittedly, it's pretty reasonable on here, but it's amazing how fast some people have leapt from the Right to condemn America to the Right to emulate what they are condemning because 'America did it.'.
I had a very strong feeling it was mostly political anyway, Georgia have made no secrets of their ties to the US, and Russia are, from all reports, quite brazenly marching further into Georgia, across 2 borders now.
The situation bears some likeness to the situation in Korea about 40 years ago, with China resisting the formation of an American sphere of influence on their borders, I only hope the outcome is not the same.
-
You know, I could replace Russia with another superpower and Georgia with a certain country located in Middle East in that quote. But it doesn't really matter. Human rights are Western invention and are related to living standard. Besides, I think Rules of armed combat is an oxymoron in itself.
If you're trying to say I'm pointing the finger at Russia for Georgia, but not at the US for Iraq, then you're wrong.
As for the nasty way how Russia wages war: WAKE the **** UP! It's war. People are gone die, civvies included. The western media paints the best biased picture it can, since that's what it's payed to do. It's in America's interest to paint the Russians as the devils and turn international public opinion against them.
What the Russians do in South Osetia is no better or worse than whatever America does in...hmm...actually it IS better. They've come to the defense of an area that was invaded by another. They've been stationing peace keepers in South Osetia for years and those troops and the Russian minority as well were ATTACKED BY GEORGIAN troops.
I understand civilians die in war. It happens.
I said before, Russia has every right to defend South Ossetia. What it doesn't have the right to do is bomb apartment buildings and airports of an enemy that has clearly fled with its tail between its legs and is now offering a chance for a cease-fire, or ignite a second front in Abkhazia. If people plan to point the finger at the US for its military action resulting in sectarian warfare and collateral damage in Iraq, then Russia needs to be to be blamed for doing whats its doing to Georgia.
If you're trying to paint the Russians as the "heroes" here by saying they were awesome in the past, it won't work. The fact they're bombing Georgian civilians in the first place and clearing not backing down even when given the chance to makes them just as guilty as Georgia for invading South Ossetia.
Russia needs to pay for what its done to Tblisi and the other Georgian cities its attacked since this has started just as much as Georgia needs to pay for what they did to Tskhinvali.
You know Russia really has to pay for what they've done to Hungary during the last 50 years....no, now thatI think about it the Allies should also pay for having bombed our cities to dust....no, now that I think about it, it should be the English and Spanish who should pay for what they've done to America...or what the USA's done to the Indians or Mexico...
...the list goes on.
I think instead anyone paying for anything, we should grow the **** up and realize that the world doesn't work like a fairytale with bad guys, good guys and explosions.
War happens, people kill each other for really outré or understandable reasons, and it will keep happening unless we do something about those reasons.
Trying to enforce a morality or joining a fray with this morality on this shield won't achieve peace - it will merely be a good propaganda back home while your troops will enforce the objectives their generals set them.
I don't think the Russians are heroes - they're a superpower who does its own bidding. Sometimes it's good for the people involved, sometimes it's not. The same is true for the USA, but they have to keep shoving down my throat their slapstick, simplistic propaganda that I should be thankful, for they're doing the "right" thing, whether it's good for me or not.
-
I don't think the Russians are heroes - they're a superpower who does its own bidding. Sometimes it's good for the people involved, sometimes it's not.
And right now is an example of how Russia is turning what ending up being good for one group into bad for just about everybody involved. It needs to end. Georgia's offering a cease-fire, and Russia needs to take it.
Note: I'm still not saying this in Georgia's defense, but because it seems the most common sense thing to do at the moment. The other options are just plain bleak: either Russia keeps bombing defenseless Georgian cities after the Georgian has retreated and bring about more unnecessary destruction, or Russia simply has Abkhazia do the same thing.
-
I've got to disagree with you at some level there I'm afraid Flaser, Russia are just as happily pretending they are there for Altruistic reasons, and yet some of their actions are obviously not being done with concern for Georgian citizens, who are just as un-involved as the Ossetarian ones that died.
Politics is the art of letting other people get your own way. It's like Chess, you can lose every pawn on the Board, but as long as the King and a couple of Nobles survive, you still stand a chance of winning the game.
Both American and Russia are pulling strings here, and both are working under the banner of 'The Greater Good', it's been a favourite rallying call of oppressors everywhere.
I'm reminded of a C.S.Lewis quote.
'Those who torment us for our own good are the worst of them all, for they torment us without end, and without a stain upon their conscience'.
-
I think instead anyone paying for anything, we should grow the **** up and realize that the world doesn't work like a fairytale with bad guys, good guys and explosions.
War happens, people kill each other for really outré or understandable reasons, and it will keep happening unless we do something about those reasons.
Trying to enforce a morality or joining a fray with this morality on this shield won't achieve peace - it will merely be a good propaganda back home while your troops will enforce the objectives their generals set them.
You think we should give up, then, and abandon the Hague and Geneva Conventions, perhaps use them as toilet paper. It's really rather pathetic to hold that belief in this day and age, but never mind that.
You brought up WW2. Okay, fine. I'll play ball. The destruction of cities you were so quick to bleat about makes an excellent case in point; the actions taken then by the Western nations so shocked and horrified them that they have never come remotely close to duplicating them. Delibrate bombing of a civilian target is pretty much unthinkable to the Western military mind because it is unthinkable to the population at large. If you want to be more cold-blooded about it, there are reams of statistics and evidence that the Blitz, Bomber Command's night area bombing campaigns, the USAF's area bombing campaign against Japanese cities in 1944-1945, or even the Zepplin raids against British cities in WWI, accomplished absolutely nothing of value. The only "area" attacks, which in the end is a polite way of saying they were aiming for standing buildings, that accomplished anything meaningful was the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Going nuclear is not and hopefully never will be a viable option again. Back in 1864 and 1865 when Sherman marched to the sea and tore the place up as he went, then it had a purpose of sorts because there was so very little infrastructure to begin with. In the end it was counterproductive though; even a hundred and forty years later, long after all the physical evidence of what Sherman did is gone, that wound has not completely healed. And even Sherman knew better than to delibrately attack purely civilian targets; no one ever made a directed terror campaign against the people. Today, what the March to the Sea did could not be accomplished again. We have come too far and tasks that could only be accomplished with specialized facilites then, like casting rifle barrels or making bullets, can be done in your garage with ease today, without a lot of preparation. The targets that made the March to the Sea effective have become too many and too nebulous.
War is, in the end, a barbaric institution, and it always will be. To be cold-blooded again, it is also completely inevitable. We have fought since before we were even recognizeable as humans, and it took the atomic bomb and the threat of seeing your country vaporized in a series of white flashes to make the major powers of the world stop making war on each other directly. We will never stop fighting. This is reality.
Yet though we know war is barbaric, this is no reason to be barbaric in waging war. If we accept that it is inevitable, it is in our best interests not to be. Not only is it is demonstrably useless and purposeless to wage total war such as was done in WWII, but as you've already demonstrated for me simply by bringing all that up, the wounds run deep. Parts of Europe still remember rivalries and wrongs dating back to the Dark Ages strongly enough to use them as a pretext for violence, actions which almost certainly pale in comparison to anything done in the World Wars. By being brutal you set yourself up to reap the whirlwind at some later date; by being brutal you also make your task harder as more people will rise to oppose you. And while that was more of a laughing matter about a century ago, in today's world where firepower has become compacter and more mobile this is a big deal. Even a child can kill many today, given an AK-47 with a single clip.
Like every human political institution, the rules of war do not exist simply because they sound good. They were made because they serve a tangible purpose to both the victor and the vanquished: life will go on with as little disruption as possible. This is a worthy goal for many reasons, and most of them are really not altrustic at all. You can't tax the dead and they can't work for you, they just take up space and pose a health hazard. In Eastern Europe during the days of the USSR, the Russians could at least pretend they were putting down a rebellion, and by oversight of someone somewhere rebels against the established order have no rights. Here and now, they lack even that slender reed to support what they are doing.
-
(http://www.blastwavecomic.com/comics/20060501.jpg) (http://www.blastwavecomic.com/index.php?p=comic&nro=1)
-
You think we should give up, then, and abandon the Hague and Geneva Conventions, perhaps use them as toilet paper. It's really rather pathetic to hold that belief in this day and age, but never mind that.
I beleve the US has already done that with legal euphemisms.
Enhanced interrogation (torture)
Special renditions
Illegal combatants (anyone chosen not to get Geneva Conventions protections.)
For most countries it would be a stain on their reputation. For a country that boasts of freedom, human rights and democracy it is a huge loss to the world.
You brought up WW2. Okay, fine. I'll play ball. The destruction of cities you were so quick to bleat about makes an excellent case in point; the actions taken then by the Western nations so shocked and horrified them that they have never come remotely close to duplicating them. Delibrate bombing of a civilian target is pretty much unthinkable to the Western military mind because it is unthinkable to the population at large.
Fallujah
-
Ah, another lost soul, who's gripped with fear at the insignificance of his own existence. Western cultures are individualistic and we're old, really old compared to the third world. To us, death is the worst that could ever happen to us.
Well, guess what! To the rest of the world, which is really young (the majority of the population is >20), dieing is easy. Living day to day in slums, being disrespected, loosing face or being humiliated is a lot worse in their book. Death and especially death in combat is one of the most honorable things that could happen to you and an opponent who risks the same and may do it you is someone they respect.
...in other words they hate our guts. We're wish-washy, we denigrate all they hold important, and in their eyes we do something worse than death to them, while we can't even face death ourselves.
-
The Russians are certainly testing the EU-US way to react to unusual actions like this. They want to discover their limits.
-
Well. That was awkward. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7555858.stm)
-
Ah, another lost soul, who's gripped with fear at the insignificance of his own existence. Western cultures are individualistic and we're old, really old compared to the third world. To us, death is the worst that could ever happen to us.
Well, guess what! To the rest of the world, which is really young (the majority of the population is >20), dieing is easy. Living day to day in slums, being disrespected, loosing face or being humiliated is a lot worse in their book. Death and especially death in combat is one of the most honorable things that could happen to you and an opponent who risks the same and may do it you is someone they respect.
...in other words they hate our guts. We're wish-washy, we denigrate all they hold important, and in their eyes we do something worse than death to them, while we can't even face death ourselves.
That's a hell of a lot of generalisation right there.
-
Well. That was awkward. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7555858.stm)
That's it? That's it? I was hoping COD4 would play out IRL.
-
I've got a feeling that this isn't the last of it.
-
This war hasn't ended yet. It's just a fragile ceasefire (especially at this part of the world).
-
Ironic. In EV Nova I discovered a Planaet named 'Georgia' colonized by baltic and slav earthlings.
-
What game? Baltics ^^
-
What game? Baltics ^^
EV Nova, arguably the best space RPG out there, it definitely is for me though.
http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/games/evn/
-
You think we should give up, then, and abandon the Hague and Geneva Conventions, perhaps use them as toilet paper. It's really rather pathetic to hold that belief in this day and age, but never mind that.
I beleve the US has already done that with legal euphemisms.
Enhanced interrogation (torture)
Special renditions
Illegal combatants (anyone chosen not to get Geneva Conventions protections.)
For most countries it would be a stain on their reputation. For a country that boasts of freedom, human rights and democracy it is a huge loss to the world.
To be blunt, there's a famous picture of South Vietnam's police chief executing a captured Viet Cong prisoner that helped end the Vietnam war, because of it's impact when shown on the evening news. The problem is, that's totally legal as he was in civilian clothes when he was fighting and captured, and was therefore liable for execution as a spy according to the Conventions.
So really, if the US wants to execute them all out of hand, that's theoritically totally legal. Unfortunately.
However nobody's going to actually do that, so we enter rather serious legal gray area, and the rules haven't been defined because this sort of guerilla resistance thing was not envisioned in the conventions. Most interpretations would place them as rebels under the terms of the conventions, and therefore they have no legal rights under the conventions, so all they get is what their country gives them. However the US isn't their country. It's all very interesting, if you're a law student, but the bottom line is nobody really knows what their legal status is or what rights they have. Distasteful as it may be, it would be difficult to prove the US has acted against international law.
Now, its own law, that's another matter.
Fallujah
Congradulations, you just removed yourself from serious consideration by not understanding the goals of that operation.
Ah, another lost soul, who's gripped with fear at the insignificance of his own existence. Western cultures are individualistic and we're old, really old compared to the third world. To us, death is the worst that could ever happen to us.
It's funny to hear this said, because most people, even here, really can envision things worse than death. (Religion is good for something! But even without it, it's still quite possible.) Perhaps you can't, but that's really your problem.
Well, guess what! To the rest of the world, which is really young (the majority of the population is >20), dieing is easy. Living day to day in slums, being disrespected, loosing face or being humiliated is a lot worse in their book. Death and especially death in combat is one of the most honorable things that could happen to you and an opponent who risks the same and may do it you is someone they respect.
China called. Said you haven't got a clue. Ditto India, and most of Southeast Asia. Life is cheap, but death is usually dishonor. Of all the countries in Asia, only Japan ever really embraced the concept of honorable death to the degree you like to think, and then only in the post-Meiji governments up until WW2 illustrated blatantly how badly the militarists were duping everyone. Africa has damn few examples of a warrior tradition. The Middle East is closer, but again death is usually dishonor. You failed. Much the same can be said of Russia. The ex-Soviet-controlled countries of the Warsaw Pact see eye-to-eye more with Western tradition than anything else.
Overall, your argument, if you had one, was incredibly generalized, and logically bankrupt. About all it had going for it was that it sounded pithy.
-
Well, guess what! To the rest of the world, which is really young (the majority of the population is >20), dieing is easy. Living day to day in slums, being disrespected, loosing face or being humiliated is a lot worse in their book. Death and especially death in combat is one of the most honorable things that could happen to you and an opponent who risks the same and may do it you is someone they respect.
Other than the few poor and down-trodden in the Middle East who are duped into this 77 virgins in the afterlife nonsense by corrupt demagogues or Japanese suicide rituals which are no longer practiced, name one culture that actually believes that.
-
Distasteful as it may be, it would be difficult to prove the US has acted against international law.
They removed them from Afghanistan without extradition. I don't think you can do that and then claim you're dealing with civilians.
-
I don't think you can do that and then claim you're dealing with civilians.
Which is why they don't say they're civilians. They're trying to treat them, I guess, as the convention says you can treat spies, which means they haven't got any rights at all, but they don't belong to any real state-based organization so they're not really in the service of a foriegn power, and we start to wander into the legal murk.
And the US legal system does give rights to spies, so there's still a significant issue over the legality, but it's internal.
-
Somehow I get the feeling that the people behind the convention are turning in their graves at what is being done with it.
-
Especially at things like Justice Scalia's decision that 'Torture is not Punishment, and therefore is not "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" as defined by the convention.'
If that isn't an almost text-book case of deliberately twisting words to say what you want them to say, I don't know what is.
-
I never thought a single comment reminding about the similarities between those two conflicts would cause this much discussion.
Culturally, Russia hasn't been that keen in minimizing collateral damage for it doesn't really matter. US is, or at least is now quite concerned about that. In the end, superpowers can always find a sound military explanation (and means!) for turning half a city to dust. The end results can be seen in both conflicts.
I would ask people not to present the Georgian conflict in black and white - it is much more complex thing. And neither of the sides can be labelled as altruistic. For starters, I state my personal bias here, I tend to see Russia in particularly bad light and not really trustworthy source of information or deals. Especially if the call their soldiers "peacekeepers", I tend to find it quite refreshing piece of propaganda (but this is due to my childhood indoctrination).
Also, some of the earlier news reports of Russian aircrafts entering Georgian airspace tend to come in mind. That sounds like provoking and testing for me.
But then when Georgians are stating that this is their Winter War, I tend to become sceptical of their side also. From the sparse information I have about the conflict, it really isn't anything like that. But I recall I haven't heard any reports about the last hours of peace before military actions took place. How did it escalate to this?
Flip, I'll save human rights discussion for some other time. The only short comment I can give here is that there is a huge difference what is said and done in human rights issues in those old countries. Depends how you define "human rights", a comment that will surely set off the alarm bells of Western people.
Mika
-
Especially at things like Justice Scalia's decision that 'Torture is not Punishment, and therefore is not "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" as defined by the convention.'
If that isn't an almost text-book case of deliberately twisting words to say what you want them to say, I don't know what is.
Torture doesn't have to be punishment. You can torture someone for the sheer fun of it, if you have sadistic tendencies. One of the more common situations involving torture is when some bit of information is needed and it's believed that somebody has it. Is torture justified? In that kind of situation, it's not the same thing as punishment, since the torture is meant to cause the individual so much pain that they decide to give up the information desired. They might still be sentenced to a court and found guilty of conspiracy for withholding information, and be sentenced to prison time. While you might argue that they deserved torture, it was not meant as punishment per se.
Since torture itself would involve members not a part of the US Judicial system, it's also questionable whether it's really applicable to apply that clause (As it's been interpreted) to the idea of torture.
I think Scalia's decision was mostly less constructionist than many people would've liked him to be. I also think there's a good chance that he made the ruling that he did to prevent the Executive branch from attempting to go to more trouble to attempt to circumvent the Judical branch's power. There's already been a lot of controversy over certain prisoners being denied the same right to trial that other people have. If the Judicial branch started making a lot of rulings that would contradict Executive branch policies, one way the Executive branch could prevent that would be to pressure the legislature into providing less people the ability to seek trials from the Judicial branch, so that the more sensitive or damaging incidents could be kept contained.
EDIT:
That being said, it could also be that Scalia does think torture is a good idea. I just don't think the ruling is as clear-cut wrong as it seems to be at first glance, since the relevant passage of the Constitution is interpreted to apply to people being sentenced by the Judicial system, not people being held by the US Military, at least as far as I know. If there's some situation where it was used to apply to POWs, I may be wrong.
-
I suppose it's where the line has become blurred between the 'Word of Law' and the 'Spirit of Law'.
What concerns me about that judgement is repercussions from it. Someone who is in jail for arson is receiving punishment, but what about someone in jail on suspicion of being an arsonist? You might be in jail, but you aren't being punished for anything, so do you have a leg to stand on if anything happens to you?
Would Judge Scalia accept a cops plea that, yes, he did indeed kick the victim repeatedly, but the Constitution doesn't apply because he hadn't done anything wrong, therefore I couldn't have been punishing him.
I'll admit, those are deliberately extreme situations, but it does worry me somewhat.
-
I don't actually know about the first case. I could see it being either way. Just one more reason to not get put in jail, I suppose...
The second situation doesn't seem like an appropriate situation to apply the Eighth Amendment to me, either. The Eighth amendment has always seemed like more of a philosophical topic to be used in the courtroom than a practical topic to be used for cops on patrol. Yes, it might be cruel and unusual punishment to be kicking the guy because he was acting suspicious and making hateful remarks, but the cop might be perfectly justified in that any other reasonable person would've thought that the victim was pulling a gun. Or the cop might've felt that he couldn't take the chance and acted on the risk that his suspicions might be wrong.
It's a far cry from sentencing someone to execution by firing squad for jaywalking on an empty street.
Now if the cop was just kicking the person even though there was no reason to think that he was breaking any laws, that'd almost certainly be some kind of a violation to the Fourth Amendment, so the constitution would apply.
-
...Unless someone decides to get creative with their interpretation of that.
Language drifts, I just don't think that Law should drift with it.
Edit: A good example is that, 100 years ago 'being gay' was what an American wanted, nowadays there are those who think that 'being gay' should be illegal. That's not because of public opinion, it's because of Language drift.
-
Sorry for the double post, but, to clarify:
Riding a horse across the state of Florida at the time the Constitution was created was considered a 'punishing ride', not because the rider or horse had broken the law in some way, but because doing so put an excessive demands on the physical and mental resources of both horse and rider, both were receiving punishment, yet neither had broken the law.
It's only pretty recently that 'crime and punishment' have been solely related, they certainly weren't when the Constitution was written.
As far as military actions are concerned, I'm in two minds, I'm inclined to agree that in a War-situation, you cannot hold to every alltruism of the Constitution, but when that war is supposed to be to bring a Democratic system to a country, based on said Constitution, when that is the point of the war, things get a bit more blurred, because we are saying 'This is a dirty War, but it is to bring Rights and Freedom to the People, well, at least the ones we let have Rights and Freedom.'.
I'm not saying that what America did was 'wrong' in a global sense (personal feelings aside), but if you hold altruism like a sword in front of you, I believe you had better be prepared to live and die by that altruism.
-
Does anyone else find it interesting that the US puts it's missile defense shield in Poland at the same time Russia is invading Georgia?
It seems... well... interesting
-
(http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff127/tetrabinary/Two/Three/yahooanswers.jpg)
-
I don't know whether to laugh or cry... god I hope it's a joke. The responses are hilarious though.
should i be worrie (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080808091149AA3VGTk)
My sister loves yahoo! answers, but I stay away because of this kind of thing.
-
It was only a matter of time before someone said that.
-
Has anyone heard of a reporter in Georgia getting shot while she was being filmed on the wrist by a sniper?
That's just another sign that Georgia is really in turmoil.
-
Yeah, I heard she was shot by Russian troops. And she kept reporting! Pretty badass.
-
Somehow I get the feeling that the people behind the convention are turning in their graves at what is being done with it.
Very likely.
However, when the conventions were written, the world was a somewhat different place.
The conventions could use a makeover.
-
Update: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/080818/n_world_reuters/international_georgia_ossetia_troops_dc
-
Lovely...Nothing like leaving something to remember you by to inspire the next war.
-
Agreed, there's nothing like a good grudge to keep people bitter for a few hundred years :(