News1 min ago
Free South Ossetia?
19 Answers
Given the vogue of unfurling free this and that banners can we now look forward to banners proclaiming a "Free South Ossetia" or "Free Abkhazia" or even "Free Georgia"?
Who's side are you on and why?
Can someone explain the diference between this and Tibet?
Who's side are you on and why?
Can someone explain the diference between this and Tibet?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 123everton. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
It's not quite to the point of the question, but it is a reasonable observation.
I would imagine Georgia withdrew it's troops because (politically) it would'nt be viable to prosecute a foreign war whilst it's borders are threatened.
The West is loosely allied with Georgia (pretty much since the partition) so I suppose that could be constued as part of it, but in reality the Georgian troops would be of no use to us in Iraq whilst war waged at home.
Personally I think we just let them go home, and that we had no choice but to let them go home.
I would imagine Georgia withdrew it's troops because (politically) it would'nt be viable to prosecute a foreign war whilst it's borders are threatened.
The West is loosely allied with Georgia (pretty much since the partition) so I suppose that could be constued as part of it, but in reality the Georgian troops would be of no use to us in Iraq whilst war waged at home.
Personally I think we just let them go home, and that we had no choice but to let them go home.
For one thing, Georgia isn't exactly whiter-than-white itself (see here - plus remember it was Georgian forces who started shelling South Ossetia*)
Plus Tibet's.... I don't know... more fashionable, I guess.
As to whose side I'm on... difficult to say. I'm certainly concerned by Russia's belligerence (not because I think it'll lead to WW3 - I don't - but because I find the idea of a nation with a man like Putin in charge being so powerful and practically unchecked quite disturbing. Say whatever you like about the USA, but they're a far, far more attractive alternative than anyone else on the table).
I think Russia has ludicrously over-reacted and deserves some kind of severe penalty or a message that such behavior is intolerable (which ain't gonna happen with Russia's position on the UN Security Council), but I think Georgia was very unwise to be so provocative. At the same time, however, it seems ludicrous that Russia was mediating the ceasefire between Georgia and the separatists in the first place.
*I'd like to note here that I AM NOT EXCUSING RUSSIA'S ACTIONS - I'm as concerned as the next person. I'm just pointing this out.
Plus Tibet's.... I don't know... more fashionable, I guess.
As to whose side I'm on... difficult to say. I'm certainly concerned by Russia's belligerence (not because I think it'll lead to WW3 - I don't - but because I find the idea of a nation with a man like Putin in charge being so powerful and practically unchecked quite disturbing. Say whatever you like about the USA, but they're a far, far more attractive alternative than anyone else on the table).
I think Russia has ludicrously over-reacted and deserves some kind of severe penalty or a message that such behavior is intolerable (which ain't gonna happen with Russia's position on the UN Security Council), but I think Georgia was very unwise to be so provocative. At the same time, however, it seems ludicrous that Russia was mediating the ceasefire between Georgia and the separatists in the first place.
*I'd like to note here that I AM NOT EXCUSING RUSSIA'S ACTIONS - I'm as concerned as the next person. I'm just pointing this out.
Georgia seems to be doing with South Ossetia what Serbia did with Kosovo: trying to stop it seceding. The west applauded Kosovo and recognised it as independent at the first opportunity. Now they're trying to do the opposite with Ossetia. Unfortunately we're having trouble trying to find a consistent line here.
Yes, I think Tibet is a fair comparison too. The irritating difference with all of these is that the Tibetans and Kosovans want independence, the Ossetians just want to be Russian (the North Ossetians already are) and we don't like Russia. The best thing might just be for Georgia to let them go, though the Abkhazians would then want the same..
Yes, I think Tibet is a fair comparison too. The irritating difference with all of these is that the Tibetans and Kosovans want independence, the Ossetians just want to be Russian (the North Ossetians already are) and we don't like Russia. The best thing might just be for Georgia to let them go, though the Abkhazians would then want the same..
I understand exactly what you're saying there are no good guys, lots of little guys, but no good guys.
Yes Tibet is very fashionable and has a far more catchy name unlike South something or other and Abikhazi, Dalai Lama rolls off the tongue far easier than Sakeshvilli, or whatever his name is.
But the thing is how lawful was the partition by the Ossetians and Abkharzians?
Does that give Georgia legitimacy to assert control on it's own sovreign soil?
If not, does that give Russia legitimacy to guarantee it's borders?
I agree I don't foresee WW3, Russia will (I guess) stop outside Tblisi and demand the recognition of Abkharzia and South Ossetia before withdrawing.
Yes Tibet is very fashionable and has a far more catchy name unlike South something or other and Abikhazi, Dalai Lama rolls off the tongue far easier than Sakeshvilli, or whatever his name is.
But the thing is how lawful was the partition by the Ossetians and Abkharzians?
Does that give Georgia legitimacy to assert control on it's own sovreign soil?
If not, does that give Russia legitimacy to guarantee it's borders?
I agree I don't foresee WW3, Russia will (I guess) stop outside Tblisi and demand the recognition of Abkharzia and South Ossetia before withdrawing.
I think it was Stalin (who was Georgian) who created Ossetia as a region - its people aren't Russian or Georgian, I think they're basically Iranian. But he made the north part Russian and the south part Georgian. The two parts are separated by mountains and I think there's only the one tunnel between them, so that division made sense in terms of geography, though not of population origin. But like I said, the Ossetians don't want to become independent, they want to become Russian, and this is what upsets the west.
However, it was Georgia who launched an attack on South Ossetia last week, which seems pretty provocative, to put it mildly. I think they underestimated how strongly Moscow would react. They may also have overestimated how much the west would react. The west is angry, but can't do a thing about it.
However, it was Georgia who launched an attack on South Ossetia last week, which seems pretty provocative, to put it mildly. I think they underestimated how strongly Moscow would react. They may also have overestimated how much the west would react. The west is angry, but can't do a thing about it.
Part of the problem (the way I see it) is the U.N's eagerness to redefine a country's borders along ethnic/racial lines any hotch potch group can claim to be a separitist movement and bomb it's way to the negotiating table.
Nobody's really sure how to react or what to say, even myself I can't hand on heart say one way or the other who's right I remember many years ago watching a B.B.C programme called "Holidays In Places That Don't Exist" (very good, one of a series of similar documentarys all very good also) I do have to admit though I kind of understand why the Russians love Putin.
He's put Russia back on the map, he's made them important again but where that leaves the rest of us is another matter...
I'm still unclear about the legalities (percieved or otherwise) of partition?
Was Georgia's invasion illegal?
Was Ossetia's separation legal?
Who decides?
I ask the same question on Tibet, on what grounds was Tibetan indepence legal?
Nobody's really sure how to react or what to say, even myself I can't hand on heart say one way or the other who's right I remember many years ago watching a B.B.C programme called "Holidays In Places That Don't Exist" (very good, one of a series of similar documentarys all very good also) I do have to admit though I kind of understand why the Russians love Putin.
He's put Russia back on the map, he's made them important again but where that leaves the rest of us is another matter...
I'm still unclear about the legalities (percieved or otherwise) of partition?
Was Georgia's invasion illegal?
Was Ossetia's separation legal?
Who decides?
I ask the same question on Tibet, on what grounds was Tibetan indepence legal?
South Ossetia is agreed by the UN at the moment to be Georgian territory, so I doubt you could call the government war criminals, and more than you could say the same of the UK government over Northern Ireland actions: they may have been atrocities but they weren't war. (Some would argue just the opposite, but from the UK point of view they were policing actions, not military ones.)
There's a long blog and multiple replies on the subject here for anyone who wants to plough their way through the arguments. As to who's right and who's wrong, it depends where you stand; international law is a very vague subject, because nobody can enforce it.
http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2008/08/war-in -georgia/
There's a long blog and multiple replies on the subject here for anyone who wants to plough their way through the arguments. As to who's right and who's wrong, it depends where you stand; international law is a very vague subject, because nobody can enforce it.
http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2008/08/war-in -georgia/
as usual, all is not as it seems http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context =va&aid=9791
Sorry 123everton
Hadn't answered the question.
Broadly speaking my bias is always anti American pro Russian because of my politics. However sometimes this is more I dislike US policy more than I dislike Russian, rather than being actively pro Russian.
The link provided by maxximus, would show if the author has any insight, that surprise surprise the conflict is about the control of oil with the US being puppet masters. The terrible consequence is whilst all this Machiavellian machinations go on, real people get killed - or if the conflict has been provoked as suggested, then those people whilst still just as dead have really been murdered.
Hadn't answered the question.
Broadly speaking my bias is always anti American pro Russian because of my politics. However sometimes this is more I dislike US policy more than I dislike Russian, rather than being actively pro Russian.
The link provided by maxximus, would show if the author has any insight, that surprise surprise the conflict is about the control of oil with the US being puppet masters. The terrible consequence is whilst all this Machiavellian machinations go on, real people get killed - or if the conflict has been provoked as suggested, then those people whilst still just as dead have really been murdered.
Ruby.... I hate to say this.. but... the idea that the USA is behind the Georgian War.. is ..... um...
Oh, hell, I can't be arsed to be polite
It's stupid, Ruby. It's completely, utterly, ridiculous. If you look at it objectively without bringing an anti-US bias to the situation (which both you and the author of that article have) it just doesn't stand up. Why the hell should any hint of Western influence in Georgia or its politicians mean that somewhere is instantly an American stooge?
Let's apply your logic to another random topic that's just entered my head.
Gandhi was British-educated, therefore Gandhi was a British stooge. Would've been very clever on the part of the British, just so they could rustle up the independence movement and then make a botched job of withdrawing and wreck the country that they didn't want to let go of! MWAHAHAHAHA!!! Rumbled! What's that? No evidence? Shut up.
Does the above sound stupid? Good. Because it is. And that's exactly the stupid kind of logic both you and the author of that stupid frickin' article are using when implicating U.S. 'Puppet masters' in the conflict.
God, this irritates me so much...
Oh, hell, I can't be arsed to be polite
It's stupid, Ruby. It's completely, utterly, ridiculous. If you look at it objectively without bringing an anti-US bias to the situation (which both you and the author of that article have) it just doesn't stand up. Why the hell should any hint of Western influence in Georgia or its politicians mean that somewhere is instantly an American stooge?
Let's apply your logic to another random topic that's just entered my head.
Gandhi was British-educated, therefore Gandhi was a British stooge. Would've been very clever on the part of the British, just so they could rustle up the independence movement and then make a botched job of withdrawing and wreck the country that they didn't want to let go of! MWAHAHAHAHA!!! Rumbled! What's that? No evidence? Shut up.
Does the above sound stupid? Good. Because it is. And that's exactly the stupid kind of logic both you and the author of that stupid frickin' article are using when implicating U.S. 'Puppet masters' in the conflict.
God, this irritates me so much...
Oh Krom! Be nice! It's only AB, everyone's entitled to an opinion it would be dull on here otherwise and I, for one, would like to thank ALL the contributors thus far.
But still could someone explain to me the legalities of partition/separitism?
If we can clarify that then we have a clearer picture upon whom the onus of responsibity lies.
But still could someone explain to me the legalities of partition/separitism?
If we can clarify that then we have a clearer picture upon whom the onus of responsibity lies.
your welcome ruby. kromovaracun without trying to be conspiritorial, do a little research into the u.s. backed, so called " coloured or flower revolutions" and their connection with pipeline corridors present and future. at present there are three recently built major pipelines running through georgia that supply the west with caspian gas and oil, bypassing the evil empire, russia and axis of evil, iran. this conflict has nothing to do with "free anybody "and everything to do with pipeline transit routes. if it all seems just ' coincidental ' to you then this is just another ' coincidence ' http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/finance/964 2716.asp?scr=1 cheers!
1 to 19 of 19
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.