sam04u said:
It's common sense "Admiral" Nelson. If your military is going to be deployed for a military exercise, or for a war, you contact your neighbours to let them know what you're planning, unless you're intentionally trying to intimidate them, or commit an act of aggression against them. Now thinking logically. Why was Russia not contacted? Russia could atleast have pulled out it's peace keepers stationed there if we're to believe Saakashvili did not know Russia would respond in the way it did. The reason Russia was not contacted was precisely because Georgia knew Russia would disapprove. So rather than avoiding the conflict and going the diplomatic route, they chose instead to launch an unprovoked attack against the South Ossetians which resulted in the deaths of some 2,000 civilians.
I'm distantly related to Horatio Nelson, hence the name. Also, Russia has been doing several training runs for just this instance. I think it was about three months ago where they basically mock-invaded Georgia on an exercise in the Russian Caucuses. I fully support Russia in this matter, but the fact is they've been precipitating this conflict for a long while, putting random punitive taxes on Georgian imports and banning outright Georgian wines, for no other reason other than to just aggravate the Georgians. The Russian handing out of passports to the South Ossetians was further only to give the Russians a legitimate cassus belli for this exact situation.
Look, I believe Russia is in the right here. BUT, I recognise the fact that it wasn't just a matter of the Georgians randomly invading, but the end result of half a decade of Russian manipulations and machinations. If Russia was just protecting the South Ossetians or it's peacekeepers, they could have easily stopped at the South Ossetian border, rather than taking over the northern third of Georgia.
If you want me to say it again, I will. Yes, the Georgians initiated this conflict, but it was the Russians that played a large part in setting up this situation, and it was the Russian decision alone to pursue the Georgians into Georgia. Again, I agree with the Russian course of action (and if you'll note, what I'm saying is indeed in line with what I've said for the last month), but I recognise that Russia played a large role in setting up this conflict and following it up to the extent it did.
Where is the justification in that? What's more is a great deal of South Ossetians are Russian passport holders. So Russia acted in an exemplary way to defend it's territorial ally.
Yeah, passports given to them for this instance. It's a legitimate reason, but surely even you will note the fact it's a very sketchy deal, giving passports to foreign nationals to act as a cassus belli. Funnily enough, the Russians are doing the same thing in the Crimea.
Read what I said above. This conflict which lasted such a short period of time could have been avoided if Georgia did what was expected of them. If they had contacted the Russian authorities, there would have been no war. Rather, they chose to attack a territorial ally of Russia which is filled with Russian passport holders.
Look, again, I support the Russians here. I think that Georgia was incredibly stupid to do what it did, and incredibly misjudging of the West's commitment, but at the same time, I can at least recognise the dubious nature of giving foreign nationals passports. This isn't even counting the fact that Russia technically recognised Georgia's right to rule over South Ossetia as this point.
What's even more astonishing is you compared a 5 year occupation, where the leader of the country was executed, 1,000,000 of it's people perished, 4,000,000 of it's people homeless or displaced to a minor skirmish on a border to enforce an agreement between Georgia and Russia by extension.
I'm not comparing a bloody occupation to the Georgian conflict. I'm comparing the initial invasion. And, I find it hard to believe one in thirty Iraqi's were killed and that one in seven was homeless under Saddam Hussein. But even if that's the case, it wasn't why the US invaded. It's a moot point.
If you read what Slidey said a few pages back, you seemed to be somebody who spoke sense. But with that statement you proved how little you actually know.
I don't pretend to know all, and I don't pretend to be an expert on the war in Iraw. I do, however, think that I have a really good grasp on the Georgian-Russian conflict. Feel free to disagree.
Yeh, except Russia didn't completely destroy the Georgian military, occupy the entire country, install a puppet government, and maintain troops all over the country for years to come, exploit it's oil resources, set aside "large" sums of money for it's reconstruction, only to have them stolen by a corrupt company *cough Halliburton cough* which relocated it's business to outside of the US to avoid investigations.
Again, I should have qualified I meant initial invasion. I'm not comparing the occupation and aftermath, nor the causes.
