It's war.

[Saras]

My lack of faith is based on years of experience and an ability to read their domestic drivel. While 'zero' might be an exaggeration, it's really close to that in reality.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Saras
Good point. But I think Russia forced Saaks hand by sending that armoured column. You can't claim you're serious about maintaining sovereignty if you sit idly in the middle of a forced annexation of a piece of your territory, however contested.

Certain facts and some logic are in contradiction with the hypothesis that Saak's hand was forced specifically at this point in time:

1) Georgia already began the current escalation around SO a few days (perhaps a week) ago. There is no doubt that no Russian armoured column was present in SO at that time.

2) Russia would not have dared to send in such heavy troops as an armoured column if it had not been for a concrete military action of the Georgian army. It's not even a matter of Russia being benign or evil. It's just a matter of being practical and reasonable in the face of possible harmful sanctions on the international level. After all, if Russia really wanted to force the things, she would recognize the SO independence in the first place, wouldn't she?

BTW it was in 1991.

Oops, sorry.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
If anyone stands to gain anything at all from this, it looks to me like it's the Russians. The Georgians are hopelessly outgunned, and they have to know it. It would be foolhardy for them to launch an attack into South Ossetia and not expect a Russian response, particularly given that there are already Russian forces in the area.

The Russians, on the other hand, have little to lose. Realistically, no one will provide military aid to the Georgians and risk the ire of or war with Russia. The same goes for sanctions (not to mention, Russia wields veto power on the only major body capable of imposing sanctions).

There's admittedly something about this whole situation that seems somewhat underhanded, but, at the end of the day, score one for Moscow.

Take into consideration that the Georgian President is really passionate and somewhat crazy.

As for "score one for Moscow", it's too early to tell. It will depend on what the reaction of the West will be. Even if there are no sanctions, it will remain to see if the image of Russia suffers due to all this.

After all, it could have been a coordinated action with the US, who commanded to Saak something like "it's now or never". Please don't mind me acting a little bit paranoiac.

[PLATO]

Georgia is a soverign Country. South Ossetia is part of that Country. By UN charter, no country can invade another without UNSC approval (at the very least some sort of arguable UN cover like 1441 was for the US).

Russia may (or may not?) have legitimate reasons to intervene. If they do, then they should immediately put forth a UNSC resolution in emergency session. If they do not, then they should withdraw their forces this instant.

Short of that, the West should begin sanctions until all unauthorized Russian troops are withdrawn.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by PLATO
Georgia is a soverign Country. South Ossetia is part of that Country. By UN charter, no country can invade another without UNSC approval (at the very least some sort of arguable UN cover like 1441 was definitely not for the US)..

FTFY

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Agathon


FTFY

Well, since we are arguing about it, I guess that alone disproves your silly edit.


Let alone that even legal scholars argue over it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap
The US press can be counted to be pretty "anti-Russian." After all, CNN"s headline on the issue currently is "Russia Invades Georgia,", which is a headline of questionable accuracy.

OK come on. That's just CNN. CNN wouldn't know the truth if the truth painted itself purple, smacked it around, tied it up and violently butt raped it while calling out "Who's the truth, *****?".

[Pekka]

There are tons of problems with this. First of all, I don't know much about the whole Ossetia issue. Russia has recently shown to be a bit aggressive about its natives in other countries, that is, it is as if Russians are victims of all kinds of things in neighbouring and other countries. Then again, Russians are a minority in many countries and minorities in general don't usually have a cake walk in countries that aren't super rich to begin with, so being at the bottom in a poor country sucks by default.

But that doesn't relate to Ossetia, it seems to be a bigger issue than these other things we've seen. It seems more legit to me. THe way it is made to look like, as in Georgians going at it, against mostly Russians in there... well.. I wouldn't be surprised to see a retaliation. If there's a whole bunch of people targeted, even in a foreign country, I mean if you see a clear pattern that they'll be pretty much wasted, I say declare war and kick ass.

If this is the real situation, I don't know. But if it is, I don't see any moral problems with it. But I don't know what has happened there anyway. Or the background.

[PLATO]

The problem, Pekka, with these "Russian Citizens" is that they were citizens of Georgia. Russian gave Russian citizenship to anybody who applied from that region in order to be able to claim to defend "Russian Citizens" just like they are doing now.

If Russia gave citizenship to everbody in Maine and Maine wanted to sucede and the US moved forces in to retake control, then Russia sure as hell would not be justified in invading there would they?

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


No. Grozny was rather an anti-terrorist mission.

Yeah, those damn buildings really looked like they were threatening Russia! Next thing you know, there'll be buildings in Moscow and Leni... St. Petersburg!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by PLATO


Well, since we are arguing about it, I guess that alone disproves your silly edit.


Let alone that even legal scholars argue over it.

I hate you for making my side with Aggie but "the sky is neon green with purple pooka dots" followed by "see we're arguing so it is arguable" doesn't change the fact that your original claim was laughably retarded and provably not true.

[Dinner]

Damn terrorist buildings got in the way of Russia showing how restrained they are and how they don't target civilian areas.

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Damn terrorist buildings got in the way of Russia showing how restrained they are and how they don't target civilian areas.

To be fair, those buildings were probably built during the Soviet era and we might not know if they were hit by artillery fire or a gentle breeze.

[Chemical Ollie]

I like Apolyton OT when crap like this little war hits the fan. You get comments from the whole political spectrum in a wide variety of nations, covering it all. Not the homogenius crap comments you get elsewhere. *popcorn*

[Agathon]

Originally posted by PLATO

Well, since we are arguing about it, I guess that alone disproves your silly edit.

You're arguing in the sense that fundies "argue" against evolution.

Let alone that even legal scholars argue over it.

Again, they only "argue" in the sense that fundies argue over evolution. They're just trying to defend the indefensible. All they are doing is what Bush does: making a lot of white noise to try to obscure the fact that they did something wrong or something stupid.