It's war.

[Julian Delphiki]

I could not find a source for that either, in 5 minutes searching session which usually is enough to find almost anything from the 'net. Conspiracy?

[Saras]

http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=11710

[Julian Delphiki]

'polydotted.

The server at www.civil.ge is taking too long to respond.

Prolly we're just being censoredd.

[Saras]

It's the KGB

[Julian Delphiki]

This feels actually quite weird.. i think i've seen phrase "UN approved Russian peacekeepers" many times when the story has been about Georgia/Ossetia.

*** Jaloviina will help me to figure out the truth.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by PLATO

You, otoh, clearly know that there are legal arguments for 1441 being cover for the invasion. You may not agree with them, but you know they are there.

It is not like you to sink to the level of an Oerdin in your debates.

?

It has nothing to do with whether I agree with them or not. It is possible to mount an argument (even a valid argument) for pretty much any conceivable position. Similarly, it is possible to interpret a legal ruling in almost any way you see fit, if you want to. The problem with such arguments in this case is that they require belief in absurdities or stretching the interpretation of previous decisions beyond a rational breaking point.

And it's a mistake to see them as genuine arguments in any case. There is a distinction between arguments intended in and of themselves to support a position and arguments intended to support a position not by evidential means, but simply by existing in the reason giving space. In the latter case, the person proposing the reasons does not care whether they are true or whether they actually support the position in question – rather, all they care about is having something they can point people to when they are asked: "why did you do that?"

In other words, they are purveyors of what Harry Frankfurt defines as "bull****". They don't even ascend to to the level of liars, since they are completely indifferent to the truth of what they say (whereas a liar is not).

That is exactly what justifications for the Iraq war were. They weren't genuine arguments, but just things thrown up for the public to argue about while those in charge did what they wanted to.

[onodera]

Right now we're in the middle of "enforcing the peace" operation, as our pres put it.
Georgia has no airfields left, and Russian reinforcements have arrived, airborne infantry. (They are what marines are in the US.)

[Julian Delphiki]

Georgia has no airfields left.)

Partly quoted, for the interesting part. Is it really that bad already? Could you point to a source?

[Julian Delphiki]

one thing,, feel free to correct

One thing to note about this crisis and internal politics of Russia.

It was Putin whose statement was noted and spread around first (hey, the duud is just meaningless PM) - not the fricking President of Russia who might have had his saying as well..!

[onodera]

Originally posted by Julian Delphiki


Partly quoted, for the interesting part. Is it really that bad already? Could you point to a source?

Unofficial, and in Russian. Sorry.
The main seaport has been destroyed as well, this is on CNN.

[Dinner]

Plato is still repeating the tired old lie that 1441 some how authorized the invasion of Iraq. You've been proven wrong so many times in so many threads it's sad that you're still clinging to that lie. The resolution specifically didn't authorize the invasion and required a second resolution to do that. The Bush Administration tried to get that second resolution but failed.

This has been proven over and over again but you keep dragging out this pathetic lie every time this subject comes up. Just read paragraph 12 of 1441 which says on the security council can determine what future actions if any need to be taken. The Russians and French insisted on that. It simply did not authorize the invasion and even you know that.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Felch
While I agree that people, who don't participate in the government and don't receive benefits, can't be considered citizens, he did use the past tense. As far as I can tell, the Georgian government wasn't involved in anything untoward when the passports were distributed. They were made available as part of Russian irredentist policy, so it's fair to say they were citizens of Georgia.

Again, how so? Russia issuing passports to people who technically live inside another state was clearly part of its attempt to undermine Georgian authority, but lets not forget that the Ossetians (who are not ethnically Georgian, any more than the Abkahz) did not want to be part of Georgia, which is how this began in the first place. The Russians took the opportunity back then to support the Ossetians and undermine Georgia, but that still does no mean those people wanted to be Georgian citizens after having been Soviet citizens.

[Geronimo]

[edit] nm I think I found it. wasn't interesting

[Dinner]

Russians are definitely targeting civilians inside Georgia proper now. Bombing apartment blocks in Gori.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7550804.stm

[Maniac]

I wonder how many people support Tibetan autonomy, but not Ossetian.