It's war.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by GePap


Georgia would not even be considered for NATO membership as long as there were any outstanding disputes about its' borders, so as long as South Ossetia and Abkhazia remained in their legally murky state, Georgia was never going to get NATO membership.

Personally, I think the Georgians took a chance at settling the South Ossetian issue while they thought Russia wasn't looking, and were caught off guard by how hard the Russians reacted.

I didn't know that about NATO membership, no border disputes eh? Thanks GePap, are you sure about that? I agree that the Geogians brought this upon themselves, dumb ****s. However the provocations from Russia were more widespread than just the breakaway provinces I believe. Doesn't matter, Georgia played right into Putins hands, and is now trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube, which I've never tried but I hear is quite a trick.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lancer


I didn't know that about NATO membership, no border disputes eh? Thanks GePap, are you sure about that?

Been said on the news several times. t also makes sense. After all, once someone is in NATO, everyone is pledging to defend them. If you let a country with outstanding territorial disputes in, you are almost setting yourself up to have to intervene militarily, and most countries would not just let themselves take that kind of blatant risk.

[Lancer]

Good bit of info GePap.

Serb, I see they gave in to my demands and set you free. Check my sig.

[DinoDoc]

Why were there Russian peacekeepers there in the first place given the fact that one of the sides of the conflict really doesn't trust them?

[Lancer]

I heard that they were forced upon them but I don't know how. There was some sort of earlier conflict in '92 and something else in '94 but I haven't seen anything on it thatr's in depth, and I've googled.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Serb
The destruction of South Osetian capital and several villages (which now are completely destroyed) are the acts of war and a war crimes.

Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_%281999-2000%29

[Saras]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why were there Russian peacekeepers there in the first place given the fact that one of the sides of the conflict really doesn't trust them?

our resident putinjugend activist claims some UN resolution.

[DinoDoc]

Aren't UN peacekeepers usually from neutral countries with no interest in the outcome of the conflict they claim to have an interest in keeping a lid on?

[Saras]

lol, watching the russian satellite channel Russia Today. according to it, georgians are murderous robots on speed. I bet there are idiots who'll believe it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why were there Russian peacekeepers there in the first place given the fact that one of the sides of the conflict really doesn't trust them?

Because the other peacekeepers were Georgian and S. Ossetian Troops.

There were no "neutral" peacekeepers in this area.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Because the other peacekeepers were Georgian and S. Ossetian Troops.

Then it seems an abuse of the term to refer to Russian troops as peacekeepers.

[Lancer]

"The attacks are occurring in regions of Georgia far from the zone of conflict in South Ossetia. They mark a dangerous escalation in the crisis," Bush said in a statement to reporters while attending the Olympic Games in Beijing and sipping a frosty frozen pink drink with fruit hanging off the side and a little paper umbrella that looked like it might have a tiny transmitter hidden in one of its floral flaps.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by GePap


Because the other peacekeepers were Georgian and S. Ossetian Troops.

There were no "neutral" peacekeepers in this area.

The same places that supplied the peacekeepers are supplying the combatants, now that's efficiency.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Then it seems an abuse of the term to refer to Russian troops as peacekeepers.

A "peacekeeper" would be any soldier whose mission is to ensure that there were no violations of a standing cease-fire agreement.

What that soldier's relation to the conflicting parties is isn't part of the meaning of the term.

[Lancer]

Now they have a conflict to go along with their conflict of interest.