It's war. Part II

[Solver]

Originally posted by Harovan


Which pretty much shows, if you fight wars, bring CNN with you and force your point of view down the throat of the rest of the world, and be it dead wrong. Been there several times, seen that.

By the way, I suppose by "everywhere" you mean western countries. Which want to be the navel of the world, but increasingly aren't.

It's not like the Russian media wasn't trying. They certainly did broadcast their version of events and all, it's just that Russia's current reputation is such that Westerners choose not to believe their media. Then again, it's not like the media of a country fighting a war should be believed.

And yeah, I do mean Western countries I don't really have an idea as to what the Chinese or Japanese mood is on this one.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Solver
It's not like the Russian media wasn't trying. They certainly did broadcast their version of events and all, it's just that Russia's current reputation is such that Westerners choose not to believe their media. Then again, it's not like the media of a country fighting a war should be believed.

They say, in every war the truth is the first victim.

And Bismarck said, that nowhere is lied more than before elections, during wars, and after the hunt.

Both universal truths.

[Solver]

Now we probably winked at Georgia and are prepared to leave them out to dry also.

Which reminds me. When Bush was in Tbilisi 3 years ago, he was here in Riga the day before that. In Tbilisi, he spoke in front of a large crowd, while in Riga he made no public appearances and the city was practically locked down. I don't know what we did to make this seem like a dangerous place

[Serb]

Originally posted by rah

First we winked at Saddam before he attacked Kuwait,

That is an excelent comparison.
Basically this whole current situation is very similar to 1991 Iraq invasion to Kuwait.
Iraq considered Kuwait as their territory and wanted to solve this issue with force. You intervened and that was a good thing according to your media.
Georgia considered South Ossetia is their territory and did the same as Saddam. We intervened. Now we are villians.
Brilliant.
The only difference there is that Kuwait was recognized as a sovereign state, while South Ossetia is not.

If you hanged the person who was responsible for the invasion to Kuwait and destruction of villages during the Iraq-Iran war, what should we do to a person who is responsible for destruction of Ossetian villages and capital?

???

[Serb]

Originally posted by Solver
This whole story really seems to show that Russia will lose any information war. It actually seems that Georgians were the first to escalate. There had been some shelling and mutual provocations for days before the war, but Georgia was the first to use heavy weapons when they fired artillery and had tank support there. Pretty much all sources agree on that much.

All non-Russian media, though, strongly criticize Russia on this one and Georgia also seems to have the popular support everywhere. This shows that Russia is indeed viewed as a villain abroad and will likely lose any information war that may come.

Sad but true.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Harovan

And Bismarck said, that nowhere is lied more than before elections, during wars, and after the hunt.

One of my favorite Bismarck quotes

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Serb

Don't you realize that your media biased in favour of Georgia?
They don't work in Tskinvali, 'cause: a) it's too dangerous; b) their goal is to portray Georgia as a victim, not agressor.

As shown in quoted articles Russia is the one banning foreign media from interviewing refugees or entering south Ossetia. It is Russia's obsession with controlling everything which prevents honest and impartial journalists from getting the story.

[C0ckney]

i'm afraid comparing the situation here to iraq-kuwait is just laughable.

[GePap]

Saakashvili is no Saddam Hussein (nor is he some grand champion of enlightened liberal dmeocracy like neo-cons claim). Indiscriminate bombing of a civilian area is not the same as Genocide.

All sides have been making totally inflated claims about the "attrocities" of the other side. Certainly the force Georgia used to try to take S. Ossetia was indiscriminate and hundreds if not thousands of civilians died, but one does not commit "genocide" in two days sans nukes. So just as Geogian claims of Russian "ethnic cleansing," or claims that Russia is out to "extinguish the Georgian people" are BS, Russian claims that Georgia committed anything that could be recognized as "Genocide" is also BS, EVEN if you fully accept the S. Ossetian numbers for civilian casualties.

[rah]

I'm not making any claims who's good and who's evil here.
I've read many possibly biased articles. There are still a few questions I just can't trust the answers to.

Before Georgia when balistic there were multiple provocations. I'd like to know just what kind there were. There was a cease fire signed prior. (I think that's an undisputed fact) Was that cease fire violated. If it was, that might change the picture a bit.

And something we'll never see in the papers. What type of urging on was happening behind the scenes, and what role did that play. What guarentees where made and which ones will be ignored?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin

honest and impartial journalists

[Harovan]

Originally posted by rah
Now we probably winked at Georgia and are prepared to leave them out to dry also.

I seem to have read somewhere (don't ask me about a source, though), that Bush called the taking of SO by force a bad idea and warned Saakashvili about it, but finally left the decision to him. If this is true, it would be the first time Bush showed the hint of a clue. Which sounds so unlikely, that it is probably wrong.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Oerdin


As shown in quoted articles Russia is the one banning foreign media from interviewing refugees or entering south Ossetia. It is Russia's obsession with controlling everything which prevents honest and impartial journalists from getting the story.

That's bullsh!t.


Btw, just after the outbreak of war Georgia immidiently jammed on its territory all Russian TV chanells and all Russian internet sites.

[Serb]

Originally posted by GePap
Saakashvili is no Saddam Hussein (nor is he some grand champion of enlightened liberal dmeocracy like neo-cons claim). Indiscriminate bombing of a civilian area is not the same as Genocide.

All sides have been making totally inflated claims about the "attrocities" of the other side. Certainly the force Georgia used to try to take S. Ossetia was indiscriminate and hundreds if not thousands of civilians died, but one does not commit "genocide" in two days sans nukes. So just as Geogian claims of Russian "ethnic cleansing," or claims that Russia is out to "extinguish the Georgian people" are BS, Russian claims that Georgia committed anything that could be recognized as "Genocide" is also BS, EVEN if you fully accept the S. Ossetian numbers for civilian casualties.

Ok, then what is it? Just on ordinary combat? We have evidences that Georgian soldiers killed (often in absolutely inhuman way) civilians intentionally.
If it's not genocide, than only a word "war crime" comes to my mind.
If we can prove (and we can) that Saaka****lershvili is a war criminal should he pay for his crimes in tribunal?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Serb


Ok, then what is it? Just on ordinary combat? We have evidences that Georgian soldiers killed (of in absolutely inhuman way) civilians intentionally.
If it's not genocide, than only a word "war crime" comes to my mind.

Yes, intentionally killing civilians is a war crime, but while genocide is a war crime, not all war crimes are genocide.

If we can prove (and we can) that Saaka****lershvili is a war criminal should he pay for his crimes in tribunal?

How would you? Care to show documentation showing that Saakashvili knew or approved such actions? Because otherwise you are left with the commanders on the ground, or even the particular troops being blamed for any such incident that can be proved.


Why do people always get the stupid idea that they must accuse their enemies of some hideous crime to justify their military actions? Does no one have the guts to state outright that they are blowing people and stuff up in order to meet some political aim?