War it is. Part IV.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Lancer
If that American ambassador had been a Russian ambassador he would now be heading off to his new job, shoveling snow in Siberia.

Funny enough, followup says that "We were, of course, sadly mistaken – and in one of the most amazing pieces of political theatre we can
remember, the US embassy has issued a blanket denial that he made these statements at all – they now
implausibly claim it to be a case of mistranslation! The Kommersant newspaper is Russia’s equivalent to the
New York Times/Le Monde/La Repubblica, and the journalist who did this story is particularly diligent; while
he could get a word wrong, it is hardly likely that he would simply invent an entire interview… in any event, he
is in possession of the tapes.

What in fact happened was the Beyrle, who reputedly “gets it” as regards Russia, spoke his mind, before being
violently jerked back by Washington – according to our sources, Secretary Rice personally berated him for the
interview. Nothing further has been heard from the unfortunate ambassador since that time."

http://nikitskyfund.com/files/tnb/Betrayal.pdf

So he may as well be plowing snow in Alaska.

[Patroklos]

I will repeat this for your benefit Ellestar

He said A response was justified, not the response that transpired.

[DinoDoc]

Have you left undisputed Georgian territory, yet?

[Lancer]

I'd love to get that plowing snow in Alaska job, those guys make big $$$.

[Theben]

Is the war over yet? the one between the US and Russia, I mean.

[Lancer]

You have to qualify that. The war never started. The new cold war is just ramping up. Polish girls are all a-giggle at the the prospect.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I will repeat this for your benefit Ellestar

Blah blah blah, empty words. If you want to say something, then please do it instead of wasting a forum's HDD space. Like, why exactly a military responce wasn't justified as a consequence of a military agression (killing of Russian peacekeepers). Also, please remind me why Israel's responce in Lebanon was justified when 2 soldiers were killed but Russian response wasn't justified when 11 peacekeepers were killed. Israel bombed Lebanon civilian infrastructure to a stone age and USA vetoed all UN security council peaceful resolutions so to let IDA (Israel Demolition Forces) do it. Note that Russia didn't specifically target any civilian infrastructure at all.

While you're at it, please tell me why US and other western powers voted against a peaceful resolution at the very start of the conflict, when Georgia bombed and shelled a city (besides, specifically targeting a civilian hospital, among other civilian targets) during the night. Russia called for an emergency UN meeting but didn't yet intervene, so obviously we wanted a peaceful resolution more than anyone else. So, it seems that shelling civilians IS justified by US/Western standarts but Russian single-handed attempts to protect civilian lives (according to a peacekeeping mandate) aren't justified, right? We were the only ones who did something to protect the civilians after US/West abandoned them to their demise.

Alternatively, state your position in other meaningful way, in case if you wanted to say something else. Thank you.

[Julian Delphiki]

Note that Russia didn't specifically target any civilian infrastructure at all.

[Patroklos]

Like, why exactly a military responce wasn't justified as a consequence of a military agression (killing of Russian peacekeepers).

Did anyone, especially me, say this? Just like the American diplomat suposedly said, A response was justified, just not the response that actually happened.

BTW, please explain again why Russia was unable to properly conduct a peace keeping mission in such a small area that borders their damn country?