IF Georgia killed 1000+ S Ossetian's, it seems to me that Russia is in the right. That number has not been verified as far as I know, however. If the death toll was considerably smaller, it seems Russia is in the wrong. I don't like the way the leader of Georgia is acting, though, and it seems pretty dirty to strike at S Ossetia when he expected Russia to be distracted.
Do a little research. And note where the propaganda is coming from--mostly Russia. Try to understand native South Ossetians are Georgians. The province is part of Georgia. Many ethnic Russians moved in during the long occupation of the country by the Soviet Union. So now, Russia has been paying and arming the Russians in Ossetia to form insurgent groups and guerrilla war against the Georgian government. Georgia was trying to regain control of their own territory from insurgents. Russia is trying the Findlandize Georgia by replacing its West-allied President with a Russia puppet. The tanks are occupying parts of Georgia far from Ossetia and they won't leave until they install a new government of their own choosing. They are trying to re-create the Soviet Union.
South Ossetians are an ethnic group seperate from Russians or Georgians. South Ossetians have been claiming independence since the fall of the Soviet Union. The Associated Press has reported that many South Ossetians who survived Georgia's attacks estimated hundreds of their fellow countrymen dead, bodies all over. CNN hasn't been able to verify a death toll, but a humanitarian orginization has confirmed that 30,000+ South Ossetians have crossed into Russia to flee Georgia's attack. If Russia has been supporting South Ossetia, who claims independence, is that different from the US supporting Georgia? Also note that this is happening on Russia's border and seems, at least to me, significantly more above board than our occupation of Iraq. I believe Russia has the authority to maintain peace in regions surrounding their country. Temporarily going into and disabling a country that has killed hundreds of "its" civilians doesn't sound extreme.
That seems politically naive. This is naked aggression against a sovereign state. Border disputes are supposed to be worked out by treaty. Internal insurgencies are supposed to be settled without outside interference. Russia had no qualms about quelling it's own insurgency in Chechnya. This is an exact parallel. Russian wants Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Ukraine back and they want Georgia, too. This Ossetia business is a pretext. It's no different from the invasions of Hungary in 1956, Checkoslaviakia in 1968, Afghanistan in 1979, and Chechnya in 1994. Tanks roll in, local military bases are destroyed and the population cowed, while a puppet government in placed in control. The Cold War is back. This is going to precipitate the re-arming of Europe, the expansion of NATO, Russia's expulsion from the NATO-Russia council, Russia's possible expulsion from the G-8, and lots of covert shenanigans.
I see there are questions about the death toll being reported by Russia and it seems there is some validity to what you are saying. But I am reluctant to believe Georgia is blameless and it does seem that Russia has authority from the UN to act as peacekeepers in the region. It does look like Russia over-stepped its authority, but in the end this seems more legitimate than our presence in Iraq.
Georgia handled this poorly and against our advice, but they are a democracy, and ally, and a vital pawn in the contest with Russia.
They are an ally and are strategically important. I hear very little talk in the media (outside of Russia) exploring if what they did in South Ossetia was wrong. I've read that 99% of South Ossetian's want independence from Georgia. What's the deal there? Why are so many opposed to South Ossetian independence? Is it because it gives Russia more leverage, something most of Europe, the US, and of course Georgia oppose?
Do you actually believe that Russian propaganda? Doesn't it sound remarkably like the 99% victory margins the Soviets used to win elections by? Alright, Ivan, just put your hands against the wall and no sudden moves. Now, who won the American League pennant in 1943? No? Well, who is Mr. Green Jeans, then? I thought so . . .
These numbers were obtained with observers from other nations watching the proceedings. That proves that I'm not old, not that I'm a pinko commie. :wave: I'm just curious if the reasons are morally based or if the reasons are based on strategic positioning. BTW... :usaflagwa geaux usa PS: I do sometimes wonder if our news is propoganda free.
Everything is strategic for all parties. Of course not, you ALLWAYS have to know the source of your information.
