No doubt, but if South Ossetians by a large majority want independence, it seems Russia just happens to be standing on the moral high ground. Of course, as more reports come in, Russia seems to have been seriously exaggerating the death toll and destruction. We shouldn't back down from demanding Russia leave Georgia and probably pay for the excessive damage they've done. Russia has dealt a serious blow to Georgia. We look so hypocritical as we've done worse in Iraq, it really irks me. But at least this time we stand with the majority of the international community.
I think you are leaving out some key details. South Ossetia is made up predominantly of ethnic Russians and Ossetians. Few Georgians live there. The people of the province have been working for independence through democratic means since the fall of the Soviet empire. They are in a very similar situation to the Kurds. The Georgians sent troops into South Ossetia and Russian initially responded to that aggression to protect the Russians in South Ossetia. It is also important to realize that there are 2 other Georgian provinces in rebellion.
I think Georgia is against it because there are other provinces that are also seeking to break away. If they let S. Ossettia go they will encourage more fracturing of their country. They are certainly not holding on to Ossettia for any industry because the place is an economic drain on the entire country.
I thought there were only two breakaway provinces, but I can understand Georgia being concerned about further fracturing. It does seem Georgia has been willing to allow South Ossetia to exist as a mostly separate entity while remaining a Georgian province. Sounds like a tough situation and Russia does seem to be exploiting it. Russian forces are plundering as we speak.
More than a few. Tell me--South Texas is predominantly Mexican and South Florida is predominantly Cuban. If those populations arose in revolt and wanted to seceed, would the United States send in troops to quell the matter juts as Georgia did? You bet. We fought a Civil War over this once. If Mexico sent troops over the border to defend Mexicans in South Texas as the russians have done, would that be justified? No, It would be war. Hardly democratic and certainly not peaceful. Violent conflicts happened in the early 90's, 100,000 South Ossestians fled to North Ossetia and 23,000 ethnic Georgians fled South Ossetia and settled in other parts of Georgia. Ethnic Russians replaced both. Lots of ethnic cleansing took place under 70 years of Soviet rule and continue this moment. The Georgians had every right, it was their territory. It was foolish to not expect the russians to retaliate, yes. But the russians had no legal right. One other that I'm aware of. You have no problem with Russia violating national soveriegnty?
I saw an interesting segment on CSPAN, mostly echos what Red has been saying. Georgia dumb, Russia dastardly. Said Putin is the smartest and most competent leader in the world today. Well planned by the Russians. Executed while Bush was focused on flirting with the beach volleyball girls. They said if you look at the films, the Russian army looks sloppy. Their air force lost 6 planes to a nothing air defense system. I think the US has lost 2 planes in combat in over 10,000 sorties in the last 20 years, over much better air defenses. Said Putin must be angry and embarrassed over the military showing.
Remember our conversation some time ago about the Soviets? Looks like I was right, I realize you still call em Russians but they aint just the Russians. A really scary thought is that their economy is no longer based on communism like it once was. Their economy will be stronger and they could be harder to defeat economically this time around!
If we had American peace keepers and American populations in another nation where there was turmoil, as Russia does in Georgia, and that nation sent troops in to quiet things down I would not see it as very far fetched for us to amp up military presence. I do think Russia has now taken it too far, but Georgia was the aggressor.
Semnatics. I can't see how Georgia was the aggressor when they didn't enter Russia. Georgia was the instigator of upsetting the staus quo in one of their own provinces, but they were not the ones who transgressed across an international boundary. That's the key political issue.
Comparing Russia to Mexico and Georgia to the US seems backward. South Ossetia and Abkhazia will continue to be a thorn in the side of Georgia, and there is little Georgia can do about it without significant aid from the west. Of course, the west wants to see Georgia as part of NATO and as strong as possible, to reduce the strength of Russia, and allowing those two independent minded territories to be bought off by Russia weakens Georgia and strengthens Russia. I can see how it is important for us to back Georgia in this case to keep Russia's power in check. But until Georgia becomes strong enough to stand on it's own against Russia, it will be expensive to the west. What is the value of South Ossetia and Abkhazia? It will take gold and determination to overcome Russian will. If Georgian's effectively destroyed Tskhinvali and killed 2000+ South Ossetian's in the attack, then I think Russia has a case for coming into Georgia. Doubt is being cast on those numbers, however, and on the extent of damage to the South Ossetian capital.
