myata

And the ads are hitting the airwaves (of a simple family man). So one myself yesterday. And the election isn't even called yet. And it was supposed to be fixed day anyways. Right? Guess not, if somebody somewhere wants it really bad. Who cares? We'll get what we deserve.

No it's you who's probably wrong here. Numbers, whether KIA, troops, or technical characteristics were never a determinant of the outcome. Will and determination to fight mean much more. We could examine the old history, but why not start with more recent examples? They may love a good fight in the conditions of overwhelming advantage, in both the numbers and technically (see Afghanistan thread). But, it's been 6 years (longer than active action in the WWII) and counting, and the victory appears as elusive as ever. Judging by the same records of KIA. And of course, this is nowhere near a real confrontation with a well armed determined opponent having a cause to fight.

Of course specific examples of that glorious history we conveniently leave out for the divine to, well, divine. No worries, let's refresh our collective memories. From what I can recall off the top of my head from the recent times: - Yugoslavia (specifically, Srebrenitsa - where Dutch batallion watched one of the worst massacres of civilians in the recent history); - Rwanda; - bombing of Serbia; - Iraq; - Afghanistan; Of course, none of the above would qualify as an encounter with a "serious and determined opponent". Yet the record speaks for itself. Georgia has been enjoyed long term partnership with NATO and NATO countries, had extensive training programs with the US and NATO, and participated in several NATO projects (Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq). Wikipedia: military of Georgia. The latest exercise with the US troops has been conducted in mid July Reuters: Immediate Response, Georgia At least my statements (I wouldn't call it expertise at this point) are based on facts and verifiable information. We have yet to see your grounds for the same (that is, anything beyond authentic pro military jargon that any 10 year old reading right forums would pick up in a flick these days).

Which doesn't anyhow negate one simple fact: no NATO army is prepared (mentally, technically, politically, etc) to sustain levels of losses anywhere near those that would result from a direct prolonged confrontation with a serious and determined opponent. For the obvious proof, look no further than Afghanistan. And, maybe, Georgia in the recent conflict (Georgia's was a NATO army; or, at least, a NATO type army; and, unlike NATO itself, it could at least make some, convoluted as it stands, claim for a cause to fight). Which makes discussions of technical superiority an interesting, but quite irrelevant digression from the topic. NATO doesn't have a cause to fight. NATO won't fight. So the strategy it came down to is to howl from a safe distance. Which may appear effective in the own eyes, but doesn't necessarily scare anybody.

Dawson coroner report Among the recommendations: Contrast to Conservatives plans to quietly bury the gun registry or making it unusable by refusing to enforce compliance. Contrast to Conservatives visible lack of interest whenever specific gun control measures are called for (handgun ban; marking of imported guns). So what is the realistic practical way to fight gun crime? Could it be Conservative's "tough on criminals, lax on guns" fearmongering? Should it be made an election issue too?

The latest from Dick Chaney: Dick Chaney in Georgia. Sounds like an unquestionnable support, and encouragement, of Georgia's actions. "Democratic allegiance" or "dirty hand washes dirty hand"? (Georgia being the third largest contributor of troops to the US led Iraq coalition before the incident).

No, one shouldn't need a PhD, but basic reading comprehesion is a prerequisite of a meaningful discussion.

Good find; it's by these little specific details we will eventually know the right from wrong; and who took which side, and what side it was. No matter that, now, some may think it's just enough to bump up the volume in the media, and things will be set the right way - the way they supposed to be. Whatever way the situation plays up from now, one great achievement of Russia cant't be denied, and by that I mean finally calling that persistent and all encompassing democratic bs adage, played by the West whenever there's a need to justify some of its own murkier acts. Whatever way it's going to move, starting to call things their right, real names couldn't be wrong.

I just sooooo want to see something new, fresh, whatever, anything to get out there. The very thought of a debate with the old familiar faces (Harper, Layton, Duceppe + Dion - he's new, but I can already visualise him so well in my mind's eye) can be very depressing, n'est ce pas?

A good discussion is enjoyable, not in the least as an incentive to find out more about the issue under question. Thanks to this thread I found for myself much more than I would probably have been inclined to otherwise. I agree that at this time there's a lot at stake for Russia. It's coming back as an active player in the international politics is a welcome sign. The challenge now is to learn to play by the rules, and understand the meaning of restraint (not the abstract Western notion of "restraint" which applies to everybody else, but a very practical understanding of a line where moral loss outweighs any practical gain). In particular I sincerely and genuinly wish them to get out of Georgia proper asap, and if possible, even before then. They've scored all the points that could be gotten there, and from here on, there's nothing more to be found or gained, only lost.

I'd like to summarize my take on this complex situation, including parts played by parties so far, and based on the information I've been able to find. Most sources have been already referenced in this thread, only new ones will be linked. Factual and/or argumented corrections and/or comments are welcome. #1 The conflict is a typical post empire collaps aftershock. Historical roots go well beyond recent times. #2 Escalation of the conlift to a large scale military action by Georgia was not justifiable. Preferable approach to resolving ethnic conflicts would be negotiation based on free democratic expression of will by people (where people represent a "distinct" society), aka Canada model; if that were inacceptable to one of the parties at the time, the situation should have remained "frozen" until such time as when all parties are prepared to negotiate a peaceful resolution. This position is confirmed by NATO's role in the Kosovo conflict (when Serbia's strong response to a real terrorist insurgency has been rejected and suppressed by force). #3 Russia's initial response to the escalation of the conflict has been peaceful and legitimate (request for UN resolution demanding end of attacks and withdrawal of Georgia's troops from the peacekeeping zone). #4 This request has not met with understanding from some Western partners, effectively blocking international security framework from playing any role in deescalation of the conflict. This was the first window of opportunity for the West to demonstrate a genuine committment to the same principles of peace it likes everybody else to follow. #4 In the absence of international response, Russia's military intervention in the peacekeeping zone was justified. If civilians of any Western country fell under a direct military attack, appropriate actions to protect population and restore its security would be fully justified and executed. Precedents: UK in Folkland/Malvinas, France in Chad. #5 Specifically, Russian military actions to remove Georgia's forces from the peacekeeping zone were justified. In the situation of intense fighting that continued for two days (Aug 8th to 10th), removing the offending forces may have been the only effective way to minimize civilian casualties in the conflict and restore minimum security. Minimal civilian casualties (outside of the initial offense by Georgia on the night of Aug. 7th) appear to confirm validity of that strategy. #6 The period of heavy fighting in the peacekeeping zone was the second window of opportunity for the West to take a principled strong position on the conflict and demand withdrawal of all forces from the zone of peacekeeping and restoration of the status quo. #7 After provisional ceasefire has been reached: Russia's actions to disarm, dismantle and remove offensive military capabilities of Georgia in the areas of immediate vicinity of the zone of conflict were justified by the need to guarantee minimum security for the population in the zone of conflict. #8 Russia's actions outside of the immediate vicinity of the zone of conflict are highly questionnable; the only legitimate intervention would have been to remove a real and present threat of attack against any of the peacekeeping zones, by disarming, dismantling, and removing offensive capability of the offending forces. Specifically, advances into Georgia proper, outside of immediate vicinity to the area of conflict, or peacekeeping zones, were not justifiable. And now, some general observations: - The West once againg has shown its inherent inablity to abide by its own proclaimed norms and standards; it was not able to play strong impartial role in deescalating the conflict, and on the contrary, took a strong stance on one side of the conflict. - As a result, credibility of the West as an international agent of peace in general, and in this conflict in particular, has been diminished (with Canada being no exception either). Again, the West has shown pack behaviour and any of its future claims to objectivity, peace and justice would be met with increasing skepticism. - Russia has received a strong momentum to seek and strengthen the allegiances with the authoritarian, less democratic regimes of Asia. Democratic opposition in Russia is probably one of the biggest losers of the incident. - International cooperation, and specifically, security framework has received a strong setback. UNSC will see more of the old style block tradeoff politics, and its efficiency will be diminished even further (if that is still possible). - The situation provides opportunities for other international players, untaineted by unilateral actions, to step forward and start playing the role of trusted mediator of peace and security, which neither Western block, nor emerging China-Asia-Russia organisation will be able to play for quite some time. [edited for style - m.]

CTV: Liberal MP to sit as Green Welcome news. Welcome new federal party. There's no excuse now to have Greens excluded from the debates. New and hopefully, fresh air is much welcome in the stale federal politics.

Don't worry, I've heard it all. But, think for a moment, why do you want to share your wisdom with everybody? Do you honestly believe that you're adding anything new - to whatever you've already said, and long, long time back?

Why is it "far more credible"? Because you happen to think so? Try to argument your statements - for a change. What, "source"? Or, "source" of what? If one can't grasp the difference between a reference to a source of information, and a quote as an expression of an opinion to cite, - sorry, I won't be able to help. Finishing junior high might.

And when that happens ("bread and circuses" as the main topic dominating popular psyche), we know that the demise won't be far around the corner. In historic terms that is, we should be OK rolling on for a few more decades.

I did. Unlike the first hand eyewitness accounts collected by a reputable news provider, which were posted here for everybody's consideration, it's a comment on another comment. Containing a number of factual errors, too many to point out; and of course I never said that you're ascribing to me. But.... at some point, one has to wash their hands. You'll see what you want to see, and no amount of impartial information, facts, etc will change that. Amen.

This is the kind of democratic action we support, defend and cover up for: BBC: eyewitnesses of the conflict After Kosovo, "operations" in Afghanistan and Iraq, nobody should be surprised. Democracy appears to be a bloody business.

Most of the time, people do it to be heard back; but I guess that simply wasn't in the cards. Our call is, to dictate and preach.

And what difference does it make? There was no WMD in Iraq, as any toaster could have told them. If they'd only listen.

No, eh? Things are always bent in our favour. Either I win, or you lose. Comes with double vision.

Well, Putin may yet scramble and find a NATO passport or something. But how about WMD in Iraq? Who (or what) did our hon. Bush happen to listen to?

OK, then, the refusal to support West's unilateral condemnation should amount to condemnation of that condemnation? Quelle fresh idea! Congrats on progress in independent, open minded thinking. (BTW something to that exact extent was said in the earlier - directly - quoted declaration). Good, now we're at least trying to listen to others as opposed to only the sounds of our own indigestion.

Clarification (for those who really need it): "information provided earlier in this very forum". A note on English semantics (for those - understandably - confused by the extreme complexities of the issues being discussed): refusal to support is not equivalent to condemnation. I'll try to contribute as much as possible to the noble task of rasing public education above the junior high level, but only to the extent of my limited resources of which time is the most essential.

How thoughtful! And informative... Anyways, this comment, from BBC world forums summarizes many's sentiments very well: BBC forums Indeed, if anybody cared to read carefully information provided, they'd see that nobody (outside of NATO club) is rushing to jump on the condemnation/isolation bandwagon. The world appears to see this as a Russia vs West affair in which both parties played dirty, and nobody's entirely in the right. Which, after all, could be a good thing. Really, we couldn't honestly expect to keep on going as we are, making rules for us only, and condemning others for what we ourselves did just yesterday. It was given that one day, one time the bs was going to hit back, and what it was the undemocratic, authoritarian Russia, that was destined to stand up and call it, was only a matter of chance, or providence (whatever you choose to believe). The world works in mysterious ways, there's not a single answers to all questions, good people do bad things, and black turns out white, etc. The real question is where are we going from here? Head on full speed, in our blissful democratic ignorance, or stand back and take a good hard look at who we are and what we do. Really, it's more about "us" than "them".

Correct, it all depends on what you want to see - and read (and we already know it, from our free and impartial media): (note the direct quotes - m.) (highlights are mine - m.) SCO summit The sooner "the West" recognizes that it's not the only bloke on the block anymore, and shows genuine (as opposed to verbal only) committment to principles of justice, multi-lateralism and peace, the better it'll be - for everybody, and the West itself not in the least. Continue to make up rules "for us only" and it will make us lose all credibility on the international stage - if anything much of it left, after Iraq and Kosovo.