myata

These comedies tend to turn out into tragedies once in a while. I hope nothing funny is being planned in e.g. Iran, before this merry administration is finally sent on its way.

This is the link to today's BBC report: BBC story. I could find any mentioning of a bridge. There're reports about a damaged bridge in some other media, but I haven't seen anything that would link it to Russian activities. BTW, from the same BBC report:

Cool. The attacks on South Ossetia's capital never happened. Russia simply "chose moment" to roll in. "War is peace", right August? Just as we have diagonosed. The truth is in the eye of the beholder. It doesn't need trinkles like facts.

That's good, thanks for the information, I didn't know that. So, unless it was another rosy attempt to graft western ideas into the local culture with little effect, the population must be well versed in the notions of democracy, law and order. When, what exactly are we doing there (militarily - I fully support development assistance)? They have their democratic government, it has 60,000 strong army, x,000 police and security service. All against a meagre handful of insurgents who enjoy no popular support (see more below). I don't believe it's a good thing; I'm saying that making a government for them could be as bad, and shouldn't be our business, period. I already commented on the question of rights (basic rights that is - we can come up with all kinds of "rights" claims to justify our interference). Because: - previous attemps of installing foreign ideology almost never worked; - from our everyday life we all know that people cannot be made to change their minds by force; they can be made to obey by force; or they can change their minds freely; it's a mutually exclusive dilemma. By applying our force there, no matter what motivation, we aren't letting them make a choice they would have made otherwise. Perhaps we fear that that choice may not be to our liking; like Hamas in Palestine; or Islamic opposition in Egypt; we seem to have no qualms about ignoring "democratic will of people" when it doesn't suit our ends. - finally, because of track record; six years and counting of strong military involvement failed to achieve serious improvement in security situation; e.g Reuters now reports Taleban advances near Kabul; and to preempt your standard argument, the situation has nothing to do with Germany or Japan after WWII, because according to your own statements we're supposed to be in a friendly environment, with majority of population in full support of our mission. And of course Bosnia and Cyprus examples have no slightest relevance because we simply have no combat missions there. Yes that's the only thing I'm saying. The government should decide that the (combat) mission is finished. It was a mistake to take part in it in the first place, and it'd be even greater mistake to persist. Cerainly it's not for the lack of effort from soldiers that it does not seem to working. I've never said it was. OK, thanks for the facts. One can argue to death if it gave them the ticket for a full blown invasion, and I'm not impressed with UN double talk one bit. I think very often (maybe more often than not) it's a cause for more problems than any solution. But how do you know that them, themselves are on the good side? Most importantly, will you know if/when they start turning bad? That you aren't messing in the internal scores and conflicts? Tribes, old scores... There's no answer, other than the simple one: we should not be using force in other's conflicts. Information, education, humanitarian assistance, all fine, but direct military involvement should be out of question. We'll have to take things to more detail, I'm sorry. 2,000 of bandints in the whole country would be like 200 per province (unstable one). That's about 10 gangs per province (I simply can't see how smaller gangs could do anything with presumably hostile population which is armed and versed in the use of arms). It'd be very likely less than we have here in Canada, and it's simply unbelievable that six years of serious combat with hugely superior forces failed to make any progress. That is, if we continue to insist that Taleban enjoys little popular support... And how would they know that they aren't in the need anymore? With you always conveniently behind (or even in front) of them, fetching their chestnuts from fire.. Right, peacekeeping. That's a big difference isn't it? With peacekeeping, we aren't taking sides. First of all, they, nation building vs peacekeeping, are two largely different things. I never objected to the latter; as to the former, I'm not sure it even exists; as a practical concept, that is, rather than an illusion (or, more likely, a delusion).

From what I understand about it, it's a deadly indiscriminate weapon with a large radius of kill, and its use in populated areas should be avoided to prevent civilian casualties. Makes sense. There's an international convention to prohibit the use of cluster bombs, none of the big shots have signed it.

I'd subscribe to that; but what about the role of the West, which, as in the good old times before, is giving their exclusive support to the one particular ..hole? Not to mention that it had quite a bit of a clout over it; perhaps, with the right influence, the whole tragedy could have been avoided, or at least minimized? And, as it looks from facts and figures, whenever we ourselves (or our buddies) decide to go in and mess things up, the result comes out every bit as dirty and ugly, as theirs - and more. So, does it make us, that, a-word, too? Interesting question... would ask for an honest and courageous self examination. Would we have guts for that though? I think the answer, now, is out there. To August: one way to tell the difference, is to examine the deed. Not words, beliefs, or perceptions. Facts. From that point of view, indeed the records of the two presidents balance each other out quite nicely (Iraq and Afghanistan vs Chechnya and the poisoning affair). To M/A: of course you forgot to mention of that the reports were of a ten or so light vehicles, possibly a reconnaiscence mission, which are allowed by the provisional ceasefire agreement, and would be really hard pressed to take on the fortified capital. But maybe you could shed some light on why it took so long to get that peace of paper across what appears to be a few hours of direct flight? It would have sped up the process (of withdrawal) quite a bit. Unless of course, somebody somewhere is interested to prolong the effect. Anyways we'll see tomorrow night, the bet is on. HRW is reporting a possible use of cluster bombs against a Georgian city. This is a potential war crime and must be investigated, those guilty punished. Cluster bombs were also used by the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Israel - in Lebanon. For everything they do, we do it too. How does that happen?

Thanks for pointing out the ugliness of war; this is exactly why it should be avoided at all cost; speaking of which, maybe you'd care to comment on my earlier question, namely, why have US and their allies not take any measures, and on the contrary, stalled UN process to stop Georgia's attacks when they started? As to the incidents; again war is an ugly business; people rarely come out all white, and some turn completely black; no matter ethnicity or nationality; you'll easily google cases of US military atrocities in their recent wars. That can been repeated till hell gets tired and still be completely irrelevant. Germany had Nazis, US nuked cities full of civilians, and the rest of Europe practiced torture and burning alive, at some points of their history. So what exactly are you trying to say? What you seriously dislike Russians, and grasping for a reason to rationalize it to yourself? You mean, they started the bloody mess, while poor peaceful Georgians were drinking their night cup of milk (or whatever they drink), in their tanks? Gotta do some independent research, rather than just passively taking in the media; btw, bad for your brain. The agreement only comes into force once signed by the parties. Georgia's pres only got to it couple of hours back; why the delay? Your guess is as good as mine; Anyways, I believe now it'll have to travel all the way back to Moscow, so gotta be patient here. We were so very patient peaceful and understanding while the city was under a barrage of fire, so I'm not sure what's all the fuss is about. Of course, there's no media reports from the first hours in Ossetia under massive fire. If you're curious, you can still find information, "the truth is out there". And not excusing maradeuring behaviour in any way, as already said, war is ugly business, and once it's out of the bottle, it'd be totally naive to expect that it can be squeezed back in a wish. Somebody had friends or relatives killed, houses destroyed, someone else joined in to make a quick buck; there're sure folks who'd just be looking for trouble, especially if they managed to lay hands on lots of guns. Which brings us, again, to the same quesion: knowing full well the ugly nature of war, why have we (in the broad sense) done nothing to halt it in the bud then we had that opportunity? Why do we never, ever do that, if it (a war) happens to be run by one of our buddies?? Why do we ourselves start new wars, by choice, not need?

And of course, all argumentation went missing on the way. Who cares! It must be the order of the day. In the context of this topic, I tried to give some insights. One can probably add that they seemed to have been taken completely by surprise and blew back stronger than was necessary. Anyways, a good point, I'll try to summarise it in one post. Wow, you're free to blow all kinds of accusations; this is Internet, not a court of law, it doesn't require any evidence or conviction; but certainly, the US troops were convicted of both (as well as deliberate murder of civilians)? And it's pretty much an established fact that Georgia's troops were shelling a populated city with heavy artillery and multiple rocket launchers. Severe need of excuses, I understand.

Indeed. Just keep saying it, and someone may yet take it as truth. For the reference, and for the last time (if it hasn't been made clear enough in the previous x--- posts), here's the main questions I'd like answered: 1. If West, and US in particular was really and genuinly concerned about peace and stability in the region, why didn't they restrain their puppet, who was obviously preparing for a massive military action? I mean come on, don't play innocente, these preparations take weeks if not months and Pentagon people were sure to notice that something was brewing up... but of course, see no evil, from those who are mine. 2. If --- see above, why did they not react in force in the first hours of Georgia's attacks, which would have stopped the whole affair right there, and instead stonewalled Security Council meetings till the thing got really and seriously out of control? Whose interest it was and how can it be explained by the theory of peace, justice and goodness? 3. Given the reported civilian casualties on both sides (which of course need to be verified independently, but general picture should have emerged, by now) and how they compared with sited previous records of NATO (and its partners or allies) operations, why do we continue to hear (and you continue to insist) that the response in this conflict was grossly disproportionate, while cited NATO operations were not. BTW, despite your claims to the contrary, you have yet to provide us with a logical, fact based argument(s) as to why NATO action in Kosovo had been proportionate, while Russia's in Ossetia - was not.

I see... that's seems to be the only argument out there. Whatever we do is good (obviously..., we're on the side of goodness), and whatever they do, is bound to be wrong (and disproportionate). Principles, laws, facts and numbers won't matter one bit. So, my diagnosis was correct, after all?

Well, at least from now on, the question can be closed, and all doubts settled. Surely, in a case of genuine incident, they'll follow their own preaching and exercise restraint; proportional response; refraining from hostilities; observance of peace; and so on and yada yada. And so, if we ever see some mirky incident or "provocation" that should require strong and clear response, to defend, protect, and assist, yada, yada, there should be no doubts what it's all about.

Yes I can see how the world could start rolling toward a new system of "unions". I.e. ahead into the not so long forgotten past. And the "Western" union seems to be doing a lot to make it happen.

No, we aren't out of the woods just yet (BBC): The guy now has to reexamine the deal (the same one he agreed to a few days ago): It seems to becoming a pattern; let's recall that he also signed another agreement only a few hours before launching massive attack against Ossetia. And Canada's new and respected international role? In it's proper place and order. Has anybody bothered to notice? Why would they? Everybody knows that we'll follow the big pal (with a couple days "independence" delay, of course). BTW France went on with the naval exercise, while US and the UK withdrew.

Exactly. It's the psyche that takes facts and figures and makes conclusions from them, n'est ce pas? Kosovo (Wikipedia: Kosovo) is proportionate; South Ossetia - no. How do you know that? I mean how did you come to that conclusion? By what, psychology? By reading facts and figures, any logical, rational mind would see that Kosovo separatists got independence for exactly same thing as South Ossetian ones are now being accused of. Don't believe me? OK, how about a little "spot the difference" game? Read the information and tell us, what is that essential principal difference(s) that made NATO involvement in Kosovo, and subsequent granting of independence, good and proportionate, while Russian in Ossetia - OK, everybody knows what. Please check here ( ) if you think that it's because US and NATO are the shining force of good, while Russia - abomination direct from hell. That would be exactly the point of my research.

I'd like to follow the situation with the agreement very closely; I really hope (if I believed, I'd pray) that it gets signed and sealed tomorrow (the concern here is that if it's been altered after signed by Russians, it'd have to go back to Moscow, and moreover, will be taken as a further sign of Western untrustworthiness), Russian army pulls back, and the conflict is localized to the fringe regions; if the word games continue, I'm seriously afraid we may see more of a bad news. And, btw, the new role of Canada? Right at the back of the Bush's pack, according to barking order. Impartiality, independency, finding solutions, mending bridges - all things of the past. To M/A: I have to mention now that it was a psychological test (sorry); the conclusion is that the type of thinking you demonstrate (which is also very similar to that displayed by Hon. Mr. G.W.Bush - my complements), is not limited by any objective facts; notions (like justice; semantics of words, etc); principles; norms; standards; and even laws, when really, really necessary. The only strong and unquestionnable necessity is that you need to be on the side of goodness. Really, it's the only logical explanation to that otherwise completely dumbfounding and paradoxical way of thinking, that can excuse the deaths of a thousand civilians in response to kidnapping of 2 (military) one day, then decry much smaller casualties (but certainly no less tragical for that) in response to direct and massive military assault on a populated area as vile and outrageous. However, all becomes easy and clear when one recalls that notions of logic and reason carry no weight in the domain of faith. And so, it goes, this one - our, good guy, can be explained, he really didn't mean it, no, was forced to do it; that - them, baddies, let's get them for that! And so on, as a good pious sovereign of old, dealing benefice and punishment, never daunted by a doubt, or restrained by some abstract notion. And granted, once in while there comes about another high and noble sovereign, who'll be just as, well, just (apologies for the pun) and good and noble; only in their own, different way; and then - you know what happens. Good luck to us all.

And just look at this, folks: Reuters: Rice will ask Georgian president to sign a ceasefire document Reuters: Note that significant "a". Knowing american propensity to legalistic detail, there's no guarantee that the document is the same one, that was signed in Moscow and accepted (verbally) by Georgian president. Signed obligation to not use military force in the breakaway regions was one of the main conditions of the ceasefire, negotiated by Sarcozy in Moscow. As it appears, till the agreement is signed by Georgia, Russia is under no obligation to pull its troops. Reuters: And if the text of agreement somehow miraculously changes on the way from Moscow to Tbilishi, Russia will be under no obligation to abide by it. I.e back to square one. Keep watching, looks like the games are going on!

Go ahead - if you can - as a matter of fact, would be nice to see some references for the numbers you provided; No problem with their unwavering support for Israel, whatever they do, including occupied territories? Everything's just peaceful and proportionate? Does it mean, 1200 civilians (please add reference)? If so, that'd be about 10 times higher than what's Georgia reporting for its civilian casualties in this conflict (not to say that these reports can be accepted as is, without independent verification, as those guys seem to be making news and stories on the fly). Also, no doubts about proportionality? What was meant is Israel's 2006 war in Lebanon (or what they creatively like to call it, "right to self defense"), started after two or three of Israel's army soldiers were kidnapped. Some 1,200 civilians perished in Lebanon. No proportionality worries? Care to provide a reference? Numbers appear to be too low (Wikipedia: civilian casualties in Afghanistan. I haven't time for thorough analysis, but the overall count for the time from 2001-2007 could be in several thousand - of direct civilian deaths, not including side effects of invasion like malnutrition, etc. Also, all's fine and proportionate? Not to mention that for some of that time he was our buddy; anyways, the post referred to the civilan casualties of the coalition war, which as far as I'm know, are now counted in 10s, in not 100 of thousands. Now, given that Russian response in this conflict is so hugely disproportionate, which of the above would be, "proportionate"?? (hint: all of the above; read Orwell).

.. as they just "forgot" about territorial integrity of Serbia? S... happens when you use rubber justice standards; it may just come back one day.

Does it change the fact, that without that first massive assault, the disaster the see now would not have happened? As it may not have happened if the US, and their buddies in the Security Council showed a genuine committment to justice and peace, and came up with a resolution to stop hostilities, there at the first meeting. Withdraw invading troops from the peacekeeping zone. Or just called their protege and told him the same thing, making sure he understands they mean it. Wouldn't that have been an act of "peace", I mean something actually confirmed by deed, act, rather than drowned in the double talk we're so used to? "Provocations"? Sure, there're provocations and provocations. Anybody with a minimal understanding of how things work, would know that build up for that kind of military operation takes a while (ask e.g. A/G or M/A here: how long would it take to get 9,000 troops with heavy weaponry, aircraft, and all supplies, into attack position??). But certainly, massive build up of military presence next to the zone of conflict, has nothing to do with, "provocations", does it? Pretext to justify .... One more time, and maybe try to answer this time around, if an Israeli settlement in the West Bank came under massive rocket fire, bombardment and ground assault from e.g. Iran, what would the "action" be? Who would condemn it, and call it disportionate? No need to guess, just google for "Lebanon war". Western policies, and first of all, those of the US, are a big and outrageous pile of hypocrisy. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if they eventually pull us back into a new cold war. I mean there's a new guy in Kremlin, and close as he may be to Putin, he isn't Putin. Things change. This may have been the chance to show, for once, what we mean it when we lecture about peace and justice; maybe if they saw it, something would have moved on their side too? But who would know, now? In the end, it all came down to the same, tried and trusted, "see no evil, hear no evil", from those who're mine. And so, it'll now be. Palestine Kosovo Lebanon Afghanistan Iraq Our proud record. Our ticket to lecture others about peace, justice and "proportional" response.

Allright. See you here the night of 16th. Hopefully, much smoke will clear out by then.

And what you don't seem to understand is that a constitution is simple a record of ways of the land. That's it, no more and no less. Until certain right or freedom is clearly understood by everybody, until it becomes everyday way of life, there's little point of writing it into a constitution. It'll sure look great, but then? I.e one can live without a constitution with wonderful freedoms just fine - or, have a wonderful constitution and still little freedom. And that was, when? Can you be more precise? Under their king? Or maybe under Soviets? OK maybe in the first days there was indeed a surge of support for the US, including their (wrong) move to topple Afghan government of the moment. With all its problems, it was still the only stable local government they had in years following Soviet invasion. Decision to go to Kandahar wasn't "debated to the hell", not as far as I can recall. Anyways; if a wrong decision was taken under the pressure of the moment, it's even worse to persist in it till bitter end. Listen, we've been there for six years; if anything good couldn't wait to happen - why didn't happen yet? What is it waiting for? 100,000 NATO troops instead of 50,000 will make Afghanis free and democratic? We've already been there. That happened after Americans blasted the country out, and a "legitimate" way had to be made to clean up the mess. Again, democracy is more than putting a cross in a box once every so often. It (an election) is only the very tip of the iceberg, not the whole thing; not even the beginning; a society with reasonable rights and freedoms can exist without popular democracy; and of course, vice versa, a society with no freedoms won't have them simply by the fact that somebody ran an election for them. I emphasize with their condition; and we should be helping, no question about it. The question is, in what way? We can't be fighting for them, because we won't know for who, and against whom, and we can't build their country for them because we won't know what they want. You'll then have to explain, how taleban, with their ostensibly 1,500 troops, finds power to create presence on the ground, while government assisted by foreigners, with 100, or 1000 stronger force couldn't. There's a logical contradiction between claims that Taleban enjoys little popular support (needed for home support of the mission, otherwise it'll really look more like we're fighting in the other peoples home conflict), and that they successfully terrorise population in large parts of the country (needed for justification of military mission). Both can't be true; which one isn't? Both? I understand; but this is a discussion board; to keep open mind, to discuss, is the only way to react before things get out of control - as they did many times in the past - e.g. Vietnam. And that I understand too. Army should not be used in the reconstruction / society building projects. That's one reason I think that keeping it there is now wrong and counter productive. And you sound like we should now be there forever, just because it's not honourable to say goodbuy. And that is a good point too. There has to be an efficient, working international mechanism to react to mass right abuses wherever they may happen (note I mean real fundamental rights, not "democratic" rights). The aim of these missions will be restoration of rights, period; rebuilding of the country has to be left to the locals; nobody can do it for them. Yeah I know; the problem is, when the proposed solution doesn't work. It happened before. Anyways I do support you getting any necessary equipment you need while there, but I think the right thing would be to get out of there. Listen I understand; but what should I do? Cheer for the mission that I believe is wrong? That will cost a lot (in lives most importantly), and won't achieve the objective? Simply because the objective, to rewrite entire country to our own image and liking, is, in my view, next to impossible task?

Would be good to start by reading some background info on the region, e.g on Wikipedia (Wikipedia: South Ossetia) or some news channels (BBC, AFP). There's many questions to be answered, e.g: - is S/O a really (i.e historically and ethnically) a part of Georgia; - what population wants (mind that population is ethnically divided, so answer to this question can be very complicated); - what were the actions of different players around the conflict up to now; - and during it's recent escalation; - were Russians justified in responding in force and sending their troops in? - what could be directions, principles and perspectives of future permanent settlement of this conflict. That' s a lot to discuss in one post (or maybe even in one thread), so I'll only comment on the open conflict, which is most in line with the topic. I can take it that given the proximity and emerging imperial ambitions of the new Russian administration, their influence did not limit itself only to their peacekeeping role. However, given the limits of their power in the mandate (before break out of fighting, their force in the region were something like 150, correct me if I'm wrong), and continuing attention from the West, I simply can't see how they could realistically prevent or slow down the momentum toward integration with Georgia proper, if that had been the desire of the majority. Note also the results of the independence referendum (never recognized by the West). So, to me at least, and from information available, it appears that there hasn't been a strong momentum for integration with Georgia to begin with, and the years of "cold conflict" failed to change that. Now to the role of parties in the open conflict. There're reports of provocations on both sides, prior to Georgian attack. There're records of diplomatic activities to prevent escalation of hostilites. But it is a fact confirmed by virtually all serious sources that the initial massive military assault was started by Georgia on Thursday night. The argument that it's impossible to "attack own territory" is a lame one - for once, attacks on own population do happen, and, in other places and times, we strongly condemn them (remember Saddam?); and secondly, as already pointed out, it's still a question whether the region is really a part of Georgia proper. There's also a strong possibility that Russian peacekeepers suffered heavy losses as a result of the attack. There's no independent confirmation, as there doesn't appear to be any independent reports about the first hours of conflict, but the pictures of Russan peacekeepers HQ can be seen e.g on BBC. There isn't much of it left. In that situation, i.e. peacekeepers under direct massive assault, there isn't one standard way of action. Sometimes we ignore (Dutch batallion in Srebrenitsa), sometime we respond in force (French response to attack on its peacekeepers in Chad was to wipe out country's entire airforce). Given large concentration of Russian population in the region, the nearest analogy I can think of would be something like an Israeli settlement in the West Bank under massive attack from a hostile neighbour; only imagine what would the response be; and who would call it "disproportionate"? As more facts become available it'll be easier to construct complete (or at least, more consistent) picture of what's happened. But even now it's clear that there isn't only black and white sides in it. And the attempts to pick sides, before all the information becomes available, and despite obvious facts, will do (and haven't done) nothing to cool the confilct and start looking for the ways to its eventual resolution. BTW, finally some independent information from Ossetia's side of conflict (BBC: Tskhinvali).

Trust you? Are you getting some backroom info direct from Kremlin? Or looking into crystal ball? We'll see very soon. How long will you give for the all out assault on Georgia to begin?

Oh yes, and Israel's recent "self defense" in Lebanon. That wasn't "disproportionate" in any way, (over a thousand civilian dead, over kidnapping of two military personnel), and earned full approval from our democracy and human rights champions.

No it doesn't look like they're going to Tbilisi after all: Same Yahoo. If you care to actually read the story, you'll soon notice that most of apocaliptic claims are coming from the administration of Georgia, never indepently confirmed (why? isn't that what reporters are there for??). And often to be withdrawn within minutes, but who cares, the splash has already been made in the news agencies around the world. As was said earlier, the line has to be drawn at a full invasion of Georgia proper. So far, there's no independent confirmation of anything like that, despite what seems to be dozens of foreign reporters broadcasting from Georgia. I'm sure US and its allies are closely monitoring the situation as well, with all means available to them, including satellites. So if anything like a massive invasion was indeed going on, we'd certainly hear lot more than hearsay from one group of reporters (as a matter of fact, there're some glaring inconsistencies in the story I'd like to point out. E.g anybody with about two grades of basic education and a map would have realized that "north" of Gori actually means "away from Georgia and towards Ossetia". And anyone with access to Google would have easily found out that the area is some 80 kilometers from the capital, i.e. already within an hour's drive; so, did the troops move away from the city or toward it? Funny how is it, that supposedly professional journalists reporting such a crucial news just couldn't be absolutely clear about what they saw? Or were it the editors of the story? Go figure).