Open warfare in South Ossetia

[bush_cheney2004]

Get it right. Anti-Buish foreign policy ranting. It is precisely because I am pro US I criticize his foreign policy as being the worst possible thing for US interests overseas and what has led to this fiasco.

Then you are a bigger fool than I thought....American foreign policy has been very "Bush" for a long time. Your support or lack thereof is irrelevant.

The Bush legacy is about protecting oil corporations and Haliburton and not give one's rat ass about US interests.

See above...you obviously haven't a clue about what constitutes US interests. Further, you have the arogance to think you do...from way in the back row....how ironic.

You want Russia out of Georgia, its simple. They are thugs. They are brutal facist thugs looking for money and leverage in future oil deals. What do you think this is about? Its a shake down.

Don't cry to me....tell Europe....it's their naked ass which has been exposed for all to see (again).

Its your stooge Bush an his oil conglamorate being shaken down and laughed at by the Russian mob demanding a piece of the action.

Right...it worked so well in Iraq!

Did you really think the oil cartel would march into Georgia and dictate to Russia the terms of business?

The market dictates terms of business, not the Russians or oil cartel.

[moderateamericain]

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.

Actually Just to attack your list there,

Palestine is soley a creation of the English annexation of the region, so if you want to blame anyone for this it should be Queen and country. The US has supported the Jews there. Guess what if they had not, the Arabs would have over run them in the 3 different wars that they started there. Easy to forget that.

Kosovo

my friends, 6200, 5000 of which were serb military. Thats actual nato bombing

Lebanon

According to Eckhardt (1975-1990) 162,000 dead, 62,000 by the Israeli vs PLO conflict Number of actual american kills I couldnt find.

Afghanistan

Actual combat

Civilians 1135-1500 median

tailiban (legitimate targets) 5,000

Iraq

(1979-2003) Sadam era according to Iraqi politicians 1,000,000 dead

(1990-present) Us Involvment puts the number dead at 350,000 thats do to combat, kidnappings, violence (does not include malnutrition)

*Edit* did a little more research from 2003 to present, I checked with about 8 different sources and took there figures and did a little math. The average Body count of civilians related to violence in the last 5 years is around 100,000 deaths. thats 20,000 deaths a year average.

Edited August 14, 2008 by moderateamericain

[bush_cheney2004]

...The only question is, does the next US President have any chance of distancing US interests from these oil interests. The next President will if they are willing to renew a working relationship with the Pentagon and cowtow to its desire to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan but be able to engage in world wide engagements against terrorists with quick moving mobile strike forces.

This is a laughable question coming from a country that not only has benefitted from American oil interests and capital, but is very dependent on access to American markets....more than any other nation on the planet. I'm sure the Pentagon awaits your expert advice on "mobile strike forces" vs. forward deployment.

The days of large conventional armies and expending economies on occupying countries is over. Afghanistan and Iraq once again show what took Russia down in the first place, what took the US down in Vietnam and why even the Russian thugs aren't going to leave their facist thug soldiers in Georgia for too long.

How could America have been "taken down" in Vietnam if they are occupying Afghanistan and Iraq today?

Civilians will die because of some oil executives and mobsters engaging in a pissing match that could have more easily been conducted in some f..cking casino in Monaco..

Correct...blood is a renewable resource...crude oil is not.

[GostHacked]

Correct...blood is a renewable resource...crude oil is not.

If you treat your population as a renewable resource, then you stop treating them as people.

[bush_cheney2004]

If you treat your population as a renewable resource, then you stop treating them as people.

Hey, that's good enough for the abortion folks. Ditto the Oil Wars.

[GostHacked]

Hey, that's good enough for the abortion folks. Ditto the Oil Wars.

That's pretty low. But completely your style.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's pretty low. But completely your style.

Thank you....reality sucks for some people. Just doing my job.

[myata]

Actually Just to attack your list there,

Go ahead - if you can - as a matter of fact, would be nice to see some references for the numbers you provided;

Palestine is soley a creation of the English annexation of the region, so if you want to blame anyone for this it should be Queen and country. The US has supported the Jews there.

No problem with their unwavering support for Israel, whatever they do, including occupied territories? Everything's just peaceful and proportionate?

Kosovo

my friends, 6200, 5000 of which were serb military. Thats actual nato bombing

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?

Lebanon

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?

Civilians 1135-1500 median

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?

(1979-2003) Sadam era according to Iraqi politicians 1,000,000 dead

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).

Edited August 14, 2008 by myata

[HisSelf]

I love the paranoia of the fringe left. No matter what happens in the world it's the Americans' fault. Georgia is eagerly pro-West, and wants to do whatever it can to ingratiate itself with NATO countries so it can get into the various western clubs like NATO and probably, eventually, the EU. The Americans, naturally enough, are more than happy to give some castoffs and assistance to a democratic, pro-western nation. Odd how the fringe people look darkly and suspiciously on this but shrug without care at Russian military attacks. Why would the Georgians be wanting better military gear and training? Gee, could it be because of the Russian armed separatists in two of its provinces who have a habit of exchanging sniper and mortar fire with Georgian troops? Ya think maybe they might figure they need to be able to protect their people and enforce order? That area of the world isn't exactly filled with soft-spoken, gentle people who observe the Geneva convention you know. That's to say nothing of the bloody Russians, as lawless a land as there's been in Europe in a century, where guns are the only thing which count for power.

So it's OK for the Georgians to want to lean west but when the Russians wanted to put missiles in Cuba that was a problem? This is the same thing to the Russians with the shoe being on the other foot.

Anybody who says so is not a paranoid from the fringe left, but is looking at the reality on the ground. The US is way out on a limb with this. I feel sorry for the Georgians who are paying for an American shell game.

The CBC was reporting that the US would send "humanitarian troops" into Georgia. Get under your desks folks if that ever happens. Not that I think it will. I mean really. Bush sending troops into Georgia? Well why not? It's just a short march across the border from Iran, LOL.

[WIP]

I love the paranoia of the fringe left. No matter what happens in the world it's the Americans' fault. Georgia is eagerly pro-West, and wants to do whatever it can to ingratiate itself with NATO countries so it can get into the various western clubs like NATO and probably, eventually, the EU.

Well, if I'm going to take this BS at face value, I would insist that those who are claiming to want to be my friends not get me involved in their proxy wars! Do you realize that if Georgia had already been accepted in their goal of joining NATO, the U.S. and other NATO allies would be obligated by treaty to defend them from the Russians?

I wanted to give this story a little rest, to see if any new information would start trickling out about why the president of Georgia picked last week's opening of the Olympics, as the launch for an invasion of South Ossetia -- I am especially curious of what the estimated 1000 U.S. military advisers were doing; was the U.S. govt. informed that Georgia would start the war?

So far, it seems there are a few people who guessed when the invasion would happen: Geoff Smith, a Kiev-based analyst for Renaissance Capital investment bank, had anticipated the Georgian move with uncanny prescience in an e-mail two days earlier to a fellow strategist..............Explaining his reasoning, the former journalist said the upcoming presidential election in the United States could have played a role in Saakashvili's decision to send troops into South Ossetia.

"Certainly the next White House will not be as supportive of Saakashvili as this one and so if Saakashvili wanted to reunite Georgia he really had to do it this year and he was probably hoping the Olympic Games gave him the right cover," he said.

That last comment says it all! Certainly, if John McCain becomes president, it will be Bush III, especially on foreign policy. But this Saakashvili guy must have been worried that an Obama presidency would be less supportive of his quest to reunite his tiny nation by force!

The Americans, naturally enough, are more than happy to give some castoffs and assistance to a democratic, pro-western nation. Odd how the fringe people look darkly and suspiciously on this but shrug without care at Russian military attacks. Why would the Georgians be wanting better military gear and training? Gee, could it be because of the Russian armed separatists in two of its provinces who have a habit of exchanging sniper and mortar fire with Georgian troops? Ya think maybe they might figure they need to be able to protect their people and enforce order? That area of the world isn't exactly filled with soft-spoken, gentle people who observe the Geneva convention you know. That's to say nothing of the bloody Russians, as lawless a land as there's been in Europe in a century, where guns are the only thing which count for power.

And once again, in this world where national borders are meaningless (let alone, Geneva Convention rules), if the West can decide that Bosnia and Kosovo deserve independence, there is nothing in international law standing in the way of South Ossetians and Abkhazia, having their own little nations, since they were never ruled by Georgia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The relationship of Ossetia and Georgia is more like China and Taiwan, than it is to the Southern Confederacy!

[Argus]

So it's OK for the Georgians to want to lean west but when the Russians wanted to put missiles in Cuba that was a problem? This is the same thing to the Russians with the shoe being on the other foot.

There is a slight difference between putting a few anti-balistic missile missiles next door to Russia, and putting nuclear tipped ICBMs next door to the US.

[HisSelf]

There is a slight difference between putting a few anti-balistic missile missiles next door to Russia, and putting nuclear tipped ICBMs next door to the US.

Come on. Aren't you being just a bit disengenuous? A few anti-ballistic missiles? First a sabre and then a gun? Sort of like Vietnam. Well we'll just put a few advisors in here and then ... bingo..

I do not like Mr. Putin, but I can sure see his point of view here.

And now we have (former oil executive) Condy Rice flying into Tblisi with a piece of paper that only the Georgians will sign. Gee. US troops on another Iranian border. I mean isn't this really what it is all about?

This just keeps looking like tectonic plates. The little rocks get crushed while the big rocks grind away. Before long you've got volcanoes. Like one of those puzzles that used to be in the papers. Find the thing that doesn't belong. It's not the Russians.

[myata]

And just look at this, folks: Reuters: Rice will ask Georgian president to sign a ceasefire document

Reuters:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will ask Georgia's president to sign a ceasefire document on Friday that will pave the way for Russian troops to pull back, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said.

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:

"If tomorrow Mr Saakashvili signs the document that we have negotiated with (Russian President) Mr (Dmitry) Medvedev, then the withdrawal of Russian troops can begin," Sarkozy said.

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!

[moderateamericain]

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).

I dont wanna go through and tag every page, I find this one to have the most convenient, Obviously you can make your own judgment onto the validity of it, But when you site wikipedia its like asking someone's best guess since almost anyone can go in there and edit that. Anyways, http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm I like this because it shows you where it gets its stats from. Now Keep in mind this is only one of the sites I looked at. If you want further research by all means knock yourself out. As for your question of is it disproportionate? I take it on a case by case basis.

Lebanon, I would say the Israelis were excessive here, But again, outside of providing them with arms We had very little to do with what they did, I didnt look up the latest incursion that they made into Lebanon so i couldnt tell you death counts among civilian populations during that last fight.

Kosovo, I would say the response was correct to stop genocide for sure.

Palestine, again Israel, Not the US

Iraq, I say this is, especially after watching a video documentary that follows 4 people around Iraq. A christian, a sunni, a shiite, and kurd) one of the kids moms says it best "i dont care if things are worse now or better, Saddam gone is the greatest thing that has ever happend, praise allah" Also keep in mind most of the civilian deaths now are civilian on civilian.

Afghanistan, absolutely and by far the most "Legitimate" fight we could have gotten into next to Kosovo.

[PoliticalCitizen]

I see a lot of Russian haters on this board...

This, as well as the mostly one-sided representation of the conflict by western news agencies, is regrettable.

We live in Canada, a multi-national country that by its very existence proves that all the etnic groups waging wars elsewhere in the world can happily live side-by-side.

Recognizing that Canada is US's little sister it should still have its own voice. I have yet to hear or read any Canadian statement recognizing the event that sparked the Russian - Georgian conflict:

G E N O C I D E

The US and Israeli-trained and armed Georgian military almost leveled the city of Tshinval, killing Ossetian population and Russian peacekeepers. Ossetians reported Georgians who were part of the peacekeeping force shooting Russians and Ossetians.

What the criminal regime of Saakashvili committed is a crime against humanity.

The Russian response was somewhat disproportionate - they should have sent MORE troops in right away.

A tiny country of 4.5 million people had somehow a quite potent military force, that incurred more death and destruction than Russians anticipated. Now Ossetians have found bodies of African-American fighters that somehow were in the ranks of the Georgian army.

It was also found that the anti-aircraft guns and operators were Ukrainian.

The Russian troops that are on Georgian territory now are dismantling military bases and destroying military equipment - something necessary to prevent further attacks by Georgians on Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Oh yes, to the flaming Anglo-Saxons of this board: don't you dare tell anyone to go back home! Your ancestors exterminated the American Indian population of this continent. Remember that and respect all board members.

[HisSelf]

According to the BBC, the US has now put troops into Georgia. Ladies and gents, find a bomb shelter.

George W. Bush. The W stands for Wacko.

[bush_cheney2004]

I see a lot of Russian haters on this board...

This, as well as the mostly one-sided representation of the conflict by western news agencies, is regrettable.

Compared to very accurate and factual reporting from Russia?

We live in Canada, a multi-national country that by its very existence proves that all the etnic groups waging wars elsewhere in the world can happily live side-by-side.

Except in Quebec and Caledonia.

Recognizing that Canada is US's little sister it should still have its own voice. I have yet to hear or read any Canadian statement recognizing the event that sparked the Russian - Georgian conflict:

Canada is not anybody's little sister (or brother). It is the second largest nation on the planet, at least for now. Nobody in the USA is preventing Canadian "statements" (but we are preventing medals at the Olympics).

The US and Israeli-trained and armed Georgian military almost leveled the city of Tshinval, killing Ossetian population and Russian peacekeepers. Ossetians reported Georgians who were part of the peacekeeping force shooting Russians and Ossetians.

"Russian peacekeepers" is an oxymoron.

What the criminal regime of Saakashvili committed is a crime against humanity.

OK..then indict him at The Hague.

The Russian response was somewhat disproportionate - they should have sent MORE troops in right away.

Yes..a bitter lesson learned in Chechnya.

A tiny country of 4.5 million people had somehow a quite potent military force, that incurred more death and destruction than Russians anticipated. Now Ossetians have found bodies of African-American fighters that somehow were in the ranks of the Georgian army.

You gotta problem with black people trying to make a living?

It was also found that the anti-aircraft guns and operators were Ukrainian.

Yes, just like Canadian leased heavy airlift (Antonovs)...great plane!

The Russian troops that are on Georgian territory now are dismantling military bases and destroying military equipment - something necessary to prevent further attacks by Georgians on Ossetia and Abkhazia.

We call that "war".

Oh yes, to the flaming Anglo-Saxons of this board: don't you dare tell anyone to go back home! Your ancestors exterminated the American Indian population of this continent. Remember that and respect all board members.

Well, they didn't get then all, but not for lack of trying.

[bush_cheney2004]

According to the BBC, the US has now put troops into Georgia. Ladies and gents, find a bomb shelter.

George W. Bush. The W stands for Wacko.

..and "C" stands for coward. Don't be afraid...it will be allright.

[blueblood]

I don't see why everyone says the US army is spent. They sent in what 10% of their force into Iraq. They're broke? The US was in worse shape in the great depression and mustered up one of the most massive armies ever seen for WW2.

As for the bomb shelter, the Russians won't shoot any US troops, they aren't that stupid. If there are US troops there, expect things to wind down very quickly.

As for GW being a wacko, it must be nice to live in a country where you can make fun of your leader and not have to worry about being dragged out in a sack in the middle of the night.

[HisSelf]

As for GW being a wacko, it must be nice to live in a country where you can make fun of your leader and not have to worry about being dragged out in a sack in the middle of the night.

You know, that's an interesting comment. Just last night I saw a piece on Lou Dobbs (CNN) describing a guy who had been put on the US No Fly list because he wrote an unflattering book about Carl Rove.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Compared to very accurate and factual reporting from Russia?

Out of all English language news agencies I found Reuters to make the biggest effort to present both sides.

Canada is not anybody's little sister (or brother). It is the second largest nation on the planet, at least for now.

I am proud to be Canadian. BTW, China is just shy of the 10 million square kilometers Canada has, but a lot more of its territory is inhabitable (and inhabited).

Nobody in the USA is preventing Canadian "statements"...

Funny you should say that. Condy tried to prevent Lavrov from using the word GENOCIDE. I am more than certain the Canadian press has received instructions on how the events should be represented. As a matter of fact, the Canadian coverage is much more anti-Russian than the CNN's.

"Russian peacekeepers" is an oxymoron.

Agreed. But at least they acted to prevent further genocide, something the UN "Peacekeepers" never do.

Yes..a bitter lesson learned in Chechnya.

BTW, the Chechen "President" Razman Kadyrov asked Russian Government if his troops could personally meet the 2000 Georgian fighters coming back from Iraq. He said the Chechen soldiers could use the nice NATO equipment

You gotta problem with black people trying to make a living?

LOL

We call that "war".

Not really. War is primarily killing people, as in the soldiers and population of the enemy. The military bases and weapon depots Russian troops are destroying are abandoned.

Well, they didn't get then all, but not for lack of trying.

Hahaha! Again, I appreciate your sense of humor.

Cheers!

Edited August 14, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen

[myata]

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.

Edited August 14, 2008 by myata

[HisSelf]

As for the bomb shelter, the Russians won't shoot any US troops, they aren't that stupid.

No, but from what little I can glean, a lot of them are drunk.

[moderateamericain]

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.

so i give you facts and figures and instead of attacking my post you attack my psychology? Ever heard of a fallacious argument? You say its not objective facts but yet your only FACTS you brought out were from wikipedia. which is a editable. No sir, with respect, my logic is in tact. And its a good thing because it takes people like me to defend this country.

[myata]

so i give you facts and figures and instead of attacking my post you attack my psychology?

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.