This is topic Russian troops invade Georgia in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=053497

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
link

Putin declares that war has started.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
At the beginning of the Olympics, no less... Crap.
 
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
 
That'll be slightly awkward. Georgia has a few athletes at the Olympics.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
I thought I saw a couple news reports says that Putin was in Beijing for the Olympics too, not that you can't start an invasion by remote control or set a kitchen timer before you go. Still ... must make for awkward conversations given the atmosphere.
 
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
 
I feel extremely ignorant; I completely forgot about that Georgia. [Blushing]
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I cannot fathom what the Georgians are thinking. The Russians aren't what they once were, but Georgia?
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
The thread title is incorrect they are sending troops in support of a break away region of Georgia who the Georgians attacked first.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
But ya...

WAR! WAR!

[Party]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 1549) on :
 
Nobody should ever celebrate the start of a war.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
War is good for business.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Blayne's just looking for attention.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
The thread title is incorrect they are sending troops in support of a break away region of Georgia who the Georgians attacked first.

It's part of Georgia. The Russians sent troops there without invitation or permission - making it an invasion.

Therefore, the Russians invaded Georgia.

At most, the thread title is less complete than your modification. It is not inaccurate.

And from our perspective, what was put in the title was the most pertinent. Russia has sent its troops into Georgia and considers itself at war. That's bad in so many ways.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
And your looking for a foot up your ass. -To Squicky Dag posted faster then me.
 
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
 
oh, Blayne. You must really like it here.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
And your looking for a foot up your ass.
Assuming that was aimed at Squicky, his interpretation is far more charitable than the one I came up with, which is that you actually meant to celebrate war.

If his interpretation is correct, than my opinion of you would actually be improved - although still quite low. I doubt I'm the only one.

Edit: Also, threatened violence is unacceptable.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Really its part of Georgia now? This Pro-Russian region is suddenly a part of Georgia when you know so many Pro US regions are somehow independent states?

The hypocrisy is awe inspiring.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Really its part of Georgia now? This Pro-Russian region is suddenly a part of Georgia when you know so many Pro US regions are somehow independent states?

The hypocrisy is awe inspiring.

Hypocrisy means the espousing of an ideal or belief that one does not hold.

In colloquial terms, it can mean applying one principle to judge others and not applying that principle to one's own actions.

Either way, I'd appreciate you articulating the principle involved and citing your evidence that I don't apply that principle to other situation.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Russia supporting Abhkazia is almost a direct parallel to US supporting Taiwan.

Both are geopolitically important to the supporting nation, both would go to war to defend it, both are to differing degrees seeking independence (Taiwan less so now that the KMT is in power).

The parallel is obvious.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
The main pipeline from Iraq was disrupted yesterday in an attack in Turkey.

The same pipeline then runs through Georgia.

Fill your gas tank.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Russia supporting Abhkazia is almost a direct parallel to US supporting Taiwan.
Both are geopolitically important to the supporting nation, both would go to war to defend it, both are to differing degrees seeking independence (Taiwan less so now that the KMT is in power).
The parallel is obvious.

I see the problem. You think I made some commentary about whether Russia's actions in this case are justified.

I didn't.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Really its part of Georgia now?
Yes! It's always been part of Georgia (well for at least 200 years). This region is within the internationally recognized boundaries of Georgia. No country, not even Russia, has recognized South Ossetia as an independent nation.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
It stated it was making moves to do so before georgia escalated matters.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
It stated it was making moves to do so before georgia escalated matters.
And yet it's still part of Georgia.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
And Taiwan is a part of China.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
It seems you're the one being hypocritical here,not us. See, you do think Taiwan is part of China. Yet you posted here that you don't think this region is part of Georgia. What's the difference?
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I was using sarcasm.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I love my friends responce:

Me: "Dano Russia invaded Georgia"
Dano: "In which game?"
Me: "Real life fool! The Best game of all"
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
But ya...

WAR! WAR!

quote:
And Taiwan is a part of China.
[Roll Eyes]
Who exactly do you think you're helping? Or is this just a thing that you do for fun?
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Ah, fanboiism. Still, it does seem to me that Russia can reasonably claim to be playing by the same rules as the West, what with Kosovo. There's no particular reason to consider South Ossetia part of Georgia.


(Aside) Never mind Georgia, are you going to support Italy against the blatant aggression of the Bretons in accordance with your obligations under the Samoyeds Pact, and if not why not?
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
That whole issue is leaving me very very confused I wasn't aware Italy is a part of it.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
President George Bush and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin discussed the conflict in Georgia, the White House confirmed.

Both men were attending the opening of the Summer Olympics in the Chinese capital and spoke during a luncheon hosted by Chinese President Hu Jintao.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/08/georgia.reax/

Well, at least they're close and it is easy to talk with each other but still ... wonderful timing.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Well, I guess that explains a bit about the timing:
quote:

It has always been hard to work out who fired the first shot in any of the many conflicts that had broken out in the Caucasus.

Ever since June 1992, when the tiny mountain enclave of South Ossetia won the first round of its bid to detach itself from Georgia, the two sides have been intermittently at war.

But the flare-ups in the last decade have been skirmishes, and for a while it looked as though peace had broken out.

The weapons used today — tanks, multiple rocket launchers and fighter aircraft — made the fighting qualitatively different.

Observers had little doubt that the operation to take South Ossetia back under Georgian control bore the hallmarks of a planned military offensive.

It was not the result of a ceasefire that had broken down the night before - it was more a fulfilment of the promise the Georgian president, Mikhail Saakashvili, had made to recapture lost national territory, and with it a measure of nationalist pride.

The assault appears to be have carefully timed to coincide with the opening of the Olympics when the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin, was in Beijing.

Tom de Waal, of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting and an expert on the region, said: "Clearly there have been incidents on both sides, but this is obviously a planned Georgian operation, a contingency plan they have had for some time, to retake [the South Ossetian capital] Tskhinvali.

"Possibly the Georgians calculated that, with Putin in Beijing, they could recapture the capital in two days and then defend it over the next two months, because the Russians won't take this lying down."

If Georgia calculated that Russia would be inhibited by Putin's presence at the Olympics, that soon backfired.

Within hours, the Russian president, Dmitri Medvedev, chaired a session of the security council in the Kremlin, ordering units of the 58th Russian army to retake Tskhinvali. The Russian president's military credentials are so weak - he had no other choice.

...

Jonathan Eyal, the director of studies at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi), warned that all-out war between Russian and Georgia would amount to "the worst crisis in Europe since the end of communism".

He described Georgia's decision to shell Tskhinvali as a brazen effort to humiliate the Russians.

"It is clearly a calculated gamble by the Georgians," he said.

"If they manage to overrun South Ossetia, where there are probably only around 1,000 Russian troops at the moment, they will have humiliated Russia and would have created a triumph for themselves.

"They will also have propelled the west into a diplomatic involvement on the ground."

...

He described a feeling that the country was "more sinned against than sinning" but that there was also significant frustration over the actions of its president.

"If it goes into an all out war, the predicament for the west is acute and the crisis would be the worst crisis in Europe since the end of communism.

"It would be much worse than the Yugoslav wars, mainly because it has the old traditional element of an east-west confrontation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/08/russia.georgia1
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Wasn't Jintao the bad guy in Rush Hour?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Edit: Also, threatened violence is unacceptable.
In the context, it's also hilarious:)
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Huh, I thought people stopped making fun of people's names in high school.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Did I threaten to murder his parents, grind them into my homemade chili and force him to eat it?

I think not.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Then again, I guess the general conversation IS at the level of high school.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Did I threaten to murder his parents, grind them into my homemade chili and force him to eat it?
Blayne, you have to understand: physical threats in online discussions don't carry much weight at all in serious-minded people.

Physical threats from you carry even less weight in the minds of the serious and the whimsical alike.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
And so do your pretensions to maturity.
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
You know, I actually came in here planning to make a joke about Georgia, as in the state, and and how some people who didn't realize there WAS a Georgia besides the state might get confused...

But you know - War, armed conflict, invasion,- whatever you want to call it is no laughing matter. I agree that it's unfortunate it is happening around the Olympics, which are supposed to be about unity and coming together to celebrate athletic achievement across the world. [Frown]


Of course, that's not diminishing the fact this kind of thing is unfortunate whenever it happens.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
And so do your pretensions to maturity.
I wasn't aware I made a pretense to that.

But seriously, man: you gotta realize how absurd you make yourself look when you make physical threats online.

Don't get me wrong, I'm having fun breaking your balls over it too, but seriously, it's also for your own good. You looked like a complete jackass with that foot-ass thing. Try to remember that the next time you get the urge.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I said "your looking for a foot up your ass" I did not say "I am going to kick your ass" it is merely my expression of displeasure in much the same way Red Forman from the 70's show does.

"breaking your balls" once more pretension to something you do not have.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
Huh, I thought people stopped making fun of people's names in high school.

Was that directed at me?
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 1549) on :
 
One reason why Taiwan has not "declared independence" is because Taiwan considerers itself to be the rightful and legitimate government of all of the former Chinese Empire as it existed at the collapse of the last imperial ruler. It considers Communist China to be a rebel government holding territory by hostile force.

If Taiwan declared itself to be "independent" it would essentially give up any and all right to regaining its lost territories. It is also the same case with Communist China not wanting Taiwan to declare "independence" because if that happened, Communist China would lose all pretext to Taiwanese territory and also have to allow Taiwan the same rights as any other nation which shares a border, sea, or waterway.

So if you are comparing Osetia to Taiwan, the comparative is essentially false.

Then again your initial outburst was beyond petulant behavior. So, why I am surprised at the remainder of your comments simply indicates I assumed you to have some sort of human decency in you.

Apparently you wish to demonstrate that you do not.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I said "your looking for a foot up your ass" I did not say "I am going to kick your ass" it is merely my expression of displeasure in much the same way Red Forman from the 70's show does.
When Red says it it's funny.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
if it declared independence it would be immediately invaded, the PRC actually would never allow Taiwan to be independent just because a region "declares" independence does not by any means force the contesting nation to somehow accept it.

Right now it stands is that the Independence leaning parties want independence but lack political support do to so and the KMT and other Pro Unification leaning parties want closer economic and political ties with the mainland following the 1992 Consensus and possible unification on their terms.

The PRC doesn't "have to" do anything it has over 600 Ballistic missiles pointed across the straights for that purpose, your being overly naive and ignorant of international law.

Next and yes, I am Satan. Carry on by dehumanization through strategy games is not your concern.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
I said "your looking for a foot up your ass" I did not say "I am going to kick your ass" it is merely my expression of displeasure in much the same way Red Forman from the 70's show does.
When Red says it it's funny.
And hes paid to make it that way.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jim-Me:
Was that directed at me?

It was aimed at all the posters in this thread that find themselves making fun of people's names.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 1549) on :
 
Its more like 1000 at this point. But despite your assumptions as to my misunderstanding of geopolitics, the fact is that the situation between China and Taiwan is not comparable to the situation with Russia, Georgia, and Osetia.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I think its perfectly comparable in terms of the respective political stances and also perfectly acceptable to criticize Western response to the matter. Just because the exact historical circumstances aren't 100% the same doesn't mean the politics are different.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 1549) on :
 
Simple math.

You have in one case, two nations which each claim the entirety of the other's territory. In the other case, you have one country dealing with a rouge territory, a second country which had peace keepers in that territory, and the territory in question seeking independence from both nations.

Exactly where is the obvious commonalities?
 
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
 
Tibet's a better comparison. Both Georgia and Tibet were independent nations that were conquered by bigger empires, and both are regions that were influenced by an influx of citizens from those empires. In Tibet's case, their territory was split into the Xizang Autonomous Region and the Qinghai Province, the latter of which is now greater than half Han Chinese rather than Tibetan. If Tibet were ever to gain its independence, it would likely lose Qinghai (about 37% of Tibet) for the same reasons that Georgia is losing its own provinces. Those regions in Georgia aren't all Russian. They just have a Russian majority.

You can argue whether or not it's right for Georgia to let go of those regions, but it would be hard to argue that Russia isn't responsible for it happening to begin with, and wouldn't seem audacious for interfering in a conflict they practically made in a foreign territory, especially militarily.

Besides, if Russia's so "righteous" that it's going to help out it's ethnic Russian counterparts in another country, it might as well go ahead and let go of Chechnya for the same reasons. Of course, it won't.
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
My son asked me if his grandmother in Atlanta was safe from the bullies in Russia.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
Obviously this war is not a cut and dried issue. The BBC describes South Ossetia as having "de facto independence" since the end of a 1992 war that no doubt erupted with the creation of the Georgian State. Certain factions of South Ossetia at least obviously have never accepted Georgian rule.

Wikipedia informs me that no state has recognized South Ossetia as an independent state, including Russia, leaving it as part of Georgia in the eyes of the world.

Georgia is obviously fighting to take South Ossetia back and Russia fighting to claim it. I think it highly likely that Russia is being more aggressive than it needs to be. Having Russian peacekeepers in the region (rather than troops from a more neutral country) seems, in retrospect, a bad idea. The Georgian attack (which seems as much an attack on Russian presence than on the breakaway rebels), because of the Russian presence, was easily interpreted by Russia as an attack on Russia itself.

Russia's movement of troops is definitely an invasion, despite 70% of the population having Russian citizenship*. This doesn't make Georgia the defender, except in a legal sense. If much of South Ossetia has truly been de facto-ly independent for 16 years, the move seems like it is a de facto (if not a de jure) invasion of the area also.

What the South Ossetians want, beyond separating from Georgia, seems unclear.

*This link here to demonstrate where I got the number. Please note that it could be entirely fabricated by anyone, especially considering the poor English.
 
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
My son asked me if his grandmother in Atlanta was safe from the bullies in Russia.

Yes, but it'll be a different story when Argentina attacks Nebraska.
 
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
Georgia declares war

--j_k
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
For a different Historical analogy... think Texas.

A historic state of Mexico attracts a large number of foreign settlers. These people dislike the nationalistic tenor of the rulers and declare independence.

Mexico gathers a large army and seeks to crush the break-away territory.

The differences are, 1) Texas independence had support from most of the original Mexican settlers. Its unknown how the Georgian population feels about being part of Georgia, or part of Russia. 2) The US did not send in troops to fight the Mexican army (until after Texas won its independence, then decided to join the US). It did send some volunteer fortune hunters, such as an ex-US congressman named...Crockett. But that was unofficial.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
quote:
Its unknown how the Georgian population feels about being part of Georgia, or part of Russia
Two unofficial referendums have been held, one recently and one in 1992. Both received landslide approval for independance, however, they are likely to be somewhat inflated and unreliable. However, I think it likely that more than 50% of South Ossetians do not want to be part of a country they have de facto been independant of since 1992.

Russia clearly wants the territory. It has given South Ossetians Russian citizenship, which is obviously a good way of claiming the people in the territory theirs. Whether South Ossetians actually want to be part of Russia is more questionable.
 
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
Georgia has withdrawn, or is attempting to withdraw, from S. Ossetia. RussiaToday is calling the deaths of civilians in the region "genocide" and is continuing to press into Georgia.

--j_k
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
if it declared independence it would be immediately invaded, the PRC actually would never allow Taiwan to be independent just because a region "declares" independence does not by any means force the contesting nation to somehow accept it.
No it wouldn't. Threats do not equal guarantee. Invasion of Taiwan, especially in response to a declaration of independence of all things, means war with the United States which is well positioned to seriously harm any invasion by sea or air (the only two options).

quote:
The PRC doesn't "have to" do anything it has over 600 Ballistic missiles pointed across the straights for that purpose, your being overly naive and ignorant of international law.
Well, it's nice to see you finally owning up to what the real justifications for the PRC's behavior towards Taiwan are: might makes right.

quote:
I think its perfectly comparable in terms of the respective political stances and also perfectly acceptable to criticize Western response to the matter. Just because the exact historical circumstances aren't 100% the same doesn't mean the politics are different.
The situations are only very, very broadly and loosely similar, Blayne. I'd go into detail, but others have already done so. Just go to cnn and read a bunch of stories about it, would you?

------------

I have to admit Georgian claims of Russian provocation here carry a lot of weight with me, and not just because I'm not a fan of Russia. The Russian military response seems very well coordinated, and it was triggered literally hours after things really got started.

Who does Russia think they're fooling, besides their own choir? The sad truth is that it will probably work, because few people give a damn about Georgia or even know it exists.

quote:
Urkaine, a former Soviet republic like Georgia, said it might prevent Russian navy ships involved in the blockade from returning to their bases in the Crimea, an spokeswoman with Urkaine's foreign ministry said.
That's interesting. Maybe someone else formerly subject to Soviet Russian tyranny will tell `em to go eff themselves. It would be nicely, but I'm dubious whether it will really happen: Russian's response to that sort of declaration is well known.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
No it wouldn't. Threats do not equal guarantee. Invasion of Taiwan, especially in response to a declaration of independence of all things, means war with the United States which is well positioned to seriously harm any invasion by sea or air (the only two options).

Ah-hah! You have forgotten about the 1st Marine Mole Division of the People's Army, also known as the People's Army Underground Navy. They are digging, digging, digging... It's only a matter of time before they burst upon the shocked Taiwanese and declare the Socialist Ten Degree Turn! (That's one-thirty-sixth of a Socialist Revolution, or about what China has now.)
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
The United State's ability to project force in the Taiwan straights is becoming increasingly diminished every passing day as a result of the PLAN's ability to project its own increases.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Ah-hah! You have forgotten about the 1st Marine Mole Division of the People's Army, also known as the People's Army Underground Navy. They are digging, digging, digging... It's only a matter of time before they burst upon the shocked Taiwanese and declare the Socialist Ten Degree Turn! (That's one-thirty-sixth of a Socialist Revolution, or about what China has now.)
A socialist revolution results in the same position as existed before it?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
The United State's ability to project force in the Taiwan straights is becoming increasingly diminished every passing day as a result of the PLAN's ability to project its own increases.
For the near-term future, Blayne, the USN has and will continue to have thorough dominance over the 'PL'AN in that theater. Even given how awesometastic you think the PR is, you should realize that.

That's assuming such an invasion was a surprise, which of course it never ever would be. Taiwan wouldn't be so foolish as to declare independence without letting us know, giving us time to prepare.

So, alas! The PRC will not be able to exert its tyrannical will through force on Taiwan for awhile yet given an unlikely hypothetical situation.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Also, socialist math is confusing!
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
The United State's ability to project force in the Taiwan straights is becoming increasingly diminished every passing day as a result of the PLAN's ability to project its own increases.
For the near-term future, Blayne, the USN has and will continue to have thorough dominance over the 'PL'AN in that theater. Even given how awesometastic you think the PR is, you should realize that.

That's assuming such an invasion was a surprise, which of course it never ever would be. Taiwan wouldn't be so foolish as to declare independence without letting us know, giving us time to prepare.

So, alas! The PRC will not be able to exert its tyrannical will through force on Taiwan for awhile yet given an unlikely hypothetical situation.

Every paper I read on the situation would make any American attempt expensive at the very least. And the simple fact that in the 8 years of Pro-Independence rule that they have never once attempted to declare independence AND that president Bush has urged publicly for Taiwan's government at the time to cool down its rhetoric only adds to this reassurance that your faith in American superiority on the matter is not nearly as clear cut as you think it is.

Do some research.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
*snort* Of course it would be expensive. Hideously expensive. But we're really good at spending money when we can't afford to, or didn't you know?

quote:
And the simple fact that in the 8 years of Pro-Independence rule that they have never once attempted to declare independence AND that president Bush has urged publicly for Taiwan's government at the time to cool down its rhetoric only adds to this reassurance that your faith in American superiority on the matter is not nearly as clear cut as you think it is.
Let me see if I understand your reasoning here. You're saying that because Taiwan hasn't declared independence, and because Dubya has urged them not to as well, means that we think we couldn't win such a conflict?

I think I should have put the word reasoning in scare quotes. Just because we urge peace does not mean we doubt we can win a war, Blayne.

As for research, before you say that to me, why don't you define some more words for me, eh? [Smile]
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I am saying that makes Washington and Taipei aware there is every possibility that they COULD lose.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I am saying that makes Washington and Taipei aware there is every possibility that they COULD lose.
Or it means that Washington and Taipei want to avoid a costly and irrevocable war with the PRC. Your reasoning, such as it is, is seriously flawed and has much more to do with your love of the PRC than it does with knowledge of military and technological realities.

Given preparations, which we would have in such a situation, it is far more likely that we would win such an engagement than that we would lose. What on Earth do you think has restrained the PRC for so long?
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Maybe the vice versa? That they could lose or it could be very expensive if they win? And to some extent the political advantage of it being a peaceful unification?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Fear of loss and expense didn't stop the PRC in North Korea, even though they came off much worse than we did when all was said and done. Patience and the very real possibility of peaceful unification didn't stop them from getting Tibet.

As much as you wish otherwise, the PRC just ain't there yet when it comes to parity or near parity with the USN in a battle we see coming. Like you say, that day is coming, but it's still a long ways off. Fortunately for Taiwan.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
What on Earth do you think has restrained the PRC for so long?

Despite the 'go troops' cheering, the economics of the situation Taiwan-China situation are quite a bit more important in maintaining the peace across the straits then any threat of US force.
Making money in co-operation with Taiwan and the US is much more important than invading a Taiwan that has yet to declare independence, "just in case" they declare independence down the road.

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Fear of loss and expense didn't stop the PRC in North Korea, even though they came off much worse than we did when all was said and done.

Actually, the Korean war is viewed quite favourably in China. After all, the CCP managed to fight the US to a standstill and retain North Korea despite fighting against the most modern military in the world. When locals compared it to China's performance in events like the Opium Wars, the Boxer Rebellion, and war against Japan, they were quite grateful and thus the US did a great job in inadvertently and greatly aiding CCP control of China.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Despite the 'go troops' cheering, the economics of the situation Taiwan-China situation are quite a bit more important in maintaining the peace across the straits then any threat of US force.
Making money in co-operation with Taiwan and the US is much more important than invading a Taiwan that has yet to declare independence, "just in case" they declare independence down the road.

Let me put it a different way. If Taiwan weren't seperated from the PRC by water, do you think they would continue not to simply take it for business reasons?

quote:
Actually, the Korean war is viewed quite favourably in China. After all, the CCP managed to fight the US to a standstill and retain North Korea despite fighting against the most modern military in the world. When locals compared it to China's performance in events like the Opium Wars, the Boxer Rebellion, and war against Japan, they were quite grateful and thus the US did a great job in inadvertently and greatly aiding CCP control of China.
Oh, I know how it's viewed. And I even know they won a strategic victory. But it was more a 'ramparts of their own dead' kind of strategic victory than it was 'clever maneuver and audacity' kind of victory.

They threw bodies at us. Don't get me wrong, they achieved what they desired, but it was hideously expensive-at least in my evaluation.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Russia seeking 'regime change' in Georgia?

While I am dubious in taking the word of a Bush Administration official completely on faith, in this instance the rhetoric of Russian Ambassador Vitaliy Churkin supports, at least thematically, the accusation.

quote:
But Churkin said some leaders "become an obstacle" to their own people, and "some situations take courageous decisions with regard to the political future."

"Sometimes there are democratically elected or semi-democratically elected leaders who do things which create grave problems for their countries," Churkin told reporters after the meeting. "So sometimes, those leaders should contemplate how useful they have become to their people."

Also particularly damning is that I don't see an objection anywhere in the article to anything except the term 'regime change', not the actual concept that phrase defines.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Chinese casualties in the Korean war were acceptable by any standard, a military operation is only a "failure" at beyond 25% out of a force of maybe 400-500,000 casualties are only roughly 120,000.

The "they threw bodies at us" is grossly ignorant of what the actual Chinese tactics were during the war, believe me there were actually no "mass waves" attacks.

You know nothing about the Korean war, or how it was fought or heck even the why.

1. The Chinese managed to through the overstreched US armies under MacArthur into the longest retreat in US history, this isn't accomplished with just "throwing bodies".

2. The Chinese in fighting Chiang Kai Shek had developed very clever tactics for dealing with more modern better equiped forces. Utilizing 'Japanese' infiltration in depth tactics.

3. While some reports of Chinese increase in troop concentrations were reported and henceforth ignored by the US the actual Chinese attack with some 500,000 troops over the border had caught the American forces by complete surprise accomplished by no less then the single greatest feat in discipline, good planning and tactical use of the terrain and "smoke" to mask their movements.

There is no question of it being a strategic victory, although the only thing preventing total victory is being the lack of pushing Americans into the sea of japan.

Please "Expensive" when ones total military forces number 6 million (at the time) and supported at least in part by the Soviet Union, nuclear war would have been expensive, the sacrifice of over 100,000 soldiers not very in context of the monumental political victory.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Blayne,

quote:
Chinese casualties in the Korean war were acceptable by any standard, a military operation is only a "failure" at beyond 25% out of a force of maybe 400-500,000 casualties are only roughly 120,000.
*snort* Acceptable by any standard if you believe Chinese estimates of their own losses. Something almost no one but you would do, I might add. The 120K number you cite is the Chinese estimate. The UN estimate puts the number nearer 400K if I remember correctly. Even if we split the difference, that still meets the 25% mark you set.

quote:
The "they threw bodies at us" is grossly ignorant of what the actual Chinese tactics were during the war, believe me there were actually no "mass waves" attacks.
Don't get me wrong, there was a lot of very clever warfare on the part of the PLVA(or was it called PLAV? I forget), but since I regard as a lot more credible UN estimates than Chinese claims of their casualties, I stand by my throwing bodies at us claim in general.

quote:
You know nothing about the Korean war, or how it was fought or heck even the why.
You've been around Hatrack for quite awhile, Blayne. I wonder, though: will you ever learn not to make such obviously untrue and stupid statements? Look, I don't claim to be anything other than a layman on the topic of the Korean War. Not even a very well-informed layman at that. I'm just a lazy history nerd who likes reading and learning about this sort of thing. But I certainly don't know 'nothing' about the Korean war.

quote:
3. While some reports of Chinese increase in troop concentrations were reported and henceforth ignored by the US the actual Chinese attack with some 500,000 troops over the border had caught the American forces by complete surprise accomplished by no less then the single greatest feat in discipline, good planning and tactical use of the terrain and "smoke" to mask their movements.
I certainly do give credit where credit is due. However, had Truman and MacArthur not made gross errors in judgement, these victories would never have been possible. As it stands only those errors, coupled with some really good warfighting by the Chinese, permitted the strategic victory that I haven't denied.

quote:
Please "Expensive" when ones total military forces number 6 million (at the time) and supported at least in part by the Soviet Union, nuclear war would have been expensive, the sacrifice of over 100,000 soldiers not very in context of the monumental political victory.
It's interesting to hear you cite the partial support by the USSR in the Korean War given your claim that I know nothing of that same war, Blayne. Tell me, what did that support consist of and in what numbers?

As for your rhetoric on the so-called political victory, I reject it as odiously disrespectful of the value of human life, and in historic hindsight pretty foolish given the status of North Korea today.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
The USSR supplied various munitions, planes, training, (heck the entire North Korean army was of Russian origin), diplomatic support etc.

I think Truman acted as capable as he could regarding the information and intelligence supplied, MacArthur is the foolish one.

The status of the Korean war today is not important to the victory of yesterday.

And its PVA (People's Volunteer Army).

Casualties doesn't amount to "throwing bodies" at you. The Chinese mostly used "infiltration" tactics not Massed Waves.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
To Clarify the relative status of the worth of human life is irrelevent to determining the scale of the Chinese/Korean/Soviet bloc victory.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Actually, it was the People's Liberation Volunteer Army, Blayne. If we're going to get technical, now that I've looked it up.

quote:
I think Truman acted as capable as he could regarding the information and intelligence supplied, MacArthur is the foolish one.
Truman regarded Chinese rumblings and even direct statements of promised intervention as empty threats and attempted blackmail of the UN. Seems to have been a pretty stupid call to me, man.

quote:
The USSR supplied various munitions, planes, training, (heck the entire North Korean army was of Russian origin), diplomatic support etc.
I thought we were talking of Soviet support of China's involvement, which was minimal. In fact if I remember right, the Chinese were pretty pissed about it.

quote:
Casualties doesn't amount to "throwing bodies" at you. The Chinese mostly used "infiltration" tactics not Massed Waves.
As I said before, I didn't mean the 'throwing bodies' remark to imply human wave attacks. I was referring to the casualty count, which I'll say again even if you split the difference between UN and Chinese claims still exceeds the one-quarter marker you set.

And looking at it now, the Chinese strength was 780,000 and by their own claims lost 114,000. That's just counting KIA, not simply casualties.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
To Clarify the relative status of the worth of human life is irrelevent to determining the scale of the Chinese/Korean/Soviet bloc victory.
Since victory cannot be determined without also knowing the extent of loss, I'm not sure how you can make such a silly claim.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Blayne, I have to admit that I find your reverence for the Chinese military to be revolting. Do you realize how monstrous it makes you seem?
 
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
United States accuses Russia of attempting a "regime change." Russia is apparently insulted by the accusation.

--j_k
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Beat ya to it, JTK:) They're insulting by the phrasing more than the accusation, which they don't actually deny that I've seen anywhere.
 
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
bah! I missed it up there.

I am curious, though, as to what their ultimate goal is toward Georgia (outside of S. Ossetia, I mean). I doubt the Georgians are going to "surrender" -- I think they're still in shock, to be honest -- but if the Russians want to impose a friendly regime in Tbilisi, who is going to stop them? I'm not sure they'll be able to hold out on their own, and their membership in NATO was always dependent on them not drawing the ire of the Kremlin.

--j_k

[ August 10, 2008, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
It sends a clear message to other former Soviet satellite states, for one thing: don't mess with the (former) motherland, don't court NATO, and remember who your boss is.

There's also the stuff about the pipeline travelling through the region. MOre control in such an area is always desireable.
 
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
Georgians feel betrayed' -- "We helped in Iraq - now help us"

--

quote:
It sends a clear message to other former Soviet satellite states, for one thing: don't mess with the (former) motherland, don't court NATO, and remember who your boss is.
See, I think this might have the opposite effect. IIRC, Ukraine has wanted to enter NATO for some time, and they now have a reason to expedite the process. They say they may not allow Russian ships return to ports on the Black Sea.

--

It has been interesting to see RussiaToday's take on events. I was right in guessing that they would allege genocide at some point, to extend the parallel with Kosovo. The Russian government officially protested the NATO assault then, so at some point I expect they will shift their justification from "intervention" to "national security."

--j_k
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
They've been alleging genocide (or plans of it) since the start.

Unfortunately I don't think anything will come of Ukraine's tough talk.

The members of NATO who might have a will to help are stretched thin. The other members (i.e. much of Western Europe) lack the will.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Yeah that sounds about right to me. No one is going to step in to help. Anyone who might have considered it doesn't have the resources at the moment.

This is one of those things that the West will wring their hands over and cry foul, but in the end they'll let Russia do pretty much whatever they want. I'd even be surprised if they could pull together to come up with some sort of sanctions against Russia.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Let me put it a different way. If Taiwan weren't seperated from the PRC by water, do you think they would continue not to simply take it for business reasons?

Hard to say since it never would have come to this. They would simply have rolled in at the end of the civil war if there was a land bridge.

However, if *somehow* Taiwan had managed to survive till now as a separate country, yes, I believe that they would still wait for a declaration of independence or a deliberate provocation to actually do anything. After all, the Chinese government left Hong Kong separate for long after the British military posed a credible barrier to Chinese troops (or Macau for that matter).

quote:
Don't get me wrong, they achieved what they desired, but it was hideously expensive-at least in my evaluation.
*Shrug* Thats much more of a metric that the American public uses to determine victory than the Chinese public did (or does) in those days.
What is important to understand the situation from the mainland Chinese perspective is not American metrics, but their metrics.

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
... I reject it as odiously disrespectful of the value of human life, and in historic hindsight pretty foolish given the status of North Korea today.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

I can't think of any likely situations that could have resulted and would be preferable to the Chinese government or the Chinese people that could have resulted from no Chinese intervention in the Korean war.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Blayne, I have to admit that I find your reverence for the Chinese military to be revolting. Do you realize how monstrous it makes you seem?

I may respectfully point out that casualties on the Chinese side are not all that different in horror when you compare it to, say, trench fighting at the end of World War I which was not too long ago at the time.
While the Western world has since moved onto a much greater sensitivity for the lives of those in the military, let us not forget that this is a relatively recent attitude.

The main thing that in incongruous is that Blayne exists now and in the developed West. As Dawkins put it quite vividly, many a WWI general would call Donald Rumsfield a bleeding heart liberal.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
*Shrug* Thats much more of a metric that the American public uses to determine victory than the Chinese public did (or does) in those days.
Given the likely response any sort of public outcry regarding those casualties would have generated, I think it's difficult to gauge what the Chinese public would have thought about roughly 50% casualties.

quote:
I may respectfully point out that casualties on the Chinese side are not all that different in horror when you compare it to, say, trench fighting at the end of World War I which was not too long ago at the time.
And I think the tactics and tolerance of expected casualties was pretty horrifying in WWI, too. Lengthy artillery bombardment, maybe some smoke screen and machine gun fire, followed by a massive infantry charge straight into fortified positions.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Cease-fire proposal on its way to Russia via French and Finnish foreign ministers.

Apparently the agreement calls for (possibly among other things), "unconditional cease-fire, a non-use of force agreement, a withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgian territory, including the South Ossetia region, and provisions for international peacekeeping and mediation."

Russia is denying claims that its military has attacked or is in Georgia outside the South Ossetia region, while Georgia claims they are. Russia is also claiming that the last of the Georgian troops are being driven out of the South Ossetia region. Russia also denies claims that it's attacked civilian targets in the region, a claim Georgia has made.

One Russian Colonel-General Nogovitsyn has claimed that he can "prove to the media" Russian claims of Georgian-executed genocide attempts. We'll see about that.

Each side is claiming its own people are being arrested en masse by the other in the region.

President Bush to Prime Minister Putin: "...this violence is unacceptable." *rolleyes*
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Given the likely response any sort of public outcry regarding those casualties would have generated, I think it's difficult to gauge what the Chinese public would have thought about roughly 50% casualties.

I'm not sure what you mean by "likely" response. The response is a matter of the historical record, we know what the response was. After all, many of the popular uprisings against both the Qing Dynasty and the warlords in the Warlord era were caused by the inability of both of them to defend both Chinese people and Chinese land.
So this result, the first Chinese victory against Western forces was hailed as very significant and received quite well.
If you can point to any historical records pointing to backlashes such as those invoked when the Qing lost wars against foreigners or when the KMT conceded land to the Japanese, I'd be happy to review them.

quote:

And I think the tactics and tolerance of expected casualties was pretty horrifying in WWI, too. ...

Ok. Although I'm not sure what your point is.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Mucus,

quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "likely" response.
What I mean is that had there been a public outcry in anger at the government in response to those casualties, the response would not have been attentive listening and sincere discussion.

Neither Korea nor the Korean people were Chinese, so I'm not sure what the relevance of the history you're citing is.

quote:
Ok. Although I'm not sure what your point is.
My point was to say that I found both Chinese casualties in Korea and everyone's casualties in WWI horrifying.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
What I mean is that had there been a public outcry in anger at the government in response to those casualties, the response would not have been attentive listening and sincere discussion.

Sure, although I'm not sure how thats relevant. I'm not sure there has ever been anything like "attentive listening and sincere discussion" by a government about wartime casualties in China, ever.

Neither was there "attentive and sincere discussion" about the aftermath of the unequal treaties, the Great leap Forward, or the Cultural Revolution yet the public outcries in response to those are well documented.

quote:

Neither Korea nor the Korean people were Chinese, so I'm not sure what the relevance of the history you're citing is.

???

This whole line of discussion resulted from your remark that the PRC came off worse than the US from the Korean War when this is most decidedly not the case. I've never addressed how the Koreans view it.

quote:
My point was to say that I found both Chinese casualties in Korea and everyone's casualties in WWI horrifying.
Right, but I don't see how that connects with the point I was making.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Neither was there "attentive and sincere discussion" about the aftermath of the unequal treaties, the Great leap Forward, or the Cultural Revolution yet the public outcries in response to those are well documented.
Ah, that's true. Good point.

quote:


This whole line of discussion resulted from your remark that the PRC came off worse than the US from the Korean War when this is most decidedly not the case.

It most certainly is the case, depending on the metric you're using. Just because they achieved their strategic objectives does not mean they came off better. The nearly one in two Chinese soldiers who didn't make it back past the Korean border alive might agree with me.

quote:
Right, but I don't see how that connects with the point I was making.
For myself, the point was that offering examples of WWI isn't particularly persuasive to me; 'we did just as bad ninety years ago' isn't a good argument, even though it offers perspective-which I was already aware of.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
It most certainly is the case, depending on the metric you're using. Just because they achieved their strategic objectives does not mean they came off better.

So if the Chinese thought like modern Americans then they would think that they came off worse? Sure, thats entirely possible.

My aforementioned point is that the Chinese at the time do not think that way. They met the objectives and targets that they set out for themselves. Thats whats relevant when assessing whether they came off better and when extrapolating to their responses in the modern day. Why would they care if they met targets that someone else set for them today?

quote:

The nearly one in two Chinese soldiers who didn't make it back past the Korean border alive might agree with me.

See, you keep on saying that, I'm not sure what point you're making. They're dead, how could they possibly agree with anything, period? The most we can do is speculate on how they felt in the few seconds before death.

In any case, I'm not convinced that they'd be thinking anything particularly different from how Canadian soldiers felt that were dying at Vimy Ridge or the Somme in WWI. Yet very few assert that those soldiers must have *automatically* changed their minds in thse last few seconds and their sacrifices are still celebrated in the modern day. I don't see why this would be different.

quote:
For myself, the point was that offering examples of WWI isn't particularly persuasive to me; 'we did just as bad ninety years ago' isn't a good argument, even though it offers perspective-which I was already aware of.
Do you think I'm arguing that you should not be horrified or that the Chinese people (or many Western people for that matter) at the time would not be particularly horrified?

I'm arguing the latter. I think you're under the mistaken impression that I'm arguing the former.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Blayne, I have to admit that I find your reverence for the Chinese military to be revolting. Do you realize how monstrous it makes you seem?

www.sinodefenceforum.com

I no more study and research the PLA then anyone else there.

I don't see how its "monstrous" to have a healthy thirst for knowledge about another countries military capabilities, or on the other hand see how its monstrous to step it and clap "HOY!" when people are getting facts wrong.

There are tonnes of people who have a fascination with German armor formation of WWII are they Nazi's automatically? Or are they Nazi's just by saying "well the SS Das Reich could have possibly kicked the ass of the Big Red One had they fought evenly".

Nor would I think it monstrous to point out that the Normandy landings did not decide the Second World War.

Facts are Facts.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I no more study and research the PLA then anyone else there.
It's not the study and research that creeps me out, Blayne. It's the reverence. If China were ever to declare war on Canada, I have serious difficulty believing that you would side with your own country.

quote:

There are tonnes of people who have a fascination with German armor formation of WWII are they Nazi's automatically? Or are they Nazi's just by saying "well the SS Das Reich could have possibly kicked the ass of the Big Red One had they fought evenly".

But implying that the Germans were justified in killing the Jews and/or massacring millions during WWII would be pretty monstrous. You, by justifying Mao's purges and the Chinese invasion of Korea, have done the equivalent fairly often.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
The Chinese never invaded Korea.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Technically, the North Koreans invaded South Korea, then American forces intervened and invaded North Korea, then Chinese forces intervened and the two pushed and pulled the situation back and forth pretty much to the current stalemate.

While simply calling it a "Chinese invasion" is very misleading, it is also kinda misleading to say that the Chinese never invaded South Korea.

In any case, the whole situation is morally ambiguous enough that it seems to border on a Godwin to compare the Chinese intervention in Korea to Hitler.

(I also find vaguely disturbing automatically assuming that one should side with the country of one's citizenship rather than examining one's conscience, the facts, and then coming to a rational decision as to which side to support... if any)
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:

In the early hours of August 11, Russian sources reported that Tskhinvali was again under fire from Georgian artillery.[152] South Ossetia government representative Irina Gagloeva stated the morning of August 11 that Georgia opened the irrigation canal, supposedly in an effort to flood the basements of Tskhinvali buildings with an intention to prevent civilians from hiding from bombings.[153]

According to Georgian officials (quoted in the New York Times) large numbers of Russian ground forces had entered undisputed Georgian territory and were headed to Gori. Western officials again reiterated their fears that Russia intends to overthrow the Georgian government. Russia denied any intention of occupying Georgia, "We have enough territory to think of, we don't need Georgia." said Aleksei Pavlov, a Kremlin spokesman.[154] The representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia claims that Russia began "intensive combat" in Gori following prior air strikes. Georgian troops reportedly returned fire. The Russian Ministry of Defense did not confirm or deny the reports.[155]

During the early morning Moscow time, Russia declared itself ready to make peace with Georgia. U.N. officials confirmed that Georgia was prepared to negotiate with Russia by withdrawing troops from the breakaway province of South Ossetia and creating a safe travel zone. Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Russia is "ready to put an end to the war," but also accused the U.N. secretary-general's office of taking Georgia's side. The agreement was confirmed by U.N. Undersecretary-General for Political Affairs, B. Lynne Pascoe during a briefing to the Security Council.[156]

Georgia declared that it had received a Russian ultimatum that it must disarm troops near the breakaway province of Abkhazia or face Russian forces moving into Georgian-controlled territory. This demand was conveyed through U.N. military observers in the area.[157] Russian assistant commander Alexander Novitskiy reported on the morning of 11 August that 9,000 Russian troops and 350 armored vehicles had entered Abkhazia during the evening of August 10.[158]

Later, it was reported that Russian Airborne Forces Commander lieutenant general Valeriy Evtukhovich arrived in Abkhazia.[159]

Russian General Staff Second-in-Commander Alexander Nagovitsyn confirms on the briefing at noon that Russian Army lost another two Su-25 jets.[11] Also he confirmed 18 soldiers dead, 14 missing (Whereabouts Unknown).

FSB Director Alexander Bortnikov reported that nine Georgian special services agents were arrested, and they "prepared for terrorist attacks on the territory of the Russian Federation". He said that all nine agents have confessed to the allegations.[160]

According to Anatoly Nogovitsyn, 800 Georgian troops and 11 tons of cargo were moved from Iraq to Georgia by eight US Aviation flights. Early Georgian officials said that all moved Georgian troops will be sent to South Ossetia war conflict zone.[161] Nagovitsyn also stated that Russia will take "adequate measures" in response to that, which would mean the increase of Russian troops in conflict zone. Prime minister Vladimir Putin criticized the USA for help in redeploying Georgian troops from Iraq.[162]

North Ossetian government officials say that several foreign mercenaries have arrived to Vladikavkaz hospital. Early at General Staff briefing Alexander Nagovitsyn confirmed that there were black-skinned soldiers with non-Georgian passports among them; he did not specify their citizenship.[163]

According to RIA Novosti, the earlier reports about Russians not being allowed to leave Georgia[145] have been disclaimed by Georgian Ministry of Internal Affairs.[164]. Meanwhile, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs claims that it received such reports from over 360 stranded Russian citizens.[165]

The Georgian Minister of Defense announced that the Georgian military base in Senaki, outside Abkhazia, was captured by Russian armored vehicles, and the Associated Press indicated that a government official in Moscow confirmed the move. The Georgian Interior Minister stated that police stations in Zugdidi had also been seized.[166]

According to Georgian officials, the city of Gori, 40 miles (64 km) from the Georgain capital, has fallen to Russian forces.[167] Russian's defense ministry denied the information, claiming there were no Russian troops on Gori. [168]. Also, this was confirmed by Reuters reporters James Kilner and Margarita Antidze, who said that there is no any "trace of troops or military vehicles, it is absolutely deserted".[169] This has also been stated by the British Foreign Secretary who said '...British representatives on the ground and the media have reported that Russia has extended the fighting today well beyond South Ossetia, attacking the Georgian port of Poti ,and the town of Gori, ... I deplore this.'[170] The UK Telegraph reported that it witnessed "Georgians in a full scale disorganised and panicked retreat from Gori".[171]

The Assistant Commander of Russian peacekeepers Alexander Novitsky claims that during a reconnaissance mission the Russian Air Force shot down two Georgian helicopters at the air base of Senaki. The helicopters were identified as Mi-8 and Mi-24 belonging to the Georgian Air Force.[172]

Russian Ministry of Defense confirmed sending of two companies of Chechnya based special battalions Vostok and Zapad of GRU to South Ossetia.[173]

Since Gori is along Georgia's main highway, the country is now cut in two, Georgia says. Georgian troops are falling back to defend the capital city of Tbilisi, following the fall of Gori. Secretary of the Georgian Security Council, Alexander Lomaia, said that the Georgian Army had been told to stand fast and hold the city of Mtskheta, 15 miles from the capital.[174] A U.S. military official told CNN that Russian attacks on Georgia -- including radars and communication systems -- have devastated the country's command and control system to the point where Georgian leaders may not have a clear idea of the situation on the ground. [175]

The Israeli newspaper Maariv reported that the US was supplying Georgia with arms. According to the paper, the US is hiring Russian-made freight planes belonging to UTI Worldwide Inc. to transport arms and ammunition to Georgia. The paper says the Pentagon is redirecting supplies to Tbilisi that were earmarked for Iraq.[176]

According to Russia Today (RT): "The U.S. has begun evacuating the families of its diplomats from Georgia. They are being sent to Armenia as a precaution, according to the U.S. Embassy in the Armenian capital Yerevan. U.S. ambassador John Tefft and his team of diplomats will continue their work in Tbilisi."[177] Meanwhile Russian Defence Ministry said it has no plans to attack Tbilisi. "We do not have and have never had any plans to advance on Tbilisi," Interfax agency cites a source in Russian command. Also Russian troops reportedly left Senaki military base. [178] [179]

Comments:

The situation on the ground is annoying me, google maps refuses to work for me, and I haven't found any good sites showing current troop positions, I WANT TO KNOW WHATS GOING ON!!!

Basically Georgia says Russia is attacking/taken Gori, Reuters and Russia says otherwise UK I hear has mixed reports of either Goir being "deserted" and or Georgian troops in a panicked disorganized retreat.

So thats fairly confusing and in the meantime I am informed that the Russians according to the Petagon have so successfully bombed Georgian radar and command and control centers that the Georgian leaders may not have a clear picture of whats happening on the ground.

This would explain the situation in Gori.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
(I also find vaguely disturbing automatically assuming that one should side with the country of one's citizenship rather than examining one's conscience, the facts, and then coming to a rational decision as to which side to support... if any)

Yes, ok, but seriously: In a dispute between China and Canada, which side is likely to have the moral high ground?
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Well... we did unlease our beavers into Russia, it wasn't very nice of us.
 
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
I can't believe Gori has fallen so quickly.
The Georgian military swarmed in to protect it just yesterday!

The capital is next...we don't have any time to lose if we are to save Georgia (or at least their Government). Russia will be in Tbilisi in two days at this rate.
 
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 
Send who? The guys who're on leave after their last tour in Iraq?

Unless the media is grossly misreprenting things (which I concede as entirely possible) I didn't think we had any more combat forces sitting around not grossly overworked. I suppose if we've got an ships in the Black Sea we could launch some planes and artillery from there, but I'm not aware of any infantry we could follow it up with.

And God help us if Russia decided to take offense and start some trouble. We couldn't handle that right now, no way.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
quote:
Russia's defence ministry quickly issued a statement rejecting the claim, saying there were none of its troops in Gori.

Later, a spokesman for the Georgian interior ministry told the BBC that there had never been Russian troops in Gori.

He said the Russian army had taken up a position just outside the town after destroying a military base and admitted Georgian troops had fled the area without putting up a fight.

BBC. (Same as in the other thread. Just clearing up the confusion about Gori, not defending the Russian actions in any way. They are clearly being far more aggressive than is necessary.

The US can not intervene with troops. As AvidReader just pointed out, there are no troops to intervene. That doesn't mean nothing can be done.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Yes, ok, but seriously: In a dispute between China and Canada, which side is likely to have the moral high ground?

Well, like I said, the last time China and Canada were at war is actually during the Korean War. We were dragged in by the US piecemeal and I consider our participation in the invasion of North Korea to be pretty morally ambiguous.

Additionally, the last two times Canada was at war, Afghanistan and (de facto, not officially) Iraq, those were both wars that I was against in terms of Canada participating and again ... we got dragged in by the US.

I actually think that the probability of the US managing to drag us into war with China is higher than that of China unilaterally declaring war on Canada. So, I definitely think that the moral high ground could be very unclear.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Why do you think the invasion of North Korea was morally ambiguous?
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
Canada's moral high ground is a different ground from China's moral high ground.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Dagonee: Why would it be morally unambiguous?

Teshi: Huh?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Dagonee: Why would it be morally unambiguous?
Because North Korea invaded South Korea in an act of naked aggression, and had we not invaded, the entire peninsula would have been subject to a totalitarian regime.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
The fact that Canada might feel bad about invading various countries doesn't mean that we would potentially be on the same level as China in the same situation.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I should point out that North Korea and South Korea were hardly separate countries and South Korea at the time was hardly the poster boy for democracy either.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I should ALSO point out that any direct military intervention by the United States could lead to a nuclear war.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Dagonee: By the time that the decision came to invade North Korea, South Korea had already been freed and much of the North Korean force destroyed. I would not define this section of the war as an invasion, after all we were there on behalf of South Korea. Up to this point, we're in the clear.

However, the decision was made to press on into North Korea separately for a number of reasons, reasons we can discuss if we really want to get into it. At this point, the war changed from a war of self-defense into an invasion and thus the equation changes.

I can support the former but not the latter.

Teshi: I still don't follow. What do you mean by "same situation"? How could China be dragged into a war supporting the US and why should I judge them worse in that situation than Canada?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
At this point, the war changed from a war of self-defense into an invasion...
I thought about this a lot when we invaded Iraq and were making noise about pushing into the Sudan. In a nutshell: I'm not sure I agree. I do think that our movements into North Korea should have been accompanied by a declaration of war against North Korea, but I also think that a perfectly reasonable consequence of a failed invasion is a reprisal launched on ones home soil.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:

However, the decision was made to press on into North Korea separately for a number of reasons, reasons we can discuss if we really want to get into it. At this point, the war changed from a war of self-defense into an invasion and thus the equation changes.

You don't regard invading North Korea in those circumstances as a gesture of self-defense?

Not to get all Ender-y on the discussion here, but if a guy knifes me in the gut and tries to steal my house, I'm not not in any way morally wrong if I go further than just shoving him out of my house and waiting for the paramedics to arrive.

Let's also point out for the sake of my not-so-shaky analogy that the other guy still hates my guts, and regularly brutalizes his wife and kids next door too.

quote:
I should point out that North Korea and South Korea were hardly separate countries and South Korea at the time was hardly the poster boy for democracy either.
Oh, please.

-------

Edit:
quote:
but I also think that a perfectly reasonable consequence of a failed invasion is a reprisal launched on ones home soil.
Especially if the smart money says they'll be trying again later after they rebuild.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
South Korea was what one would call a "Presidential Dictatorship" back in the day.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
TomDavidson:
I think that a reprisal is "reasonable" in the sense that it is certainly a highly possible consequence of a failed invasion.

However, I think that it has to be established that "reasonable" is the same as "morally unambiguous." After all, if there is anything that we now know from the invasion of Iraq, a peaceful occupation OR less casualties than an extended standoff are both anything but guaranteed and the unintended consequences of such a decision can be pretty disastrous.
In fact, in this case we *know* the decision was disastrous.

Rakeesh: The analogy is pretty shaky. I'm not even sure what the "outside" of both houses would represent, the DMZ? I may note even legally in your analogy, at least in Canada, you have no legal right to pursue your attacker back into his house and steal his house in return, especially if you've already managed to stab him back in the gut already while kicking him out.

As for "smart money," do you really think that North Korean forces would have posed any threat at all to both US and South Korean forces at that time? Note that even combined North Korean and Chinese forces couldn't break the stalemate. Even worse, we now know that the stalemate can essentially be maintained indefinitely, was it really all that smart to squander so many American lives to accomplish basically nothing?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Even worse, we now know that the stalemate can essentially be maintained indefinitely, was it really all that smart to squander so many American lives to accomplish basically nothing?
One might ask how wise it was to squander vastly more Chinese lives to the same end.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Mucus,

Well, the outside would represent your property or his still, heh.

The analogy does not stretch perfectly to reality, where we can of course call the cops to exercise government-sanctioned force to make sure we're protected.

But if you're living in the frontier where 911 ain't an option?

quote:

As for "smart money," do you really think that North Korean forces would have posed any threat at all to both US and South Korean forces at that time?

I didn't say at that time.

quote:
Even worse, we now know that the stalemate can essentially be maintained indefinitely, was it really all that smart to squander so many American lives to accomplish basically nothing?
Well, it's been maintained so far at tremendous cost to ourselves, and a much higher cost to the North Koreans themselves-them being the wife and kids I was referring to.

quote:
Even worse, we now know that the stalemate can essentially be maintained indefinitely, was it really all that smart to squander so many American lives to accomplish basically nothing?
Certainly it wasn't smart. MacArthur and Truman made some pretty stupid mistakes. Invading North Korea wasn't one of them. Discounting Chinese intervention, even when it was all but neon-sign guaranteed, was.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
South Korea was what one would call a "Presidential Dictatorship" back in the day.
To make a bad joke, what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
in response to you saying "puh leez" when I said SK was not a democracy.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
That wasn't a denial of your statement, that was questioning its relevance.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
well when one says "NK invaded SK" it makes it sound like it was some sort of unjustified act of aggression.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
One might ask how wise it was to squander vastly more Chinese lives to the same end.

Except it wasn't the same end. Before Chinese intervention, American forces had essentially invaded North Korea all the way to the border of China and many in the military including MacArthur were talking about expanding the war into China. The Chinese intervention pushed the situation back to the old/new border between North and South Korea.

On the other hand, American forces before the invasion of the North had already reached that border. After the invasion was repelled, they went back to the exact same border.

So the two aren't really the same. The comparison is whether it was a good idea to trade Chinese lives for *all* of North Korea and whether it was a good idea to squander American lives for *nothing.*

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
But if you're living in the frontier where 911 ain't an option?

Presumably if you're on the frontier and you're both stabbed in the gut, then you're both dead anyways. What difference does it make?
This analogy is less then helpful [Wink]

quote:
quote:
As for "smart money," do you really think that North Korean forces would have posed any threat at all to both US and South Korean forces at that time?
I didn't say at that time.

Then we're talking about two different times. I've made it pretty clear that I'm talking about the time between self-defense and reprisal.

quote:
MacArthur and Truman made some pretty stupid mistakes. Invading North Korea wasn't one of them. Discounting Chinese intervention, even when it was all but neon-sign guaranteed, was.
I think you're splitting hairs here since the latter was a direct result of the former.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
well when one says "NK invaded SK" it makes it sound like it was some sort of unjustified act of aggression.
It was.

quote:
American forces had essentially invaded North Korea all the way to the border of China and many in the military including MacArthur were talking about expanding the war into China.
As I understand it, the goal was only to cut the Chinese off from their support of North Korea. Had they not been funneling support to North Korea, we would gladly have left them alone.

quote:

So the two aren't really the same. The comparison is whether it was a good idea to trade Chinese lives for *all* of North Korea and whether it was a good idea to squander American lives for *nothing.*

This only holds if you believe that the Chinese would have let South Korea retain that border had America not demonstrated its ability to push beyond it.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Actually There's plenty of evidence to support that South Korea gave a sufficient casus beli at the time ie from raiding the border villages.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
As I understand it, the goal was only to cut the Chinese off from their support of North Korea. Had they not been funneling support to North Korea, we would gladly have left them alone.

As I understand it, this is not entirely true. Elements in the US military including MacArthur regarded the distinction between North Korea and China as artificial and that the US would have to eventually deal with China and the USSR anyways.
On the other hand, elements within American politics were also split, with some sympathizing with the military line, while as Rakeesh has noted, Truman believed that the Chinese would not intervene.

In any case, this debate would not have been transparent to the Chinese who had plenty of good reasons to distrust the US. It is also unclear which side of the debate would prevail given a successful and relatively bloodless American occupation of North Korea and if the Americans would have pressed further if the Chinese had not intervened.

Indeed, my heart is not filled with childish glee at the thought of two hostile nuclear powers directly bordering each other and *both* musing about using nuclear bombs on each other.

quote:
This only holds if you believe that the Chinese would have let South Korea retain that border had America not demonstrated its ability to push beyond it.
Do you have any evidence otherwise?

[ August 12, 2008, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Do you have any evidence otherwise?
That's like asking you if you have any evidence that we would actually have invaded China. [Wink]
 
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
Ceasefire.

--j_k
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Blayne,

quote:
well when one says "NK invaded SK" it makes it sound like it was some sort of unjustified act of aggression.
Dude, we're not talking about China here. Or Russia. So I don't understand where this absurd thinking comes from. On what planet wasn't North Korea's invasion of South Korea an unjustified act of agression? Geeze!

quote:
Actually There's plenty of evidence to support that South Korea gave a sufficient casus beli at the time ie from raiding the border villages.
Dude, no there isn't. Show it to me. Show me this 'evidence' that doesn't also show that both sides were doing that prior to the start of the war.

Preferably evidence that doesn't come from the North Korean state department, or something.

--------------

Mucus,

quote:
Do you have any evidence otherwise?
Given that North Korea was being supplied at least in part by China, from bases within China (one of the things MacArthur wanted to attack), yup. Plenty of evidence.

Unless you don't count direct support for the invading power that wanted to deny SK that border as evidence.

quote:
Presumably if you're on the frontier and you're both stabbed in the gut, then you're both dead anyways. What difference does it make?
This analogy is less then helpful [Wink]

Not necessarily. *rolleyes* I'll repeat, then: if you can't call the cops, what do you do? Just let the guy go back to his house, gather his courage and his knives again, and just wait? How is that either sensible or moral? You don't have an obligation to do that at all.

quote:
I think you're splitting hairs here since the latter was a direct result of the former.
Incorrect. It was the invasion of North Korea and continuing to press right up towards the border with China that guaranteed Chinese response, not just the invasion itself. That coupled with the rhetoric at the time.

quote:
Then we're talking about two different times. I've made it pretty clear that I'm talking about the time between self-defense and reprisal.
That's an artificial distinction you're drawing. The 'reprisal' was part of self-defense.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Re: the ceasefire story...

quote:
"We have no plans to throw down any leadership," Lavrov said. "It is not part of our culture. It is not what we do."
(speaking about forcing Saakashvili stepped down).

HA!

No surprise, Georgia pulls out of CIS
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Given that North Korea was being supplied at least in part by China, from bases within China (one of the things MacArthur wanted to attack), yup. Plenty of evidence.

Unless you don't count direct support for the invading power that wanted to deny SK that border as evidence.

Don't be ridiculous, weapons and training support does not equal intent to commit troops to an attack. Heck, the US provides weapons and training to Georgia *now,* something that the Georgians were hoping would be used to good effect when attacking South Ossettia. Does that mean that the US would aid Georgia in an attack? Fat chance.

Indeed, it was the assessment of the US military AND the political branch that China wouldn't intervene, invasion of North Korea or no, period.


quote:
Incorrect. It was the invasion of North Korea and continuing to press right up towards the border with China that guaranteed Chinese response, not just the invasion itself. That coupled with the rhetoric at the time.

Uh, no it wasn't. You said yourself that the warning given to the US was that China would intervene if the US crossed the border into North Korea. Additionally, we know that historically the command was given to mobilise in China for an attack the day after the US was seen crossing the border.


quote:
That's an artificial distinction you're drawing. The 'reprisal' was part of self-defense.
No, and that was not the assessment even of the US at the time.

Thats why they had to go back to the UN for a second resolution to give international legitimacy to an invasion of North Korea. In fact, thats precisely the reasoning that India used at the time when it supported the first resolution to defend South Korea but opposed the second resolution to invade.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
South Korea was what one would call a "Presidential Dictatorship" back in the day.

Only if one were a hopeless Vicky geek. [Razz]
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Actually we now know that the Chinese mobilized the moment the Americans entered the conflict predicting the American landing at Inchon.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
[QB] Blayne,

quote:
well when one says "NK invaded SK" it makes it sound like it was some sort of unjustified act of aggression.
Dude, we're not talking about China here. Or Russia. So I don't understand where this absurd thinking comes from. On what planet wasn't North Korea's invasion of South Korea an unjustified act of agression? Geeze!

quote:
Actually There's plenty of evidence to support that South Korea gave a sufficient casus beli at the time ie from raiding the border villages.
Dude, no there isn't. Show it to me. Show me this 'evidence' that doesn't also show that both sides were doing that prior to the start of the war.

Preferably evidence that doesn't come from the North Korean state department, or something.

--------------

Henderson, Gregory (1968). Korea: The Politics of the Vortex. Harvard University Press.

and

Appleman, Roy E (1998). South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu. Dept. of the Army, p. 3, p. 15, pp 381, 545, 771, 719. ISBN 0160019184.

and The Bloody Road to Panmunjom by Edwin p. Hoyt


Actually China provided very little "supplies" during the initial invasion, beyond 30,000 Korean veterans from the War of Liberation China had little if any relations besides a few army observers with Korea as the USSR had monopolized it, only when things started to go badly for North Korea did they turn to China for help as they weren't getting enough from Russia.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Blayne, where did you get those citations?
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Well first I read the third one as I own that book and the other two were from the wikipedia article on the Korean war and looked for the source.

Does it matter?
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Hmmmm, I've been doing some research and I may need to amend some of what I said about Canada to Teshi. It turns out our involvement in the Korean War was even more ambivalent than I thought and we didn't even really want to cross into North Korea.

Examples:
quote:

At first it appeared that Canadian soldiers would never fire a shot. Under MacArthur UN forces drove the North Koreans back to the border at the 38th parallel. Canadians and most others expected MacArthur, having vanquished the aggressor, to halt. To Pearson's shock and disappointment, he did not. Canada nevertheless publicly supported the US decision to carry the war into the north. Now the Canadians sought to restrain the American-dominated military action lest the Chinese communists be drawn into battle ...

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0004370

quote:

While sharing the American conviction that the expansion of Communism must be halted and contained, Pearson deplored talk of "rolling back" Communism and worried about American excesses. The attack of Senator McCarthy and his allies on the Department of State was, in his view, dangerous and thoroughly irresponsible. The American policy on China especially bothered him. He told his son, soon to become a foreign service officer, that he had attempted and failed to moderate American attitudes toward China. In the winter of 1951 it seemed to him that "emotionalism has become the basis of [United States] policy." Canada would still "follow" the Americans, but only to the extent of their strict obligations under the UN charter.

quote:

Further, it was often difficult for the American command to treat military units from other nations as "other than American forces" (p. 205). Hence Secretary of State Dean Acheson did not advise Lester Pearson of the decision to attempt the unification of Korea by force until after MacArthur's troops had crossed the thirty-eighth parallel.
...
All of this was rendered even more complicated by the very fundamental differences in the way in which Canada and the United States viewed the Communist Chinese intervention. Canada was never able to convince Washington that Chinese involvement represented a parochial maneuver to protect legitimate national interests and not a Moscow-directed offensive against the West.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3637429

So it turns out, the only reason Canadian troops crossed over is because we got dragged over without even being told and even at the time we were trying to convince the US to adopt a more nuanced view of the situation then simply to go in guns blazing.

We're practically just reenacting a more than fifty year old debate. A little annoying, but at least I have a high expectation for Canada holding the moral high ground which is certainly a welcome discovery.
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Given that Harper would have had us in Iraq, I doubt very much that Harper's views and actions in an analogous situation today would bear much similarity to Pearson's.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
On the other hand, I was proud to be a Canadian when Chretien announced that we would not be joining the invasion of Iraq despite US pressure and I think his views and actions would be analogous.

But you make a very excellent point, Pearson's or Chretien's Canada is one I can support. Harper's? Not so much.
 
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Just to make sure everyone in this thread knows too, Gori has fallen and Russian troops moved down the highway towards Tblisi and set up a base an hour away from the capital.
 
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
So, it's safe to say the cease fire hasn't actually happened, yes?
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Two updates:

1)
quote:

President Dmitry Medvedev has declared that Russia formally recognises the independence of the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7582181.stm

2)
quote:

China will not endorse Russia in its battle with the West over the Georgia crisis but cannot say so publicly for fear of upsetting Moscow, political analysts say.

Since the Georgia crisis began -- culminating in Moscow recognising the independence of two secessionist regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia -- China's reaction has been subdued.

It has expressed concern over the issue but has refrained from taking sides in what has become an increasingly strident war of words between Russia and the West.

But analysts said that if push came to shove, China's official stance would not support Russia, whose actions violated Beijing's long-held principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

"The official Chinese position, if it were pushed, would be that this is unacceptable," said Paul Harris, professor of political science at Lingnan University in Hong Kong.

...

Cabestan said that China was also concerned about the Georgia crisis because it was worried Russia might exert similar pressure on Central Asian states -- all of which were former Soviet republics like Georgia.

"That's not in China's interest, as it has in the past managed to get some influence in Central Asia, and China and Russia both cooperate and compete in the region for influence."

Ultimately, Broadfoot said, the crisis could push China closer to the West.

"China will try to keep quiet," he said. "But if Russia overplays its hand, they will side with the US."

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5guAa5jCMIWCy-SMYWZY4-0451p5w

Ah politics [Smile]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I'm surprised you didn't link the article where Putin says the entire thing was orchestrated by the White House.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
This White House?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
The one in Washington.

Putin said that US Special Ops were in the breakaway regions of Georgia with US passports on them, and the only reason they would be there was because they were ordered to, and the only person who could order them there is President Bush, so the entire thing is our fault.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
There are certainly *some* White House administrations that were certainly capable of manipulating and orchestrating other nations into war.

However, at this time and level of competence I wonder if this White House could even orchestrate a pizza delivery within 20 minutes.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I don't think there was asingle administration except Jimmy Carters that DIDN't overthrow at least one regime. I'd say consider the NSA and CIA's independence streak in American policy that its not that far fetched even if they're reason for being there was as benign as "training" Georgian troops.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
It's still a hard sell. Even if American DID somehow push Georgia into invading those two regions, I'm not sure that excuses the flattening of a country that Russia laid down on Georgia.
 
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Putin is practiced in telling people what they want to hear.

Right now there are many people in the world who want to hear that the US is the bad guy.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
The USA would have done the exact same thing in the reverse.

Its very simply the Georgian leadership are somewhat authoritarian and strongman-like, they were probably informed under the table "nothing bad will happen crush the separatists" and loo and behold it backfired.

Its an extremely simply and very likely probability.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_raven:
Putin is practiced in telling people what they want to hear.

Right now there are many people in the world who want to hear that the US is the bad guy.

The chain of events doesn't require Putin's commentary for anyone to determine this.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
The USA would have done the exact same thing in the reverse.

Its very simply the Georgian leadership are somewhat authoritarian and strongman-like, they were probably informed under the table "nothing bad will happen crush the separatists" and loo and behold it backfired.

Its an extremely simply and very likely probability.

The US would have done what in reverse?

And if that IS what happened, which again, I highly, highly doubt, they were pretty stupid to agree. Georgia has more direct experience with Russia than we do, and should have known they wouldn't do nothing, and for that matter, given our track record on promises in that regard (eg. the Kurds), they'd be pretty dumb to believe we'd protect them.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Had a country attacked Guam the USA would've done the reverse. There is also plenty of historical evidence to the United States doing vastly dissaprotionate responses to "minor" provocations.

Also there is no telling how much encouragement may or may not have recieved nor do we know to what extent Analysts may have predicted the counter attack or not.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Whatever your opinion of the exact nature of the relationship between Georgia and South Ossetia, Guam is not a good metaphor.

Indeed, since Guam is a US protectorate, the analogous attacker would be the US, not some third party.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
And South Ossetia is a Russian protectorate.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
No, South Ossetia was, prior to this action, legally under the sovereignty of Georgia. Even Russia hasn't tried to say that they were legally in control of the territory, just that since (newly minted) Russian citizens were being attacked they had the right to intervene. Try to keep your propaganda straight.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
There is also plenty of historical evidence to the United States doing vastly dissaprotionate responses to "minor" provocations.
Name 10.

I'm not saying there aren't, I'm just curious to see what you come up with.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:

At the United Nations, U.S. Deputy Ambassador Alejandro Wolff told the Security Council that Russia's claims to be protecting Russian citizens in South Ossetia were a sham.

Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin called Wolff's statement hypocritical. He brought up the U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq, strongly opposed by Moscow but justified by the United States as an effort to root out what it said were caches of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons hidden by then-President Saddam Hussein.

"I would like to ask the distinguished representative of the United States: weapons of mass destruction. Have you found them yet in Iraq, or are you still looking for them?"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008145833_russia29.html

I gotta admit, whatever failings they may have, a cutting sense of humour is not among them [Smile]
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
There is also plenty of historical evidence to the United States doing vastly dissaprotionate responses to "minor" provocations.
Name 10.

I'm not saying there aren't, I'm just curious to see what you come up with.

It was all written in the book Emperor's and Pirates by Noam Chamsky and the reversed examples of Soviet restraint when for example South African navy ships fired upon Russian merchant vessels. I don't remember the exact circumstances although I do recall the United States (not in the book) completely invading and overthrowing the government in Panama when they killed US citizens.
 
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I don't think there was asingle administration except Jimmy Carters that DIDN't overthrow at least one regime. I'd say consider the NSA and CIA's independence streak in American policy that its not that far fetched even if they're reason for being there was as benign as "training" Georgian troops.

The NSA doesn't go into foreign nations and instigate wars. It doesn't have any power in that regard. The NSA is subordinate to the DoD. If you think the DoD has an "independence streak in American foreign policy", that might be more realistic.
 
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
 
As far as Russia's charges of genocide and American encouragement, I'm still waiting for some amount of evidence from Russia or anybody. "Probably" isn't evidence. I can get behind "taking control of the region".

The United States committed to an open, joint exercise with Georgia before the war. At the same time, Russia conducted it's own exercise on the other side of the Caucasus Mountains.

So who was "preparing" for what? Who knows, but I'm not just going to start accepting anybody's media rhetoric as fact.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
And South Ossetia is a Russian protectorate.
*rolleyes* Well sure it is. Now. In fact if not in name.
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
SouthOssetia

Medvedev says "...Georgian...President Saakashvili...is a political corpse."
Which reminds me of a certain similarity in style&appearance.

[ September 02, 2008, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I couldn't find an online article (plus I didn't really look) but it's looking like even without sanctions the big hit to Russia thus far as been financial. Gazpom, their energy giant, has lost $16 billion (with a B) in value since the start of this thing. The ruble has fallen 5% against the dollar, and their version of the stock market is down %15 percent as well. All this before official sanctions are even being discussed.

Foreign investment is also way down from the EU and the US. I've read that Putin and Medvedev are considering turning down the spigot of gas and oil supplies to the EU, but even if they do, they can't do it for long or else the loss in revenue will kill them pretty quickly.
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
The stock value of Gazprom is irrelevant when the underlying value of Gazprom's control over Russian reserves is vastly greater.
And a decrease in oil&gas stock prices is to be expected with the current bounce in the value of the dollar against other currencies and the subsequent decrease in the price of oil&gas futures.

Besides, Russia is buying unneeded garbage from the EU and the US with oil&gas in the same manner that US consumers are buying unneeded garbage from China with paper and electronic bits representing credit.
I'd rather be sitting on Russia's fossil fuel reserves than on the US's mountain of debt.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Well sure if that was the choice, I'd choose that too. Sadly you don't just get the mountain of oil, you get all the crap that comes with it. I'd still rather be in the US.
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/07/europe/07georgia.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_and_Co-operation_in_Europe
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
There is also plenty of historical evidence to the United States doing vastly dissaprotionate responses to "minor" provocations.
Name 10.

I'm not saying there aren't, I'm just curious to see what you come up with.

Well, let's see:


Hum. I was actually intending to refute Blayne's point, but I'm not sure if I did or not.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Would be more suitable to list the Embargo of Japan as being disproportionate as frankly the US didn't nearly do anything as drastic to Germany. But I would also add about an additional half dozen to a dozen events that happened in South and Central America.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Kinda curious what you come up with, off the top of my head the only things that seem to fulfil the two conditions (in addition to some on KoM's list) are the Gulf of Tonkin and the Boxer Rebellion. (then again, my central and south American history is pretty hazy)

Probably most empires have at least one or two essentially manufactured incidents, the British being a notoriously bad example, but 10 is a tricky one.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
Kinda curious what you come up with, off the top of my head the only things that seem to fulfil the two conditions (in addition to some on KoM's list) are the Gulf of Tonkin and the Boxer Rebellion. (then again, my central and south American history is pretty hazy)

Probably most empires have at least one or two essentially manufactured incidents, the British being a notoriously bad example, but 10 is a tricky one.

I forgot about these but then again the Boxer Rebellion... eeeeeh, everyone else was doing it.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
Probably most empires have at least one or two essentially manufactured incidents, the British being a notoriously bad example, but 10 is a tricky one.

Eh. Ten was made up ad-hoc by Lyrhawn. I don't see any particular value to the number.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
This is true.

BB: Which is a valid defence ... if you're in high school.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
This is true.

BB: Which is a valid defence ... if you're in high school.

I was making a JOKE.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Ah, it can be hard to tell.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
Ah, it can be hard to tell.

Considering my Pro-Chinese stances how does me defending US's actions in China's rape somehow make sense?
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2