posted             

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]

---

IP: Logged | 

posted                   

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)

---

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

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.

---

Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

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?

---

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

Dagonee: Why would it be morally unambiguous?

---

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

At this point, the war changed from a war of self-defense into an invasion...

---

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

but I also think that a perfectly reasonable consequence of a failed invasion is a reprisal launched on ones home soil.

---

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

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?

---

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

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?

---

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?

---

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?

---

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

South Korea was what one would call a "Presidential Dictatorship" back in the day.

---

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
One might ask how wise it was to squander vastly more Chinese lives to the same end.

---

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

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.

---

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.

---

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

well when one says "NK invaded SK" it makes it sound like it was some sort of unjustified act of aggression.

---

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.

---

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.*

---

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

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.

---

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.

---

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Do you have any evidence otherwise?

---

That's like asking you if you have any evidence that we would actually have invaded China.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

well when one says "NK invaded SK" it makes it sound like it was some sort of unjustified act of aggression.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Do you have any evidence otherwise?

---

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]

---

quote:

---

I think you're splitting hairs here since the latter was a direct result of the former.

---

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.

---

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

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."

---

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

That's an artificial distinction you're drawing. The 'reprisal' was part of self-defense.

---

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

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.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted             

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.

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

---

IP: Logged | 

posted                  

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 ...

---

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.

---

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

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

---

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

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged |