Post by lenbrazil on Aug 20, 2008 12:41:04 GMT -4
But what if they can’t achive their goal through “peaceful political means”?
Have the South Ossetians engaged significantly in “terrorism”. It is my understanding there were relatively few violations of the previous ceasefire with minor breaches mostly against military targets committed by both sides. Supposedly the Ossetians hit some civilian targets before Georgia invaded but given the Georgians apparent attempt to fake such an attack in Khurcha one must wonder if those incidents were faked as well.
So do you think Clinton, the UN and NATO were wrong to intervene in Kosovo and the rest of formerYugoslavia?
Truthfully I wasn't in the country at the time and was too busy with other things to be really informed, and I've never really researched it in depth afterwards. So at the moment I have no real opinion regarding Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia and US actions at the time.
Fair enough, my basic principle is popular sovereignty, if the majority of the population of a region/state/province/colony etc want to become independent or part of another country they should be allowed to barring some compelling reason for this not to happen. Factors to consider would be how overwhelming a majority support independence, the region’s historical ties to the larger country, the disruption independence would cause etc. I have yet to see good reason for the Ossetian’s desire to break away from Georgia not be honored.
Quote:
Do you take the 18th century British view that George Washington and the rest of the patriots who by most accounts only had the backing of about 1/3 of the colonists were criminals and the Spanish and French were wrong for intervening?
Do you take the 18th century British view that George Washington and the rest of the patriots who by most accounts only had the backing of about 1/3 of the colonists were criminals and the Spanish and French were wrong for intervening?
No. But the situation is not directly comparable, because the Spanish and French didn't invade the U.S. and take control of the colonies themselves.
I brought this up because you seemed opposed to the idea of the use of military force to achieve independence, a curious position for an American to take. As for the French during the War of Independence I imagine from the British point of view they invaded British territory, this would be roughly analogous to the Russian’s sending troops into S. Ossetia.
Quote:
How many countries other than India gained independence through “peaceful political means” when the colonial power was resolutely opposed to this?
How many countries other than India gained independence through “peaceful political means” when the colonial power was resolutely opposed to this?
Is Georgia really a colonial power here? It's my understanding that though South Ossetia has sought independence for some time that it has been part of Georgia since medieval times.
Perhaps I should have phrased that differently “How many countries other than India gained independence through “peaceful political means” when the country they wanted to separate from was resolutely opposed to this? The point is the same. As for the history that is disputed, see “Competing narratives of South Ossetia's
Past” on PDF pgs 8 -9 of this report: unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNTC/UNPAN019224.pdf
Quote:
Due to the poor English it is hard to understand everything but I didn’t see anything about that. Please cite a specific passage.
Due to the poor English it is hard to understand everything but I didn’t see anything about that. Please cite a specific passage.
Sorry, I can't find a better source. Understandably any searches for "Ossetia" turn up articles relating to the current crises rather than what happened in March.
Most newspaper databases let you set date ranges. To be frank I think you misread the article (probably due to the poor English of the writer) and there is no basis for your claim that the Russian Duma gave the North Ossetians any sort of sovereignty over South Ossetia or even discussed doing so.
Quote:
So you can understand why the Russians were upset. My whole point is that the situation isn't as black and white as some western governments and the US media is making out. IMO there are no good guys, the Georgian, Russian and US governments are all acting irresponsibly.
So you can understand why the Russians were upset. My whole point is that the situation isn't as black and white as some western governments and the US media is making out. IMO there are no good guys, the Georgian, Russian and US governments are all acting irresponsibly.
There may be no good guys, but there may very well be bad and worse guys.
Which is exactly my point, the Bush administration and most of the US media are trying to portray this in an overly simplistic manner. As for who is worse and by how much well have to see how long it takes for Russia to leave and what they do while they are there and wait for reliable figures of civilian casulties on both sides.
Both obviously. This reminds me of a traffic incident that made the news here. I can't remember the names of the drivers so I'll call them George and Russell. Russell parked in a space George was waiting for, so George punched him. Russell then went back his car got his gun and shot George to death. George didn't deserve to die but if he hadn't escalated the confrontation he'd still be alive. The analogy isn't perfect, it would have been closer if George punched Russell's friend Ossie 1st and there had been pre-existing “issues” between them but I think you get my point.
In your example Russell is obviously most at fault, and is the one who should be the most severely prosecuted by the authorities. By a similar logic Russia can be said to be most at fault and the nation who should pay the most for the mess.
The analogy wasn’t a perfect one because there were Georgian and Ossetian civilian and combatant casualties and Russian military casualties. As to who was worse I agree it is probably Russia but it a bit early to tell. The Russians certainly are consistent about sel-determination as there stance in Chechnya makes clear.
PW wrote:
I think that Condie has one thing right, the Russians are still pretty much stuck in the Cold War way of thinking that other countries either have to be for them and against the US, or for the US and against them. They don't seem to have realised yet that it's possible for other countries to be friends with both them and the US.
Ironically it seems that Bush and Rice are stuck a similar mentality.