»

[Frosty Jack]

Well, Georgia just beat Russia at the ladies beach volleyball.
I was watching to see if any relevant parallels could be drawn between the current political situation between the two nations, and the, erm conflict between the, um, something about battle lines drawn in the sand... erm... the struggle for possession, er... it was important to compare the...
*cough*

[lepeep]

Originally Posted by Lester Burnham

Do they not realise that the spartans lose in the end?

yeah....I mean, how long did the chippendales last for aswell?

[Captain America]

On a lighter note. Lol at stupid Americans.

[all_his_engines]

Originally Posted by Neil

They haven't actually bombed Tbilisi. They have hit military targets outside Tbilisi (I think there was a radar base and an airbase) but they haven't intentionally targeted any cities as far as I'm aware.

That's still a much further encroachment into the country than was necessary. It's understandable that such an action could be seen as disproportionate.

Originally Posted by Neil

Comparisons can't be drawn with that conflict at all. That's absurd. The Russians aren't targeting civilians (at least not intentionally) as Israel arguably did in that conflict. Israel intentionally destroyed civilian infrastructure and buildings in that war and that was over a couple of their soldiers getting kidnapped (who of course they never saw alive again - their military action was a complete failure). It was completely disproportionate.

However, this is a very different conflict. I agree Russia are using much more force than Georgia, but that is because they have a much more military might and they want to make sure Georgia are not going to have the military capability to try and strike South Ossetia again. The West (especially the UK and US) are making the most noise about this "disproportionate" action because they realise this conflict will probably end up unseating pro-NATO, Western-friendly, Saakashvili. Or at the very least, leave Georgia in a much weaker and insecure position (remember BP have oil and gas pipelines running through this country supplying the West). Saakashvili took a gamble with invading South Ossetia and it has back-fired spectacularly. It's his fault this conflict started and no-one can argue with that.

Russia are pulling back now and will be able to dictate the terms of the cease-fire, as they still hold the moral high ground (at least in their eyes). Georgia have probably lost the territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia for good now.

Whilst I admit that it seems Russian have not been deliberately targeting civilians, greater military "might" is still not a good enough excuse for such an over-enthusiastic response. The main comparison I was attempting to draw between the two conflicts was the reluctance of the rest of the world to openly condemn said disproportionate use of force.

Apart from Bush's demand for an end to the Russian bombing. But then he probably thinks they're still all members of the Communist Party.

[Cloud]

Originally Posted by Chris

Much the same way that the only reason there are Russian citizens there is because Russia happened to swan in and hand out passports to everyone, not because they're actually Russian.

It's a hugely controversial point to make that they're not Russians - the vast majority of Ossetians live in Russia, the South-Ossetians want to be part of Russia and they definitely don't want to be part of Georgia. So while they're not ethnically Russian - they would likely be far better off as part of North Ossetia than the current status quo.

The sensible thing in all of this would be to actually hand South Ossetia over to the Russians in exchange for a decent payment.

[KimyReizeger]

Originally Posted by Cloud

The sensible thing in all of this would be to actually hand South Ossetia over to the Russians in exchange for a decent payment.

I can't see the Russians paying out for what they have pretty much already gained, but I agree that if a convincing majority of South Ossetians want to be part of Russia, then let them.

[KimyReizeger]

Originally Posted by all_his_engines

That's still a much further encroachment into the country than was necessary. It's understandable that such an action could be seen as disproportionate.

.

Disproportionate in comparison to, say, the unprovoked Georgian attack on South Ossetia? Slightly hypocritical of the Georgian president and US administration to denounce the Russians as simple, black-and-white 'evil' when it was Georgia's initial attack that gave rise to Russia's actions.

[daveofficer]

Originally Posted by KimyReizeger

Disproportionate in comparison to, say, the unprovoked Georgian attack on South Ossetia? Slightly hypocritical of the Georgian president and US administration to denounce the Russians as simple, black-and-white 'evil' when it was Georgia's initial attack that gave rise to Russia's actions.

it was provoked wasn't it? as far as i was aware the south osseetians haven't just been sitting around hoping to become independent. they had recently shelled georgian positions or did i just imagine i'd read that somewhere(this is highly possible, i've been awfully tired recently).

but i think the consensus is that the retaliatory assault was pretty extreme and the behaviour of some of the georgian troops questionable.

[KimyReizeger]

I certainly haven't read that, and it sounds like a fairly important detail, the kind of which would be repeated over and over were it true. Possibly a rumour or something? As far as I'm aware, the Georgians marched into SO in an attempt to consolidate a flaky position there.

[all_his_engines]

Originally Posted by KimyReizeger

I certainly haven't read that, and it sounds like a fairly important detail, the kind of which would be repeated over and over were it true. Possibly a rumour or something? As far as I'm aware, the Georgians marched into SO in an attempt to consolidate a flaky position there.

Of course, far be it from the British press to omit important details.