georgia Vs. Russia?

Post Reply New Topic

Georgia did start. I feel sympathy with the Ossetians.

Last week the washington post had a feature entitled Putin is not Hitler. Sorry I don't have a link or an author and date. But it was one of the few articles I've seen that gave at least a little historical perspective. All parties, including the United States and the Ossetians and Abkhasians must take some blame for this.

Agreed. Georgia attacked recklessly but was provoked by the Russians, Ossetians and Abkhasians. The Russians responded with excessive force. The US should have retained more control over Saakasvili, they failed to do this. They were all at fault. Sarkozy (President of the EU and France) tried to stop this from happening and was responsible for the peace deal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7559222.stm

Georgia takes a risk by launching an all-out assault, Russia counter-attacks as it considers South Ossetia to be an ethnic part of Russia which is under threat, and its peacekeepers were killed in the action. Russia launches air strikes in Georgia. Georgia keeps on fighting as Russia invades the rest of the country. Georgia tries to call for a ceasefire, being badly defeated by Russian forces. Russia eventually agrees, and slowly pulls out.
The west only has a concern because it can twist footage of the "brutal" Russian army committing war crimes against the "brave" Georgians. What a way to distort global opinion. Oh, did I forget the oil pipeline?
It is a national dispute, and the only civilian deaths are collateral damage, really. Let the two nations sort it out themselves. Of course, it's not that simple. An strongman which will use military intervention, outside of western control, is seen as a threat by NATO and the US. The Iraq War was ok because NATO was doing it. This conflict is not ok because poor, innocent Georgia is suffering at the hands of the cruel Russians.

That humanitarian effort was a move of pure genius. What the U.S Administration did was put U.S. troops in the capital without becomeing part of the conflict. This really makes it impossible for russia to conquer the capital city, or overthrow the government. Attacking the U.S. military is not an option for the Russians, and therefore the Bush Administration protects Georgia's government withouth getting into the conflict.

Yes it does have this effect, remember though that the Russians would have taken the city during the start of the conflict if they wanted to.
Let's put the results of the war together.
-South ossetia wil now be even more eager to be independant. Theyr hate for Georgians has grown and i think there are less Georgians in theyr region now than there were before.
-The Georgian army has been defeated and is afraid to fight Russia.
-The Georgian army has lost alot of it's arsenal when theyr militairy bases were overrun by russia and dismantled.
-The civilian infrastructure in both Georgia and S Ossetia has taken a major beating.

"western" media has launched the biggest media offencive since 1945, convincing people Russia is the evil invader.
Russian media is obvisously doing the same, trying to make people think Georgia is the evil agressor against south Ossetia.
The media war all across the world is won by the US side by a mile seeing as they virtually ignore the original cause of the conflict.
Whilst putting a microscope on the effects of the war in Georgia proper.
Bush and his little puppet sjakasjvili (spelling ?) get theyr first real kind of opposition to theyr worldwide scheme for power and oil.

I'm trying to stay unbiased here, but to be honest it's difficult with the US being involved in someway in just about every conflict in the region.
All these wars are fought with American money and arms.
Maybe someone should make a new Risk game involving these current events.
The oil wars would be a good name