Do you think Russia is in the right, or wrong?

[Zolah]

Except the kuwaiti's wanted us to help them when Iraq invaded, the Kurds really love us for kicking the s*it out of the Iraqis And the Iranians were secretly very happy we decimated the Iraqi military. A huge portion of the Iraqi people supported the downfall of Sadamn and I have witnessed it myself. Does it make it right for the US? NO. It doesn't make it right for the Russians. I don't support the Georgians either.

The Kuwaitis wanted protection from the American-supported dictator yes, and the Kurds are assuredly happy with Iraq being unstable southeast of them until the idea of Kurdistan is fulfilled..But not every parallel can be drawn - yesterday I see in the news Iraq Demands US Withdrawal Timeline, the most assertive official comments on US's status in Iraq from Iraq. But that's expected.

The direct recent conflict was essential for Russia to deal with though, since the start of this month Russia has had to deal with up to (or over) 34,000 refugees from South Ossetia, the climax of which was the military incursion by Georgia on Friday, killing up to 2,000 civilians and 12 Russian "peacekeepers" (stupid word).

But from what I know, under the Sochi Agreement, Russia had a duty to protect South Ossetia under these circumstances, that was the deal, and the Ossetians seem to want Russia's protection from this conflict. Ethnically they are not Georgian, they don't like being a part of Georgia, they fought (and won) a bloody war leading up to their declaration of independence (which is unrecognised), so I think Georgia's fervent efforts to rein South Ossetia's seperatists in are utterly wrong, and I believe Georgia's motives are simply to get favour among the EU and NATO and to get closer to membership of NATO - and Russia has longsince warned NATO about their Eastward expansion, so I believe Russia to be right, as they're fulfilling their duty a la the Sochi Agreement.

 

[ARealConservative]

You completely mis-interpret me.

If you could remove the cloak of righteous super-power for a moment, and attempt to be a non-obtrusive corporate citizen, following Ron Paul's lead, you might be in a happier place. The place I grew up in, and remember fondly.

During the meantime...
Could you please stop threatening everyone else?

Peace.

I took your self righteous indignation to its logical conclusion. Libertarians can retaliate against force, and we don’t want to be perceived as assholes! So can now means should. We should retaliate against force!

 

[Andrew-Austin]

ah - so libertarians now must fight for some global utopia. You initiate force and here we come to save the day.

We are going to invade Canada and Mexico because their tax policy is an initiation of force. The entire middle east needs to be at war with us because of countless violations of inalienable rights.

I'm not sure how we will fund these operations in a libertarian society, but that is immaterial. We can't go being ass-holes or anything

Actually the imposition of moral values on others and the meddling with other nation's affairs is more associated with conservatives than with libertarians.

Its not libertarian at all to intervene with another country for any reason, so you trying to attack libertarianism based on one man's views (which you seem to have misinterpreted) is foolish.

Lets not dereail this thread to a libertarian versus conservative debate, take it to some other thread.

 

[ARealConservative]

Actually the imposition of moral values on others and the meddling with other nation's affairs is more associated with conservatives than with libertarians.

Its not libertarian at all to intervene with another country for any reason, so you trying to attack libertarianism based on one man's views (which you seem to have misinterpreted) is foolish.

Lets not dereail this thread to a libertarian versus conservative debate, take it to some other thread.

you have real troubles with comprehension and context.

Reread what was said and how I replied.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

you have real troubles with comprehension and context.

Reread what was said and how I replied.

It still looks like an unwarranted stab at libertarians?

 

[Ozwest]

I took your self righteous indignation to its logical conclusion. Libertarians can retaliate against force, and we don’t want to be perceived as assholes! So can now means should. We should retaliate against force!

I am a Libertarian myself, and I am often an ass-hole.

But, Ron Paul was a humanitarian.

I object to those who interpret being a Libertarian as an excuse to achieve, or ignore civil and social responsibility under the guise of Liberty.

 

[Ozwest]

This is the reason Libertarians are often maligned as "kooks."

 

[klamath]

The Kuwaitis wanted protection from the American-supported dictator yes, and the Kurds are assuredly happy with Iraq being unstable southeast of them until the idea of Kurdistan is fulfilled..But not every parallel can be drawn - yesterday I see in the news Iraq Demands US Withdrawal Timeline, the most assertive official comments on US's status in Iraq from Iraq. But that's expected.

The direct recent conflict was essential for Russia to deal with though, since the start of this month Russia has had to deal with up to (or over) 34,000 refugees from South Ossetia, the climax of which was the military incursion by Georgia on Friday, killing up to 2,000 civilians and 12 Russian "peacekeepers" (stupid word).

But from what I know, under the Sochi Agreement, Russia had a duty to protect South Ossetia under these circumstances, that was the deal, and the Ossetians seem to want Russia's protection from this conflict. Ethnically they are not Georgian, they don't like being a part of Georgia, they fought (and won) a bloody war leading up to their declaration of independence (which is unrecognised), so I think Georgia's fervent efforts to rein South Ossetia's seperatists in are utterly wrong, and I believe Georgia's motives are simply to get favour among the EU and NATO and to get closer to membership of NATO - and Russia has longsince warned NATO about their Eastward expansion, so I believe Russia to be right, as they're fulfilling their duty a la the Sochi Agreement.

Right off the bat let me state again that I am not supporting Georgia.
Was that agreement right that Russia had. I sounds like interventionism to me. I would not try to use numbers of people getting killed as an argument. What Saddamn did in Iraq, Iran and Kuwait makes what Georgia did seem insignificant but that didn't make it right for the US to intervene.

 

[ARealConservative]

It still looks like an unwarranted stab at libertarians?

the post I responded to claimed that this is why libertarians come off looking like assholes.

My post was dripping with sarcasm - just because we can use force to retaliate doesn't mean we are obligated to.

 

[Ozwest]

Being a Libertarian, is all encompassing. Individual liberty and freedoms come with responsibility.

This is why Libertarians do not appeal to 80% of the public, and why 80% of Libertarians can't agree with each other.

It is frustrating, but true.

Without Ron Paul, the concept is still there, but the uniting factor is gone.

 

[Zolah]

Right off the bat let me state again that I am not supporting Georgia.
Was that agreement right that Russia had. I sounds like interventionism to me. I would not try to use numbers of people getting killed as an argument. What Saddamn did in Iraq, Iran and Kuwait makes what Georgia did seem insignificant but that didn't make it right for the US to intervene.

The numbers were more about the refugees that Russia had to deal with directly entering their country, wasn't my intention to appeal to anyone's emotions.

But the agreement was made with South Ossetia, Georgia and Russia, and Russia has to live up to its end of the bargain.

I think the Iraq analogy is better directed at reasons for USA to stop intervening in Georgia's affairs (as it has been doing prior to this month) - Georgia has committed a similar crime to Saddam and the Iraqi Kurds (and interestingly both Georgia and Saddam used weapons given to them by the morally supreme Democracies of USA and Israel) - but instead of invading Iraq to dispose of the State Criminals, we're supporting them in Georgia, where's the consistency.

But a BBC article from today seems to accompany my belief of Georgia's motives, and their support from Western Europe despite what's really going on - notice the utter lack of condemnation for Georgia's attack on South Ossetia before Russia intervened.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7553508.stm

"UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown says there is "no justification" for Russia's military action in Georgia."

Tory leader David Cameron [Opposition leader - expected to be next Prime Minister of UK] branded Russia a "dangerous bully" and urged the international community to stand up and condemn its action in Georgia.

He also called for Georgia's membership of Nato to be "speeded up".

Seemingly Georgia is on the right track towards its long term goals, regardless of how they achieve them, and no one but Russia seems to mind that this involves the death of so many citizens.


And I did notice you say you were on the fence, my post wasn't entirely directed at you, moreso I was just qualifying my opinion.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

the post I responded to claimed that this is why libertarians come off looking like assholes.

My post was dripping with sarcasm - just because we can use force to retaliate doesn't mean we are obligated to.

Whoops.

 

[klamath]

The numbers were more about the refugees that Russia had to deal with directly entering their country, wasn't my intention to appeal to anyone's emotions.

But the agreement was made with South Ossetia, Georgia and Russia, and Russia has to live up to its end of the bargain.

I think the Iraq analogy is better directed at reasons for USA to stop intervening in Georgia's affairs (as it has been doing prior to this month) - Georgia has committed a similar crime to Saddam and the Iraqi Kurds (and interestingly both Georgia and Saddam used weapons given to them by the morally supreme Democracies of USA and Israel) - but instead of invading Iraq to dispose of the State Criminals, we're supporting them in Georgia, where's the consistency.

But a BBC article from today seems to accompany my belief of Georgia's motives, and their support from Western Europe despite what's really going on - notice the utter lack of condemnation for Georgia's attack on South Ossetia before Russia intervened.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7553508.stm

"UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown says there is "no justification" for Russia's military action in Georgia."

Tory leader David Cameron [Opposition leader - expected to be next Prime Minister of UK] branded Russia a "dangerous bully" and urged the international community to stand up and condemn its action in Georgia.

He also called for Georgia's membership of Nato to be "speeded up".

Seemingly Georgia is on the right track towards its long term goals, regardless of how they achieve them, and no one but Russia seems to mind that this involves the death of so many citizens.


And I did notice you say you were on the fence, my post wasn't entirely directed at you, moreso I was just qualifying my opinion.

So too break it down it is ok for Russia to have entangling aliances with ossettia but the US can not have alliances?

I do not believe the US should have these alliances and I will not support the Russians doing what I dislike about US foreign policy.

That is the biggest new media false story that gets quoted all the time. We armed the Iraqis. We armed the Iraqis with a very very small part of their weaponry. I am not taking the media word for it I have seen Saddamns weapons and 99.9 percent are Russian and european.

 

[Feenix566]

I don't know who's right because I'm not there. Politics in the Causasus is none of our business.

 

[Kalifornia]

after reading wiki in the history of this, I change my vote to "this is just another typical eastern european cluster phuck left over from the first Jihad."

Everyone is at fault. Ossetians are at fault for being stupidly ethnocentric, Georgians are at fault for being violent pricks, and the Russians are even more at fault for being bigger violent pricks.

Lets do our best to not be even bigger violent pricks than the Russians.

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

So too break it down it is ok for Russia to have entangling aliances with ossettia but the US can not have alliances?

NO the point is, it is NOT up to the U.S.A. to tell other countries what they can or can't do in a FREE WORLD. It is not up to the U.S.A. to help, fight, defend and protect every damn country that gets into a fight with another one.

What is wrong with Americans thinking that we need to have our damn hand in ALL issues around the world?

I don't agree with Georgia or Russia in this fight because I don't know enough BUT it is not OUR FUCKING BUSINESS either way, that is the main point or at least the way I see it.

It is the same reason why other nations leave us the hell alone when we spread our so called democracy in other countries, they know it isn't their damn business even if they don't agree with our crazy ass "Take them all" policies that we push around the world.

These entangling alliances are not agreed upon BUT why is it any of our business if they are fighting? Why should WE have to do a damn thing that has ZERO to do with the u.s.a. AT ALL?

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

Lets do our best to not be even bigger violent pricks than the Russians.

Fuck, tell Bush that lol, he can't handle not being the biggest prick of them all.

 

[klamath]

NO the point is, it is NOT up to the U.S.A. to tell other countries what they can or can't do in a FREE WORLD. It is not up to the U.S.A. to help, fight, defend and protect every damn country that gets into a fight with another one.

What is wrong with Americans thinking that we need to have our damn hand in ALL issues around the world?

I don't agree with Georgia or Russia in this fight because I don't know enough BUT it is not OUR FUCKING BUSINESS either way, that is the main point or at least the way I see it.

It is the same reason why other nations leave us the hell alone when we spread our so called democracy in other countries, they know it isn't their damn business even if they don't agree with our crazy ass "Take them all" policies that we push around the world.

These entangling alliances are not agreed upon BUT why is it any of our business if they are fighting? Why should WE have to do a damn thing that has ZERO to do with the u.s.a. AT ALL?

No I think you should read all my FUCKING posts and not quote one line out of context.

I agree that it is none of our business.

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

I know you do and I did read your posts, I was just griping along as well. But thank you anyways

I guess I should have pointed that out.... I am on my first cup of coffee, not trying to talk against your comment but speak my opinion on that one point you were making. Wasn't meant to talk shit on YOU at all even if you think it came out that way. Sorry bout that BUT I know which side you are on and we are on the same damn one.

Another cup of coffee and I will be all good lol...

No I think you should read all my FUCKING posts and not quote one line out of context.

I agree that it is none of our business.

 

[Zolah]

That is the biggest new media false story that gets quoted all the time. We armed the Iraqis. We armed the Iraqis with a very very small part of their weaponry. I am not taking the media word for it I have seen Saddamns weapons and 99.9 percent are Russian and european.

I was speaking specifically about biological weaponry Saddam used actually, referring to the Kurds, received from America.