We helped in Iraq - now help us, beg Georgians

Originally posted by stumason
Under international law, the residents of SO have the right to self-determination. They have held a referendum, elected their own Government and have declared themselves to be independent.

seriously, a brit or an american justifying their actions using international law is like a rapist using a low cut top and short skirt to justify his actions.

one word, iraq.

Originally posted by blueorder
Im not sure it as clear cut as that, ossetia has been at best a nominal part of Georgia

but it is georgian sovereign territory. that's a fact. russia has no right to interfere in georgias internal affairs.

Georgia largely brought this on themselves, bloody stupid attacking Ossetia and killing all those civilians

thats just nonsence, s. ossetia is part of georgia, you cannot attack your own country. you can fight rebel forces. that is what georgia did.

the situation is rather more complex than that, I dont think the Georgians have acted in a sensible manner.

"allies" only works so far, Britain is the US ally but in reality we dont really get any benefit out it- to expect a heavily armed superpower to go to war with the next biggest armed power over a cruddy piece of land which Georgia itself had attacked is stretching things somewhat

and if france invaded the uk because the uk don't want to allow northern ireland to be soverign, what exactly would you expect america to do, the uk and the US being allies and all?

Originally posted by Harlequin

both argentina and the uk are allies of the usa - i was merely embelishing what you said

forgive me, struggling to make the connection with what I said?

Originally posted by pieman
but it is georgian sovereign territory. that's a fact. russia has no right to interfere in georgias internal affairs.

I dont agree it has had de facto independence for several years

What do you make of the Kosovan situation in comparison do you still consider it to be a sovereign part of Serbia and oppose the bombing of Serbia which took place?

thats just nonsence, s. ossetia is part of georgia, you cannot attack your own country.

we've already clarified it isnt as clear cut as that, and quite clearly ossetia WAS attacked where you regard it as part of Georgia or not

you can fight rebel forces. that is what georgia did.

That is Georgia's take on it, with the counter claims that civilians were in fact targetted

and if france invaded the uk because the uk don't want to allow northern ireland to be soverign, what exactly would you expect america to do, the uk and the US being allies and all?

I would expect nothing off the US, and I am a British citizen living in NI

[edit on 11-8-2008 by blueorder]

Originally posted by pieman

seriously, a brit or an american justifying their actions using international law is like a rapist using a low cut top and short skirt to justify his actions.

one word, iraq.

I am a "Brit" and I can have a view on whatever the hell I like.

The point is valid, why does Kosovo have a right and not Ossetia, that is why the US can do dick all about it.


By the way I opposed the war in Iraq, one "brit" life is not worth dying for that hell hole

blueorder, it is as clear cut as this, south ossetia is not an independent and sovereign nation, it is a region of internal dispute within the sovereign nation of georgia. it has never been recognised as anything but a region of dispute by either the UK or the US, as far as i am aware.

troop movements within georgia are not an attack, they are an internal policing arrangement, which you should know, being from NI.

as far as the US or the UK should be concerned, russia has no justification for intercession in georgian internal affairs, regardless of the risk to russian citizens, unless it is either invited by georgia or as part of a UN force invited by georgia.

everything else is window dressing and excuses being made for a spineless failure to aid an ally that has been invaded.

Originally posted by blueorder
I am a "Brit" and I can have a view on whatever the hell I like.

damn right you can, as i have the right to disagree and say i think your talking crap, which i didn't say about you as it happens!?!

By the way I opposed the war in Iraq, one "brit" life is not worth dying for that hell hole

good, lots and lots of brits did, but then again most didn't. the trouble with democracy is you all get tarred with the same brush when the government you elect does something evil, weather you agreed with it or not.

Originally posted by pieman
blueorder, it is as clear cut as this, south ossetia is not an independent and sovereign nation, it is a region of internal dispute within the sovereign nation of georgia. it has never been recognised as anything but a region of dispute by either the UK or the US, as far as i am aware.

in terms of acceptance by other nations, you are correct that nothing formally has been confirmed on South ossetia, aside from it being living de fact independence since the 1990s- my point is, that isnt worth a bean, as Kosovo was not recognised as a sovereign nation yet NATO attacked Serbia for "dealing" with the Kosovans which was nothing more than a "region" of Serbia

troop movements within georgia are not an attack, they are an internal policing arrangement, which you should know, being from NI.

It is my experience in NI that enables me to see there is nothing comparable about the situation- the UK never had to launch an armed assault, on a region of NI, including bombardment- the most the army had to do was back up the police in civil disturbances or carry out covert attack against IRA terrorists such as at Loughall

as far as the US or the UK should be concerned, russia has no justification for intercession in georgian internal affairs, regardless of the risk to russian citizens, unless it is either invited by georgia or as part of a UN force invited by georgia.

I daresay if US citizens were under attack in another country, the US might get involved- in any event theyve already showed their hand with Serbia, they bombed Serbia before Kosov was recognised as a sovereign nation

everything else is window dressing and excuses being made for a spineless failure to aid an ally that has been invaded.

I don't agree, far to complex for that, I could understand if Russia had just randomly bombed Tiblisi, but I sure as hell dont want the UK going to war with Russia just because Georgia badly prejudged Russia over this small piece of land

Originally posted by pieman
good, lots and lots of brits did, but then again most didn't. the trouble with democracy is you all get tarred with the same brush when the government you elect does something evil, weather you agreed with it or not.

most Brits did oppose the war, 40% dont vote and less than half voted for the ruling party (in any event they werent voted in on a "war" ticket)- most people opposed the war, same way as most people oppose our current set up within the EU, that, my friend, is "democracy" for you

Originally posted by blueorder
as Kosovo was not recognised as a sovereign nation yet NATO attacked Serbia for "dealing" with the Kosovans which was nothing more than a "region" of Serbia

when exactly are you talking about? the kosovan war? wasn't that about ethnic cleansing? dunno, quite a while ago. there hasn't been ethnic cleansing in s ossatia as far as i know. i don't see the comparison.

It is my experience in NI that enables me to see there is nothing comparable about the situation- the UK never had to launch an armed assault, on a region of NI, including bombardment- the most the army had to do was back up the police in civil disturbances or carry out covert attack against IRA terrorists such as at Loughall

civil disturbances like the march on bloody sunday? what the british troops were or were not is purely a matter of perspective, and frankly i'm not getting into it, it'll just get personal. my point is in an area of dispute troop movements are an internal affair. this was the british line on the north and it's probably the georgian line now.

I don't agree, far to complex for that, I could understand if Russia had just randomly bombed Tiblisi, but I sure as hell dont want the UK going to war with Russia just because Georgia badly prejudged Russia over this small piece of land

shouldn't have had them as allies in iraq then should you?

most Brits did oppose the war, 40% dont vote and less than half voted for the ruling party (in any event they werent voted in on a "war" ticket)- most people opposed the war, same way as most people oppose our current set up within the EU, that, my friend, is "democracy" for you

nope, i believe that's called naievity. if you don't vote you are as responsible for the election of a government as if you vote for them, so don't pull that crap, and i can guarantee you that if the conservatives thought for one second that they could oust labour over the war or european membership, they'ld force an election, they haven't, they won't and the reason is over half of the uks citizens support both, to believe otherwise is just believing what you want.

[edit on 11-8-2008 by pieman]

Oh dear looks like the West and the USA have just inveritably knotched up more enemies.

The Georgians will never forgive this down the line and neither will any pro west neighbouring countries that will soon fall under the Russian sphere of influence.

We've been set up to look like weaklings and fools even though the Russians have a legitamate claim to South Ossetia other former eastern blocs will now be sweating heavily even if they are members of Nato or not.

I'm sure other countries are also now wondering the point of keeping troops in Iraq after what's been witnessed happening to the Georgians.

reply to post by blueorder

"allies" only works so far, Britain is the US ally but in reality we dont really get any benefit out it- to expect a heavily armed superpower to go to war with the next biggest armed power over a cruddy piece of land which Georgia itself had attacked is stretching things somewhat

thats what i wsa trying to make a point of - in teh falklands war , the UK and USA were supposed to be `strong` allies , and yet the USA and Argentina were also strong allies , the UK asked for help many times , and got blanked or refused , military assistance or access to satelites - there even *rumours* the USA actually supplied inteligence to argentina against the UK , the offer of an aircraft was a white elephant - how could the UK instantly train a crew for a US aircraft which are much bigger than the UK ones?

that what i meant - the USA only does things which will benefit its own government (not people) and damn anyone else `friend` or otherwise.

reply to post by SR


There's no way the Russians would dare to touch any members of Nato. Actually, I was curious today to see how much TV coverage of the conflict was in some EU/Nato members somehow closer to Russia, such as Romania, Hungary or Poland and I checked various news channels there - and it's clear to me from what I saw, that nobody was "sweating" because of the Russians! There was more coverage for minor internal news than for the Georgian conflict.

georgia took military action first and shelled the town has killed 2000+ civilians mom, dads, kids grandparents. These were Russian citizens who applied and received Russian citizenship years earlier. I think the US (my country) would be seriously over stepping its bounds to get involved we should stay out of it to the extent we are now. What if US citizens in some country kids, parents, and elderly were being killed hundreds or in this situation 2,000 so far what do u think our country would do let them be killed? HELL NO, every country has a right to protect its own. alli or no alli we shouldnt stand by and protect them for killing people civiliens



[edit on 11-8-2008 by twistingtree]

Originally posted by twistingtree
georgia took miliary action first and shelled the town has killed 2000+ civilians mom, dads, kids grandparents. these were russian citizens who applied and recived russian citizenship years earlier. i think the US (my country) would be seriously over steping its bounds. what if US citizens in some country kids, parents, elerdy ect. were being killed hundreds or in this situation 2,000 so far what do u think our country would do let them be killed? HELL NO, every country has a right to protect its own

Kosvo and Iraq will haunt you's and the rest of us in NATO forever in this situation.

We've been exposed as frauds and hypocrites.

reply to post by Harlequin


Falklands was different.
There is a old American doctrine that states America should keep out of European colony affairs - goes back to Washington. Congress, at the time, said America should respect the doctrine and support Argentina.

In the end, Regan did side with Britain and gave support to the conflict - because Argentina attacked Britain first (NATO alliance overruled everything).

[edit on 11-8-2008 by infinite]

Originally posted by pieman
when exactly are you talking about? the kosovan war? wasn't that about ethnic cleansing? dunno, quite a while ago. there hasn't been ethnic cleansing in s ossatia as far as i know. i don't see the comparison.

The point I am making is that you are saying Ossetia (south) is not an internationally recognised sovereign nation and Russia should stay out, however Britain and the US didn't stay out of Serbia's "regional" bother in Kosovo

civil disturbances like the march on bloody sunday? what the british troops were or were not is purely a matter of perspective, and frankly i'm not getting into it, it'll just get personal. my point is in an area of dispute troop movements are an internal affair. this was the british line on the north and it's probably the georgian line now.

I know the point you are trying to make, but Georgian troop movements and bombardment of this "region"/ "defacto independent area"/ "quasi autonomous region" *delete as you find appropriate* is not similar to army back up of policing in NI which was introduced to stop catholic and protestant communities from killing each other

shouldn't have had them as allies in iraq then should you?

Leaving aside my own view on Iraq, why the hell not, maybe you would be better telling Georgians they shouldnt have taken sending troops to back up the US/Uk in Iraq as a green light for military support against Russia

nope, i believe that's called naievity. if you don't vote you are as responsible for the election of a government as if you vote for them, so don't pull that crap, and i can guarantee you that if the conservatives thought for one second that they could oust labour over the war or european membership, they'ld force an election, they haven't, they won't and the reason is over half of the uks citizens support both, to believe otherwise is just believing what you want.
[edit on 11-8-2008 by pieman]

Im not sure if you are understanding my point, I am saying democracy in the UK is a farce, thats why 40% dont vote, there is dang all real difference between the tories and labour, all part of this leftist inspired notion of "consensus" and centrist politics which basically surpresses meaningful debate or difference- who will fill this void, perhaps a rather more savage beast, so spare me your "naive" comemnts, when you completely misunderstand the point I was making, my eyes are open chum

Originally posted by infinite
Falklands was different.
There is a old American doctrine that states America should keep out of European colony affairs - goes back to Washington. Congress, at the time, said America should respect the doctrine and support Argentina.

In the end, Regan did side with Britain and gave support to the conflict - because Argentina attacked Britain first (NATO alliance overruled everything).

[edit on 11-8-2008 by infinite]

he has a point though, self interest will always play a part, clearly there is little self interest in going to war with Russia over this small bit of land. There is little benefit in our "special relationship" with the US

Its always been that way though "self interest"< we are taught WW2 was a supremely just war, possibly the most "just" ever, yet we fight one tyrant only for East germans, baltic states, poland, eastern europe to get taken over by another, equally murderous and oppressive tyrant

Originally posted by TKainZero
How can the US expect ANYONE to support them, if we won't defend one of our most commitied allies...

I think you give the word "ally" a meaning it did not originally possess. It's true that Mr. Saakashvili is hell bent on joining NATO and is ready to prostitute his troops in Iraq to score points with the West. But that's just that. Sure? the US can hope to get airbases and what not in Georgia, but that again is prostituting Georgian soil. Both -- for the benefit of Georgian elite.

They probably have to Photoshop each picture of Saakashvili to erase his brown nose.

Originally posted by pieman
nope, i believe that's called naievity.

also, find it ironic to be accused of naiveity from someone who thinks the US would go to war with Russia over South Ossetia just because Georgia sent some troops to Iraq.....


International politics/conflicts are never black and white nor consistent, and it is naive to think they should be (once again refer the Kosovo example)