[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoon
Title: Putin's friend (click to view)
Date: August 13, 2008
So Russia invaded the Republic of Georgia earlier this week. They currently control about a third of the country.

The causes of the conflict are complex, of course, but basically Georgia has a few disputed border territories which the Georgians say should be part of Georgia and the Russians say should be part of Russia. Putin invaded primarily on the pretext of defending the Russians who live there, but long-term occupation and annexation is quite obviously the goal.

The west has, by and large, backed the Georgian government largely on the basis that it's democratic and Mr. Putin is not, though really, when you examine it closely, the Georgian case for themselves is not terribly convincing by western standards.

Regardless of the blame, or justness of either side, the most relevant thing about this war is that it shows Russia is prepared to use military force against its neighbouring countries to get what it wants. During the 1990's it was very fashionable to regard traditional state-to-state war and invasion as ancient, barbaric relics of the past.
But no longer.

[Lumpy]

I see South Osetia as analogous to Tibet, in that one was filled by Chinese emigrating from other parts of China, and the other with Russia. I remember the first time I heard about this conflict. A Russian spy plane had flown over Georgia, they denied it was a spy plane and not a "peaceful observer" plane, Georgia shot it down, Russia claimed they violated a treaty on airspace, and later Russia admitted it really was a military spy plane. Then Russian "peacekeeping" troops were sighted in Georgia a few months later.

Other than that, I saw nothing of this being reported outside of the Internet. No one in America seemed to care about the build-up, because they were busy with the primaries and probably thought it wouldn't lead up to anything. Will we be so lucky as to be able to identify the same warning signs the next time this happens?

Meanwhile, Poland agreed to install a U.S. missile defense system in their territory. That cartoon can only end with Putin making a wish to become an all-powerful genie.

Does Russia count as very much of a non-democracy if it's very clear that United Russia would be winning even without the oppressive tactics, and the second largest party is the Communist Party?

Also, does anyone find it strange that when Georgian troops retreated from South Osetia into Gori, wanting a ceasefire, Russians said they were lying and just regrouping, but later after they agreed to a truce, it turns out they lied and were sending in tanks to greet them? It's like they didn't believe them because they knew if they were in their position, they would have lied.

[Zipperfish]

Hmmm--I don't recall a similar analysis from Mr. Filibuster when the Amercians invaded and occupied Iraq. At least in this case, Russian had the pretext of Russian peacekeepers having been killed when the Georgians moved in to South Ossetia. Iraq, on the other hand, was based on false pretences. And the war in Iraq has resulted in the death, to date, of hundreds of thousands, mostly civilians. Five years later and the Americans are still there--with no WMD, no Al Qaeda connections, no Saddam, a democratic government in place and the population pacified--And yet they are still there, building military bases. But I don't recall seeing any comment from you about "long-term occupation and annexation is quite obviously the goal" when the evidence clearly indicates a much stronger case for prolonged occupation in Iraq than it does in Georgia.

Frankly, the hypocricy is staggering in scale.

You make other interesting observations such as "Regardless of the blame..." Really? It doesn't matter whose fault it is? What an intersting moral approach.

"During the 1990's was very fashionable to regard traditional state-to-state war and invasion as ancient, barbaric relics of the past." Ummmm. Again. Iraq. In that case you were an enthusiastic supporter of this "barbaric relic of the past." Really, try to strive for a memory that lasts longer than 4 months. While you're at it, you might want to try an independent assessment of the sitaution, rather than just parroting the official position of your government.

[Lumpy]

Oh, silly Zipperfish, when will you realize that dictatorships and democracies are different? (Kidding)

Oddly, Russia decided they could make citizens of another country dual citizens of Russia unilaterally, so if the definition of "Russian" in "Russians were killed," is wrong, they just have to change the definition.

[Zipperfish]

Lumpy wrote:

Oh, silly Zipperfish, when will you realize that dictatorships and democracies are different? (Kidding)

Oddly, Russia decided they could make citizens of another country dual citizens of Russia unilaterally, so if the definition of "Russian" in "Russians were killed," is wrong, they just have to change the definition.

I know, silly me! I forgot Russia was a dictatorship.

My understanding was that the Russian peacekeepers were real Russians who were there as a part of some international treaties signed in the early 1990s. If those peacekeepers were killed when teh Georgian forces rolled in, as Russia claims (keeping in mind that the first casualty in any war is always the truth), then I would say Russia was entitled to a legitimate response of self-defence. But this scenario has not even been considered by most of the media reports in Brtiain and the US that I've read.

[Scape]

It wasn't just the peacekeepers. It was the attack onTskhinvali and 10 other villages by Georgian armor.

HRW

Quote:

“They had no pity for civilians. When the fighting started, everyone who remained in the building rushed to the basement. We stayed there for the next two days, unable to step outside because the shelling was so heavy. On August 9, a BMP [infantry fighting vehicle] fired right into the basement, leaving a gaping hole in the wall. The noise was deafening and debris was flying all over the place. My neighbor’s elderly father-in-law was so scared that he started running away, slipped and broke his legs. No one was killed because everyone was in the adjacent room.”

Georgian forces were targeting civilians.

[JJ]

Zipperfish wrote:

Hmmm--I don't recall a similar analysis from Mr. Filibuster when the Amercians invaded and occupied Iraq. At least in this case, Russian had the pretext of Russian peacekeepers having been killed when the Georgians moved in to South Ossetia. Iraq, on the other hand, was based on false pretences. And the war in Iraq has resulted in the death, to date, of hundreds of thousands, mostly civilians. Five years later and the Americans are still there--with no WMD, no Al Qaeda connections, no Saddam, a democratic government in place and the population pacified--And yet they are still there, building military bases. But I don't recall seeing any comment from you about "long-term occupation and annexation is quite obviously the goal" when the evidence clearly indicates a much stronger case for prolonged occupation in Iraq than it does in Georgia.

Frankly, the hypocricy is staggering in scale.

Staggering? Really? That's a bit much.

There are obviously many, many differences between the Iraq war and the Georgian war, namely that the former consisted of a democratic country surgically invading an outlaw dictatorship and deposing the unpopular tyrant who had enslaved his country and made a mockery of international law and establishing a pluralistic self-sustaining democracy in his place, while the latter conflict consists of an autocracy invading a democratic neighbor with the explicit intent to expand its national territory.

As I said, I am not convinced that Georgia is 100% in the right in this conflict, or that Russia has no rational claim to the disputed provinces. But there is still obviously not a moral equivalence between Putin's Russia and Bush's America, and I don't get why you would even pretend like there is, other than to play the traditional far-left "America is always worse than everyone else" game.

Also, maybe I am being a bit of a hair-splitter when I say this, but when academics and journalists in the 1990's were going around saying how state-to-state warfare was so last century, I don't think they were imagining conflicts like Iraq. Even among the professional internationalist set, there still seems to be a general concession that it is okay to occasionally bomb or invade certain "rouge regimes" for humanitarian purposes. The logic is, in those cases that the intervening country is not in itself making war upon the other nation per se, but rather getting involved to address a specific crisis on behalf of that nation's citizens, and not solely naked self-interest.

I know to the people who end up dying such distinctions are probably not important, but again, there is a strong moral/motivational difference between Iraq and Georgia that you should be able to see, even if you opposed the Iraq war personally.

[Zipperfish]

JJ wrote:

Staggering? Really? That's a bit much.

There are obviously many, many differences between the Iraq war and the Georgian war, namely that the former consisted of a democratic country surgically invading an outlaw dictatorship and deposing the unpopular tyrant who had enslaved his country and made a mockery of international law and establishing a pluralistic self-sustaining democracy in his place, while the latter conflict consists of an autocracy invading a democratic neighbor with the explicit intent to expand its national territory.

As I said, I am not convinced that Georgia is 100% in the right in this conflict, or that Russia has no rational claim to the disputed provinces. But there is still obviously not a moral equivalence between Putin's Russia and Bush's America, and I don't get why you would even pretend like there is, other than to play the traditional far-left "America is always worse than everyone else" game.

Also, maybe I am being a bit of a hair-splitter when I say this, but when academics and journalists in the 1990's were going around saying how state-to-state warfare was so last century, I don't think they were imagining conflicts like Iraq. Even among the professional internationalist set, there still seems to be a general concession that it is okay to occasionally bomb or invade certain "rouge regimes" for humanitarian purposes. The logic is, in those cases that the intervening country is not in itself making war upon the other nation per se, but rather getting involved to address a specific crisis on behalf of that nation's citizens, and not solely naked self-interest.

I know to the people who end up dying such distinctions are probably not important, but again, there is a strong moral/motivational difference between Iraq and Georgia that you should be able to see, even if you opposed the Iraq war personally.

The dictator's been deposed. Five years ago. The body count since the fall of Saddam is anywhere between one hundred thousand and a million, depending on who you talk to. And the Americans are still there. Building military bases. Again, the case for occupation, just based on objective evidence, is much stronger in the case of Iraq.

Again, if it is true that Russian peacekeepers, there by international agreement, were killed by Georgian forces, that is heck of a lot more motiviation for war than, say, false claims of WMDs. There is allowance for self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Conversely, the decision to invade Iraq was not supported by UN and was called "illegal" by the head of the UN at the time. And "surgically invading"? Give your head a shake, sir. Abu Ghraib was surgical? Not even the Bush administration is holding on to that line anymore. They admit it was botched.

Further, let's not forget who instigated this mess, when Saakashvili invaded the separatist province of South Ossetia. There's no doubt he's been provoked by the Russians but let's not forget who instigated military operations--despite being warned by the US not to do so. Russia responded precisely the same way the US would have responded if American peackeepers had been overrun in similar circumstance--with a massive show of force.

As for my "far-left" America is always wrong, I suppose I could merely counter with your far-right "America is always right" perception.

But it just boggles my mind that, after invading two sovereign nations in the last eight years (one of which I supported, incidentally), you would be shocked that such a thing as invading a sovereign country still existed. I mean the mental blocks you must have in place to not even think of Iraq or Afghanistan when while making a statement that state-to-state war was a thing of the past must be a wonder to behold.

It's fine to tout high morals, but at what point do the facts come into play? Like the body count in Iraq being so horrifically high. Like that the war being based on false pretences. Like that Amercians pratcice widespread torture, including the torture of children, and arbitrary detainment. What? The US only tortures for humanitarian purposes?

I appreciate that you perceive things differently, but, based on the facts, I fail to see much in the way of humantarianism in the actions of the US in Iraq. I see a world power seeking to increase its power. What do I see in Russia? Another world power seeking to increase its power. I see two powers that, in your words, prepared to use military force to get what they want. You see one as good and one as evil, I suppose. I just see two corrupt powers seeking more power. Thus has it ever been.

[Tiler]

Silly JJ! The Iraq war is unpopular! That obviously means it was wrong! Because public opinion is the perfect gauge for judging who is correct!

Invading countries run by genocidal dictators to institute a democracy =/= invading a country because it got too close to the west for comfort. Zipperfish's arguments about how long an occupation is taking is utterly irrelevant and nonsensical; consider the continued US 'occupation' of Japan, Germany, and South Korea. Perhaps if we were trying to destroy their democracies instead of dying to defend them, there would be more merit in his argument.

Of course, I'm being too harsh to Russia; Georgia brought this on itself with it's swagger and it's strike into South Odessa. Russia's response, however, has gone too far, but perhaps they simply want to make sure Georgia's military is decimated before withdrawing, so I suppose this is just going to be a 'wait-and-see' situation.

Although, considering Russia's antics when it comes to it's neighbors getting too close to the west (i.e. suspicious poisonings/deaths of people that get in Russia's way, including a Ukrainian presidential candidate), and considering how close Georgia is to the west, I doubt Russia is doing this out of any sort of utilitarianism.

[Zipperfish]

Tiler wrote:

Silly JJ! The Iraq war is unpopular! That obviously means it was wrong! Because public opinion is the perfect gauge for judging whose correct!

Invading countries run by genocidal dictators to institute a democracy =/= invading a country because it got too close to the west for comfort. Zipperfish's arguments about how long an occupation is taking is utterly irrelevant and nonsensical; consider the continued US 'occupation' of Japan, Germany, and South Korea. Perhaps if we were trying to destroy their democracies instead of dying to defend them, there would be more merit in his argument.

I don't think it's that nonsensical. JJ made the statement that clearly Russia had the intention to invade, occupy and annex Georgia. And yet there is not much evidence that they will do so. They are talking their sweet time, but I imagine they will leave--at elast to South OSsetia--and they don't seem to be in the process of taking out the Georgian government. I was merely pointing out the case for the occupation of Iraq is much stronger, since the US has occupied the country for some five years now.

Dying to defend them? Look, I hate to introduce you to War 101 but when you declare war on a country and invade it you are attacking it, not defending it. Democracy is great. I like it. But what about the children that died in the bombing of Bagdhad in 2003. Did they get to vote? Where were Maher Arar's democratic rights when the US rendered him to Syria? What about the new policies on torture and indefinite arbitrary detainment? Sorry, I don't see the US moral superiority argument at all. Not at all. Not after what I've seen Bush do in the last eight years.

[Zipperfish]

Anyways, I'm off to Osoyoos with the crew tomorrow and I must pack, so I won't be able to respond, and I apologize for not being able to read your responses until next week. I'm sure Psudo will weigh in at some point and systematically destroy my arguments as he usually does.

Cheers!

[Psudo]

If you're sure your arguments can be systematically destroyed, why do I need to actually do it? Isn't that like conceding in advance? hehehe

Most of the relevant points were mentioned by JJ and Tiler and promptly ignored. And without Zipperfish around to dispute, I'm not sure it'd be sportsmanlike to go all-out.

Zipperfish is probably right in one respect: large portions of the world will see a great similarity between USA/Iraq and Russia/Georgia. If the USA objects to Georgia's rapidly shrinking border, they'll use whatever traction that theory can get to render our involvement useless. Unless McCain turns out to be the reincarnation of Churchill, the USA is going to end up on the sidelines on this one. Which, sad to say it, is probably for the best.

One other point, Zipperfish: it's common courtesy not to spit on your host's carpets. In a similar sense, it's common courtesy to treat JJ with a little respect since this place wouldn't exist if not for him. And then who would systematically destroy your arguments?

[Zipperfish]

One last post befoe I hit the hay... First, I meant no disrespect from any any comments I make. They may be impassioned, even incendiary, but, I hope, not disrespectful. Second...I don't anticipate my arguments being "systematically destroyed" but you always seem to do such a good job of it. And third, I don't think I ignored any relevant points. I think I tried to address them all.

Cheers

[llama66]

Zipperfish wrote:

JJ wrote:

Staggering? Really? That's a bit much.

There are obviously many, many differences between the Iraq war and the Georgian war, namely that the former consisted of a democratic country surgically invading an outlaw dictatorship and deposing the unpopular tyrant who had enslaved his country and made a mockery of international law and establishing a pluralistic self-sustaining democracy in his place, while the latter conflict consists of an autocracy invading a democratic neighbor with the explicit intent to expand its national territory.

As I said, I am not convinced that Georgia is 100% in the right in this conflict, or that Russia has no rational claim to the disputed provinces. But there is still obviously not a moral equivalence between Putin's Russia and Bush's America, and I don't get why you would even pretend like there is, other than to play the traditional far-left "America is always worse than everyone else" game.

Also, maybe I am being a bit of a hair-splitter when I say this, but when academics and journalists in the 1990's were going around saying how state-to-state warfare was so last century, I don't think they were imagining conflicts like Iraq. Even among the professional internationalist set, there still seems to be a general concession that it is okay to occasionally bomb or invade certain "rouge regimes" for humanitarian purposes. The logic is, in those cases that the intervening country is not in itself making war upon the other nation per se, but rather getting involved to address a specific crisis on behalf of that nation's citizens, and not solely naked self-interest.

I know to the people who end up dying such distinctions are probably not important, but again, there is a strong moral/motivational difference between Iraq and Georgia that you should be able to see, even if you opposed the Iraq war personally.

The dictator's been deposed. Five years ago. The body count since the fall of Saddam is anywhere between one hundred thousand and a million, depending on who you talk to. And the Americans are still there. Building military bases. Again, the case for occupation, just based on objective evidence, is much stronger in the case of Iraq.

Again, if it is true that Russian peacekeepers, there by international agreement, were killed by Georgian forces, that is heck of a lot more motiviation for war than, say, false claims of WMDs. There is allowance for self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Conversely, the decision to invade Iraq was not supported by UN and was called "illegal" by the head of the UN at the time. And "surgically invading"? Give your head a shake, sir. Abu Ghraib was surgical? Not even the Bush administration is holding on to that line anymore. They admit it was botched.

Further, let's not forget who instigated this mess, when Saakashvili invaded the separatist province of South Ossetia. There's no doubt he's been provoked by the Russians but let's not forget who instigated military operations--despite being warned by the US not to do so. Russia responded precisely the same way the US would have responded if American peackeepers had been overrun in similar circumstance--with a massive show of force.

As for my "far-left" America is always wrong, I suppose I could merely counter with your far-right "America is always right" perception.

But it just boggles my mind that, after invading two sovereign nations in the last eight years (one of which I supported, incidentally), you would be shocked that such a thing as invading a sovereign country still existed. I mean the mental blocks you must have in place to not even think of Iraq or Afghanistan when while making a statement that state-to-state war was a thing of the past must be a wonder to behold.

It's fine to tout high morals, but at what point do the facts come into play? Like the body count in Iraq being so horrifically high. Like that the war being based on false pretences. Like that Amercians pratcice widespread torture, including the torture of children, and arbitrary detainment. What? The US only tortures for humanitarian purposes?

I appreciate that you perceive things differently, but, based on the facts, I fail to see much in the way of humantarianism in the actions of the US in Iraq. I see a world power seeking to increase its power. What do I see in Russia? Another world power seeking to increase its power. I see two powers that, in your words, prepared to use military force to get what they want. You see one as good and one as evil, I suppose. I just see two corrupt powers seeking more power. Thus has it ever been.

well put Zipperfish.

[Murray_Smith]

Quote:

Five years later and the Americans are still there--with no WMD, no Al Qaeda connections, no Saddam, a democratic government in place and the population pacified--And yet they are still there, building military bases.

The first two points should never have been mentioned as a reason for the invasion in the first place. The other three are a result of said invasion. We built bases there because it is strategically wise to do so. Don't get me wrong; I'd like to see our troops out of Iraq by the end of the decade.

Quote:

But I don't recall seeing any comment from you about "long-term occupation and annexation is quite obviously the goal" when the evidence clearly indicates a much stronger case for prolonged occupation in Iraq than it does in Georgia.

If the U.S. had any wish to annex Iraq, we would have done so by now, and we wouldn't have $4/gal gasoline today.

Quote:

You make other interesting observations such as "Regardless of the blame..." Really? It doesn't matter whose fault it is? What an intersting moral approach.

Had you bothered to finish that sentence, you'd realize that no, it really doesn't matter whose fault it is when "the most relevant thing about this war is that it shows Russia is prepared to use military force against its neighbouring countries to get what it wants."