Invasion of Georgia 2008 (facts, Spain, Russians, military)

[newhandle]

The Georgians knew what would happen when they invaded, yet they did it anyway. I do not feel sorry for them. We only see US news that portrays the Georgian viewpoint. South Osettia was an opressed area, bullied by a minor country, Georgia. Russian peacekeepers, no one else would stand up for South Osettia, were given an excuse to come in by the Georgian govt.

[slick828]

An opressed area South Ossetia might have been, but still a part of Georgia. All countries have areas that are oppressed. Tibet, Chechnya, etc. If the USA invaded Tibet, because it was an oppressed area, I doubt much of the world would be pleased with our actions. But, then again you could probably argue the same thing happened in Iraq with the Kurds and Shias...idk is the Georgia conflict relatable to the Iraq war?

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by slick828

Mathguy-
Russia claimed the attack because a significant number of South Ossetian's are Russian citizens. South Ossetia is a part of Georgia. Russia got involved. In Sudan, you could argue that an internal conflict exists. No one gets involved. Apparently citizens of Chad and neighboring countries might not be as important. I'm surprised the world turns a blind eye to Sudan's conflict and Russia gets involved in Georgia. Am i missing a reason why Russia invaded Georgia? Perhaps an ulterior motive i missed. I also don't quite understand what your third point is referencing and don't necessarily agree with nuclear weapons bringing peace to Europe. Fear and tension perhaps but not peace.

1. Ok, so then one of Sudan's neighbors should get involved. The US for example is thousands of miles away, on another continent and we have no ties to them...so other than exerting political pressure I'm not inclined to invade Sudan to stop the fighting. Also, the logistics are staggering.

Russia has interests in Georgia, they don't in Sudan and they are also far away. So how is this hard to understand?

2. Go google European war chronology. You will see near constant warfare back to the Romans and beyond. Yeah, nukes are keeping the relative peace in Europe for the first time in ages. Feel free to cite some references refuting this if you want. From 1845-1945 alone there were no less than 3 MAJOR wars plus many smaller conflicts.

[DrummerBoy]

Originally Posted by slick828

Just wondering what some of you think about the Russian invasion of Georgia during the 2008 Olympic Games. Was it justified for them to invade South Osettia claiming to protect its residents? Also should countries (other than Russia) recognize South Osettia as a sovereign state? What should happen, should it be absorbed in Russia, remain part of Georgia (by Georgian force) or become an independent, or other?

Heck no it wasn't justified. It was just a glimmering of the ultra-nationalist that Vladimir Putin really is at heart. All Georgia wants is it's autonomy and freedom; something that the other 13 republics that originally comprised the old USSR got when it crumbled back in 1991.
In my mind, we would have been more justified to send troops into Georgia to fend off the Russians as we were to send troops to Iraq--a war based on totally fabricated and ommitted intelligence by the Bush Administration.
But see, despite what we say, the U.S. doesan't really care about instilling democracy--only in Imperialism and intervening in places where we have something to gain.
For proof of this, consider: Why didn't we go into Darfur, or Sierra Leone or Rwanda or any of those other African s.h.i.t.h.o.l.es where people get slaughtered by the thousands? Because they got nuthin' we want, that's why.
Same deal with Tibet.
Sorry, I got off on a rant, there. LOL. But NO, Putin's invasion was not justified. And we better keep on eye on Russia too! Medvedev is merely Putin's butt-boy; Vlad is still running the show out there.
Peace.

[sarahkate_m]

It seems to me that every single one of the countries/peoples listed in this thread were involved in conflicts over oil rights. It's all about money & oil. Those seem to be the ruling influences on our planet, hand in hand, regardless of US administration or involvement.

[bluebeard]

Originally Posted by DrummerBoy

Heck no it wasn't justified. It was just a glimmering of the ultra-nationalist that Vladimir Putin really is at heart. All Georgia wants is it's autonomy and freedom; something that the other 13 republics that originally comprised the old USSR got when it crumbled back in 1991.
In my mind, we would have been more justified to send troops into Georgia to fend off the Russians as we were to send troops to Iraq--a war based on totally fabricated and ommitted intelligence by the Bush Administration.
But see, despite what we say, the U.S. doesan't really care about instilling democracy--only in Imperialism and intervening in places where we have something to gain.
For proof of this, consider: Why didn't we go into Darfur, or Sierra Leone or Rwanda or any of those other African s.h.i.t.h.o.l.es where people get slaughtered by the thousands? Because they got nuthin' we want, that's why.
Same deal with Tibet.
Sorry, I got off on a rant, there. LOL. But NO, Putin's invasion was not justified. And we better keep on eye on Russia too! Medvedev is merely Putin's butt-boy; Vlad is still running the show out there.
Peace.

Peace my butt. you just listed a bunch of conflicts you likely know little to nothing about and said inflammatory statements.
I am on the extreme left and oftentimes share its view of American militarism. It's eagerness to righteously condemn in areas and conflicts it has little historical understanding can turn people off its ideas.
Also, it's not totally true those countries have no resources of value that the US would want. Some of those conflicts are even exacerbated by the natural resources in the area.

[newhandle]

This conflict goes back to the end of the Soviet Union with more than one war. South Ossetia has demonstrated again and again they want to be part of Russia. Hence, Georgia banned regional political parties -so much for democracy. No where in the west do we hear about the 30,000 + South Ossetia refugees caused by the Georgian invasion, the shelling of South Ossetia villiages. The destruction of its main hospital. The Caucasus region is one we don't understand and should never get involved in. Whether one likes it or not, Russian peacekeepers have done just that, kept the peace. Why would be want to be involved in this mess; we have enough issues.

[DrummerBoy]

[quote=bluebeard;11514816]Peace my butt. you just listed a bunch of conflicts you likely know little to nothing about and said inflammatory statements.

As a former college history major and current tutor, and lifelong history and military science buff, I reckon I can tell you just about as much as you wanna know about any of the conflicts or issues I mentioned.
Further, I will end my posts with any sort of comment or salutation I wish.
Don't belittle me again when you know zilch about my education.
Peace on you!

[slick828]

mathguy,
Ok i get it. Russia is intervening because they have interests in Georgia... I'm just saying its hard to believe no one has equal interests in Sudan (Sudan has lots of oil).

Just because wars existed in Europe for a long time before nuclear weapons and conflict in Europe ceased doesn't necessarily mean that the nuclear weapons is the one and only reason that peace in Europe exists. You could point to a number of different reasons, I'd say the UN has more to do with peace in Europe than the existence of nuclear weapons. On a side note countries that have nuclear weapons have gone to war since there existence...USA, Israel, Britain, France, Russia. If your new argument is that these countries didn't go to war with countries with nuclear weapons...not all countries in Europe have nuclear weapons.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by slick828

mathguy,
Ok i get it. Russia is intervening because they have interests in Georgia... I'm just saying its hard to believe no one has equal interests in Sudan (Sudan has lots of oil).

Just because wars existed in Europe for a long time before nuclear weapons and conflict in Europe ceased doesn't necessarily mean that the nuclear weapons is the one and only reason that peace in Europe exists. You could point to a number of different reasons, I'd say the UN has more to do with peace in Europe than the existence of nuclear weapons. On a side note countries that have nuclear weapons have gone to war since there existence...USA, Israel, Britain, France, Russia. If your new argument is that these countries didn't go to war with countries with nuclear weapons...not all countries in Europe have nuclear weapons.

1. Everything is risk and reward. I think with regards to Sudan...it's such a hell-hole that they will just stand back and let the winner sell oil.

2. NATO yes, UN no.

3. Israel is the only country with nukes that I can think of that has been attacked. Suffice to say that the countries that attacked Israel in those circumstances were in my opinion not thinking too clearly.

Your last comment is rather strawman. Would you care to provide some examples?

None of the major powers attacked each other or other nations that were aligned with one of the major powers. Then there is the threat of escalation...ie) Why didn't the US just invade Cuba after the Cuban missle crisis they could easily have taken over.