Nuke Moscow Now?

On Aug 19, 2:01 am, Patok <pa... DeleteThis @pataklama.net> wrote:

>      Get your facts straight before nuking anybody . . .

Just Me wrote:
> As one who lived through the slow ticking away of those long
> hours of dread . . . well, the answer to the subject question is NO!

So, to borrow a phrase from the replier (replicant?) . . .

> Get your facts straight before nuking anybody, droid.

And as to this . . .

> In the case
> at hand, Georgia is the aggressor.

Once again . . .

> Get your facts straight before nuking anybody, droid.
--
JM http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Nuke Moscow Now? 

On Aug 19, 2:01 am, Patok <pa....DeleteThis@pataklama.net> wrote:

> Get your facts straight before nuking anybody, droid. In the case
> at hand,

The facts, according to David Bakradze, Chairman of the Georgian
Parliament are that in the night, Russian-armed South Ossetian
guerillas began shelling Georgian villages and farms in South Ossetia,
an action soon followed by an over-the-border incursion of Russian
tanks and troops through the tunnel into Georgia, proper.

> Georgia is the aggressor.

Georgia acted purely and entirely in fully justified mobilization of
national defense.

Present whatever alleged 'facts' you claim to the contrary as support
for your stinking straight up to the moon and stars horseshit of a
lying excuse for inaction, for a coward's kiss to the propaganda
menstruating mouth of Putin.
--
JM http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Nuke Moscow Now? 

On Aug 19, 10:54 am, "Francis A. Miniter" <famini....RemoveThis@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Further fact free posting from the guy who won't reply to my
> history of Israel and the Palestinians.

It was indeed "your" history, and not *the* history, as the "Other"
and the other fellow, "jgarbuz" more than adequately pointed out in
reply to your previous post.

And what if I should reply to show that the facts you allege are
either not facts or facts misconstrued from their contexts to present
a case contrary to the facts? Will you face the facts, or will I only,
once again be wasting my time?
--
JM http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Nuke Moscow Now? 

Just Me wrote:
> President Kennedy confronted a like test of our will here in the West
> by scaring hell out of the whole world with his naval blockade of
> Cuba. As one who lived through the slow ticking away of those long
> hours of dread . . . well, the answer to the subject question is NO!
>
> Making any similar move toward such a confrontation with Russia is
> such a high price to pay for getting a little respect from those
> gangsters and fascists that it comes in a toll of trauma added to
> triumph down to a lot more like loss than gain. Look at what it did to
> my generation, the rampage of rebellion it unleashed from us. That
> trauma was real. It made us crazy.
>
> There is a way, however to make a stand of solidarity with the people
> of Georgia fully as triumphant as Kennedy's blockade, if only the West
> has the stuff it takes to really put our money where our mouth is.
> There is a way short of military action for this to be done, and to do
> it in such a way that given an unshakable resolve would force Russia
> to back down, no different than was done in 1963. There is a way to
> let the people of Georgia know that we are with them all the way in
> refusal to allow this aggression to succeed.
> --
> JM http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
> http://whosenose.blogspot.com
>

Further fact free posting from the guy who won't reply to my
history of Israel and the Palestinians.


Francis A. Miniter
 >> Stay informed about: Nuke Moscow Now? 

Just Me wrote:
> On Aug 19, 2:01 am, Patok <pa....RemoveThis@pataklama.net> wrote:
>
>> Get your facts straight before nuking anybody, droid. In the case
>> at hand,
>
> The facts, according to David Bakradze, Chairman of the Georgian
> Parliament
>
Get your sources straight, then. Do you really expect anything
/but/ propaganda from sources like "David Bakradze, Chairman of the
Georgian Parliament"?


> are that in the night, Russian-armed South Ossetian
> guerillas began shelling Georgian villages and farms in South Ossetia,
> an action soon followed by an over-the-border incursion of Russian
> tanks and troops through the tunnel into Georgia, proper.

Yeah, right. An then, when the Russian army came to the rescue,
these selfsame "Russian-armed South Ossetian guerillas" (typo preserved)
fled into Georgia for some reason, instead of disappearing back into the
hills.


>> Georgia is the aggressor.
>
> Georgia acted purely and entirely in fully justified mobilization of
> national defense.

No. It attacked first, thinking that the world's obsession with the
Olympics would leave it unnoticed. Well, it didn't. And guess what, now
they can kiss their NATO and EU aspirations goodbye, because nobody
wants a schizophrenic country like that for member. I can understand why
you would support them, though - you and the Georgian prez Saakashvili
are soul-mates, both spewing lies and innuendo for all to see.
 >> Stay informed about: Nuke Moscow Now? 

Just Me wrote:
> On Aug 19, 10:54�am, "Francis A. Miniter" <famini... DeleteThis @comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Further fact free posting from the guy who won't reply to my
>> history of Israel and the Palestinians.
>
> It was indeed "your" history, and not *the* history, as the "Other"
> and the other fellow, "jgarbuz" more than adequately pointed out in
> reply to your previous post.
>
> And what if I should reply to show that the facts you allege are
> either not facts or facts misconstrued from their contexts to present
> a case contrary to the facts? Will you face the facts, or will I only,
> once again be wasting my time?
> --
> JM http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
>

I would be very interested to see which of the statements
you could challenge _with_ references.


Francis A. Miniter
 >> Stay informed about: Nuke Moscow Now? 

Just Me wrote:
> On Aug 19, 2:01�am, Patok <pa....DeleteThis@pataklama.net> wrote:
>
>> Get your facts straight before nuking anybody, droid. In the case
>> at hand,
>
> The facts, according to David Bakradze, Chairman of the Georgian
> Parliament are that in the night, Russian-armed South Ossetian
> guerillas began shelling Georgian villages and farms in South Ossetia,
> an action soon followed by an over-the-border incursion of Russian
> tanks and troops through the tunnel into Georgia, proper.
>
>> Georgia is the aggressor.
>
> Georgia acted purely and entirely in fully justified mobilization of
> national defense.
>
> Present whatever alleged 'facts' you claim to the contrary as support
> for your stinking straight up to the moon and stars horseshit of a
> lying excuse for inaction, for a coward's kiss to the propaganda
> menstruating mouth of Putin.
> --
> JM http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
> http://whosenose.blogspot.com


How about we take a look at what the Georgians were saying
on their way into South Ossetia. The following is from a
Financial Times article using Reuters reporters:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e29e178-6498-11dd-af61-0000779fd18c.html

------------------------------------------
Fighting intensifies in South Ossetia
By Roman Olearchyk in Kiev and Charles Clover in Moscow

Published: August 7 2008 22:29 | Last updated: August 8 2008
01:48

Fierce fighting erupted in Georgia's breakaway enclave of
South Ossetia on Thursday night and Friday morning, and
government troops reportedly surrounded Tskhinvali, the
region's capital, following days of clashes with separatist
forces in the area.

A senior government minister told Reuters that Georgian
forces had surrounded Tskhinvali and were advancing on the
city. Temur Iakobashvili, Georgia's minister for
re-integration, said Georgian forces had taken control of
five Ossetian villages. Russian news agencies quoted Eduard
Kokoity, South Ossetia's de facto president, as saying the
Georgian offensive had failed.

The latest outbreak of hostilities followed an earlier call
for a 24-hour ceasefire by Mikheil Saakashvili, the Georgian
president, and diplomatic efforts to avert an escalation of
the worst fighting in the region since 2004.

Georgian officials said military action was ordered only
after Ossetian forces had ignored the ceasefire call. Mr
Iakobashvili described the military operation as "an attempt
to restore order and avoid confrontation and further
escalation".

Interfax, the Russian news agency, reported a senior
Georgian commander as saying the operation was intended "to
restore constitutional order in the whole region". But asked
if the ­military operation would involve a complete takeover
of South Ossetia, Mr Iakobashvili told the Financial Times:
"It is premature to say what this military operation will
entail. It is not targeting civilians but rather
paramilitary criminals who are using ammunition."

It was unclear if Russia, at bitter odds with the
pro-western leadership in Tbilisi, would interfere. But the
incident was certain to test nerves at the highest levels in
Moscow and Washington, which have jostled for influence in
the volatile Caucasus region.

A top Russian envoy to Tbilisi said that Georgia's action
showed Tbilisi could not be trusted and that Nato should
reconsider its plans to admit the ex-Soviet state.
"Georgia's step is absolutely incomprehensible and shows
that the Georgian leadership has zero credit of trust."

Georgian officials warned 1,000 Russian peacekeepers in the
region not to get involved in the operation.
--------------------------------------

Seriously, all except you agree that the Georgian troops
moved first. The Economist says of Georgia: "When you have
a choice of doing nothing or doing something stupid, it is
always better to do nothing."


Francis A. Miniter
 >> Stay informed about: Nuke Moscow Now? 

On Aug 19, 6:09 pm, "Francis A. Miniter" <famini... RemoveThis @comcast.net>
wrote:

> Seriously, all except you agree that the Georgian troops
> moved first.

All say this? All of *your* sources say this--and look at them! The
Economist for the crissake. Not for nothing did Berlusconi see fit to
dub it, "The Ecommunist" . . .

> The Economist says of Georgia: "When you have
> a choice of doing nothing or doing something stupid, it is
> always better to do nothing."

Something stupid? In this case, 'stupid' is meant to describe doing
something honorable in hazard of great odds. But there is in fact a
mentality far lower than such alleged 'stupidity' as this, which is
the cynical, no-heart mentality which can without shame make a virtue
of timidity so utterly perfected that it is even downright boisterous
in the flawlessness of its apathy, to wit . . .

"When you have a choice of doing nothing or doing something stupid,
it is always better to do nothing."

But now, back to your sources for this monstrously obtuse contrivance
of Putinist propaganda, that Georgian troops moved first . . .

Moved first before or after what? Before Russian troops? Before or
after Putin's puppet "peace-keeping" tin soldier brigade of the CIS?
Or after the South Ossetian paramilitary einsatzgruppen? Observe,
once again, your source . . .

> ------------------------------------------
> Fighting intensifies in South Ossetia
> By Roman Olearchyk in Kiev and Charles Clover in Moscow

In Moscow and Kiev for the crissake? Reporting under the ever-watchful
eye and ready radioactive blue pencil-pistol of unofficial Reuter's
editor, Vladimir Putin. From the Kremlin we get . . .

>
> Published: August 7 2008 22:29 | Last updated: August 8 2008
> 01:48
>
> Fierce fighting erupted in Georgia’s breakaway enclave of
> South Ossetia on Thursday night and Friday morning, and
> government troops reportedly surrounded Tskhinvali, the
> region’s capital, following days of clashes with separatist
> forces in the area.

How, by any stretch of the imagination can anyone of open-minded
attitude, upon close scrutiny of such text as that, come out of it
with the interpretation that "Georgian troops moved first"?

C'mon! What is this, the goddam Russian Reader's Digest condensed
novel of the daily news you're trying to hand us here? The ambiguity
in that first clause is big enough to drive a Russian T-90S tank
through.

And the lacuna of time in this text is precisely the ambiguity,
concerning exactly who started what on Thursday night, which only this
morning has finally been dispelled by the facts as from David
Bakradze, Chairman of the Georgian Parliament in his panel interview
with members of the Atlantic Council, as aired on C-SPAN . . .

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_vide...nfo&pro

It all began with a speech from the erstwhile "president" of South
Ossetia, stating an intention to expel every ethnic Georgian from the
province, a threat which was soon followed up on Thursday night by
action as the shelling of ethnic Georgian villages in the separatist
province began.

Of course the Georgian military was brought into action against that--
if indeed what Bakradze alleges is fact.

Now. I have seen the face of Putin and I have seen the face of Mikheil
Saakashvili and David Bakradze--just as I have seen the face of the
Russian ambassador to the UN, hearing him in the midst of his bluster
of hemming and hawing, having not a single documented fact at his hand
to counter the charges that came against him from every party that
spoke in the Security Council, France, England, Croatia, Costa Rica
and the U.S.

Now, what was this you were saying about . . .

> Seriously, all except you agree that the Georgian troops
> moved first.

Is it just that you'll say any damn thing to support the anti-Western
skew of your perceptions, and let all truth, fact and testimony be
damned--or what?

I mean, honest to god I don't understand you. How anyone could take
the word of a filthy fascist vampire like Putin over that of these
valiant liberty loving fellows from Georgia, why! I just can't grok
it.

It's like maybe you got a missing part in your head or your heart?

Permit me to inquire . . .

Have you ever had reason to suppose that any possibility exists in
this filthy sack of rags, bone and hanks of hair that goes by the
title of "human being" for any such alleged thing as an immortal soul?

And if so, in what, from a point of view of biology or physics would
you hypothesize it might consist?
--
JM http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://jesusexegesis.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Nuke Moscow Now? 

On Aug 20, 12:02 am, Just Me <jpd....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 12:58 pm, Patok <pa....RemoveThis@pataklama.net> wrote:
>
> >      Get your sources straight, then. Do you really expect anything
> > /but/ propaganda from sources like "David Bakradze, Chairman of the
> > Georgian Parliament"?
>
> One certainly expects propaganda from BOTH sides in any issue of
> politics or war, but as one weighs what comes out in the bullshit
> balance, one's opinion is somehow formed.  But you have clearly
> decided that a Putin/Medvedev regime responsible for the assassination
> of journalists, the disappearing and imprisonment of political
> adversaries, the nuclear arming of terrorist states is the side with
> bullshit of the least offensive propagandist stench.
>
> >  > are that in the night, Russian-armed South Ossetian
> >  > guerillas began shelling Georgian villages and farms in South Ossetia,
> >  > an action soon followed by an over-the-border incursion of Russian
> >  > tanks and troops through the tunnel into Georgia, proper.
>
> >      Yeah, right. An then, when the Russian army came to the rescue . . .
>
> What "rescue"? Of Russian-armed rebels engaged in the murder of
> innocents? Thugs and gangsters, trained, funded, and pumped full of
> Putinist propaganda to a sole purpose of sabotage and subversion of a
> sovereign democratic state?  This is precisely the same technique that
> was used to create the still totally bogus "Palestinian" revolt in
> Israel.

It's wrong to think of the Ossetians as purely "rebels" against
their own country, Georgia, and its legitimate government.
The history of the ethnic relations and conflicts is more
complex than that. South Ossetia, an admittedly tiny region
(current population 70,000) was forcefully incorporated into
the Russian Empire in 1801 by Czar Alexander I. It was to be
governed by pro-Russian Georgian imperial administrators who
replaced the old legitimate king of Georgia, who was deposed by
the Czar. This formed "the viceroyalty of the Caucasus" which
existed from 1801 to 1917. Abkhazia, the other separatist enclave
on the Black Sea coast, was also forcefully incorporated into
this new province of the Russian Empire. The Russian Czars gave
the Georgians a free hand in suppressing the aspirations
for freedom of the Abkhazians. The Ossetians and Abkhazians
speak their own languages and have distinct cultures of their own.

By the time of the revolution in Russia in 1905, the Abkhazians
had been oppressed by the Georgians so much that they
actually backed the Czar, while the Georgians sided with
the rebels against the Czar. The Czar rewarded the Abkhazians
for their loyalty in 1907 by formally removing their "guilt"
for causing trouble by seeking freedom and autonomy during
the 19th century. After the Bolshevik revolution, Georgia
tried to become an independent country and remained de facto
as such until 1921. But both Abkhazia and South Ossetia
immediately started a rebellion and tried to wrest free of
this short-lived Georgian state. These rebellions were
violently suppressed with success by the Georgians.

In the 1930s and ´40s, Stalin arbitrarily drew the border of
Georgia (as a part of the Soviet Union) so that it
included both Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Lavrenti Beria used
the power of the Soviet secret services to suppress
their local languages and cultures. This Georgification
program prohibited teaching in Ossetian and Abkhazian in local
schools. The Georgification program led to deep resentments
and naturally, when the Soviet Union began to break apart
in the the early 1990s, South Ossetia took the first
opportunity to declare its independence in 1990. Note this
is before Georgia declared its independence in April 1991
and before the formal end of the Soviet Union on Christmas
Day 1991. But no UN member recognized tiny South Ossetia
as an independent country (its population is today only
70,000, as I said). This South Ossetian declaration led to
a war against the Georgian government, which tried to
forcefully incorporate it back into the Soviet-era borders
of Georgia. A similar war ensued in the early 1990s against
separatists in Abkhazia. This is a general problem that
occurred when the Soviet Union broke up. The former
Republics of the USSR, such as Georgia, Estonia,
Lativa, Ukraine became fully independent countries.
But the smaller regions and republics in the former
USSR lost their special rights, privileges, autonomy,
local administration, etc when they became part of
Russia. They did not gain from the fall of the Soviet
Union. They lost. Chechnya is another example of
such as region that was too small to gain freedom as
an independent nation after 1991. The problem led
to wars there as well.

So you see that there is a long history behind this conflict,
in which Russia expanded its empire by incorporating Georgia,
South Ossetia and Abkhazia into its Empire. This empire was
built through violence and terror, led notably by Alexei Ermelov,
a famous hero of the Napoleonic wars (he had fought against
Napoleon at Austerlitz as a young man, for example). Ermelov
was the man who led the violent imperial operation to
incorporate the lands of the Caucasus for the first time
fully into the administrative structures of any state.
It had been a border land between Europe and the Middle East
for thousands of years, and had been fought over between
the Turks and Persians for centuries until the 18th century
when Russia, led by Peter the Great, fresh from victories
against Charles XII of Sweden at battles like Poltava, first
led a military campaign of conquest into the Caspian Sea
region. But Peter could never hold the lands. Only much later,
in the 1820s, did Ermelov succeed in incorporating the fierce
mountainaineers and highlanders of the Caucasus into any
actual modern state.

Yes, South Ossestia and Abkhazia are tiny regions but
Kosovo also declared independence recently and has been
recognized by Western countries as such. That is one
of Russia's arguments. If Kosovo can be an independent
country and split from Serbia, why can't South Ossetia and
Abkhazia be independent too? As I've tried to show, they
have a long history of struggle for freedom and the right to
speak their own language.
 >> Stay informed about: Nuke Moscow Now? 

Just Me wrote:
> On Aug 19, 6:09 pm, "Francis A. Miniter" <famini....TakeThisOut@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Seriously, all except you agree that the Georgian troops
>> moved first.
>
> All say this? All of *your* sources say this--and look at them! The
> Economist for the crissake. Not for nothing did Berlusconi see fit to
> dub it, "The Ecommunist" . . .
>
>> The Economist says of Georgia: "When you have
>> a choice of doing nothing or doing something stupid, it is
>> always better to do nothing."
>
> Something stupid? In this case, 'stupid' is meant to describe doing
> something honorable in hazard of great odds. But there is in fact a
> mentality far lower than such alleged 'stupidity' as this, which is
> the cynical, no-heart mentality which can without shame make a virtue
> of timidity so utterly perfected that it is even downright boisterous
> in the flawlessness of its apathy, to wit . . .
>
> "When you have a choice of doing nothing or doing something stupid,
> it is always better to do nothing."
>
> But now, back to your sources for this monstrously obtuse contrivance
> of Putinist propaganda, that Georgian troops moved first . . .
>
> Moved first before or after what? Before Russian troops? Before or
> after Putin's puppet "peace-keeping" tin soldier brigade of the CIS?
> Or after the South Ossetian paramilitary einsatzgruppen? Observe,
> once again, your source . . .
>
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Fighting intensifies in South Ossetia
>> By Roman Olearchyk in Kiev and Charles Clover in Moscow
>
> In Moscow and Kiev for the crissake? Reporting under the ever-watchful
> eye and ready radioactive blue pencil-pistol of unofficial Reuter's
> editor, Vladimir Putin. From the Kremlin we get . . .
>
>> Published: August 7 2008 22:29 | Last updated: August 8 2008
>> 01:48
>>
>> Fierce fighting erupted in Georgia�s breakaway enclave of
>> South Ossetia on Thursday night and Friday morning, and
>> government troops reportedly surrounded Tskhinvali, the
>> region�s capital, following days of clashes with separatist
>> forces in the area.
>
> How, by any stretch of the imagination can anyone of open-minded
> attitude, upon close scrutiny of such text as that, come out of it
> with the interpretation that "Georgian troops moved first"?
>
> C'mon! What is this, the goddam Russian Reader's Digest condensed
> novel of the daily news you're trying to hand us here? The ambiguity
> in that first clause is big enough to drive a Russian T-90S tank
> through.
>
> And the lacuna of time in this text is precisely the ambiguity,
> concerning exactly who started what on Thursday night, which only this
> morning has finally been dispelled by the facts as from David
> Bakradze, Chairman of the Georgian Parliament in his panel interview
> with members of the Atlantic Council, as aired on C-SPAN . . .
>
> http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_vide...nfo&pro
>
> It all began with a speech from the erstwhile "president" of South
> Ossetia, stating an intention to expel every ethnic Georgian from the
> province, a threat which was soon followed up on Thursday night by
> action as the shelling of ethnic Georgian villages in the separatist
> province began.
>
> Of course the Georgian military was brought into action against that--
> if indeed what Bakradze alleges is fact.
>
> Now. I have seen the face of Putin and I have seen the face of Mikheil
> Saakashvili and David Bakradze--just as I have seen the face of the
> Russian ambassador to the UN, hearing him in the midst of his bluster
> of hemming and hawing, having not a single documented fact at his hand
> to counter the charges that came against him from every party that
> spoke in the Security Council, France, England, Croatia, Costa Rica
> and the U.S.
>
> Now, what was this you were saying about . . .
>
>> Seriously, all except you agree that the Georgian troops
>> moved first.
>
> Is it just that you'll say any damn thing to support the anti-Western
> skew of your perceptions, and let all truth, fact and testimony be
> damned--or what?
>
> I mean, honest to god I don't understand you. How anyone could take
> the word of a filthy fascist vampire like Putin over that of these
> valiant liberty loving fellows from Georgia, why! I just can't grok
> it.
>
> It's like maybe you got a missing part in your head or your heart?
>
> Permit me to inquire . . .
>
> Have you ever had reason to suppose that any possibility exists in
> this filthy sack of rags, bone and hanks of hair that goes by the
> title of "human being" for any such alleged thing as an immortal soul?
>
> And if so, in what, from a point of view of biology or physics would
> you hypothesize it might consist?
> --
> JM http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
> http://whosenose.blogspot.com
> http://jesusexegesis.blogspot.com


As usual, you cut what you did not like to read. That is
not an honest way to respond. You read something that
disagrees with you and it disappears in your response. The
quotes you cut are from Georgian officials made while they
thought that Russia would not respond. Naive, and stupid.
But they thought they could get away with it. And the
Financial Times, a a very conservative journal, deemed the
report fit to print.

And The Economist is one of the more conservative news
journals around. I chose it for that reason. It is a
"capitalist tool" and usually reflects very much a right of
center viewpoint. But you have known that if you read it,
which you do not.

Then there is this clip from the BBC News if you don't like
the others: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7546639.stm
---------------------------
Georgia says it aims to finish "a criminal regime" and
restore order.

At least 15 people are reported dead. Moscow called on the
world community to work "to avert massive bloodshed".

At Russia's request, members of the UN Security Council are
holding a rare emergency session to discuss a response to
the escalating violence.

The BBC's Matthew Collin in Tbilisi says there has been a
series of huge explosions and rocket fire in and around
Tskhinvali.
--------------------------

Or, maybe you just don't believe any source of information,
in which case, why are you taking any position?


Francis A.. Miniter
 >> Stay informed about: Nuke Moscow Now? 

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:22:09 -0700, Marko Amnell wrote:

>
> It's wrong to think of the Ossetians as purely "rebels" against
> their own country, Georgia, and its legitimate government.
> The history of the ethnic relations and conflicts is more
> complex than that. South Ossetia, an admittedly tiny region
> (current population 70,000) was forcefully incorporated into
> the Russian Empire in 1801 by Czar Alexander I. It was to be
> governed by pro-Russian Georgian imperial administrators who
> replaced the old legitimate king of Georgia, who was deposed by
> the Czar. This formed "the viceroyalty of the Caucasus" which
> existed from 1801 to 1917. Abkhazia, the other separatist enclave
> on the Black Sea coast, was also forcefully incorporated into
> this new province of the Russian Empire. The Russian Czars gave
> the Georgians a free hand in suppressing the aspirations
> for freedom of the Abkhazians. The Ossetians and Abkhazians
> speak their own languages and have distinct cultures of their own.
>
> By the time of the revolution in Russia in 1905, the Abkhazians
> had been oppressed by the Georgians so much that they
> actually backed the Czar, while the Georgians sided with
> the rebels against the Czar. The Czar rewarded the Abkhazians
> for their loyalty in 1907 by formally removing their "guilt"
> for causing trouble by seeking freedom and autonomy during
> the 19th century. After the Bolshevik revolution, Georgia
> tried to become an independent country and remained de facto
> as such until 1921. But both Abkhazia and South Ossetia
> immediately started a rebellion and tried to wrest free of
> this short-lived Georgian state. These rebellions were
> violently suppressed with success by the Georgians.
>
> In the 1930s and ´40s, Stalin arbitrarily drew the border of
> Georgia (as a part of the Soviet Union) so that it
> included both Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Lavrenti Beria used
> the power of the Soviet secret services to suppress
> their local languages and cultures. This Georgification
> program prohibited teaching in Ossetian and Abkhazian in local
> schools. The Georgification program led to deep resentments
> and naturally, when the Soviet Union began to break apart
> in the the early 1990s, South Ossetia took the first
> opportunity to declare its independence in 1990. Note this
> is before Georgia declared its independence in April 1991
> and before the formal end of the Soviet Union on Christmas
> Day 1991. But no UN member recognized tiny South Ossetia
> as an independent country (its population is today only
> 70,000, as I said). This South Ossetian declaration led to
> a war against the Georgian government, which tried to
> forcefully incorporate it back into the Soviet-era borders
> of Georgia. A similar war ensued in the early 1990s against
> separatists in Abkhazia. This is a general problem that
> occurred when the Soviet Union broke up. The former
> Republics of the USSR, such as Georgia, Estonia,
> Lativa, Ukraine became fully independent countries.
> But the smaller regions and republics in the former
> USSR lost their special rights, privileges, autonomy,
> local administration, etc when they became part of
> Russia. They did not gain from the fall of the Soviet
> Union. They lost. Chechnya is another example of
> such as region that was too small to gain freedom as
> an independent nation after 1991. The problem led
> to wars there as well.
>
> So you see that there is a long history behind this conflict,
> in which Russia expanded its empire by incorporating Georgia,
> South Ossetia and Abkhazia into its Empire. This empire was
> built through violence and terror, led notably by Alexei Ermelov,
> a famous hero of the Napoleonic wars (he had fought against
> Napoleon at Austerlitz as a young man, for example). Ermelov
> was the man who led the violent imperial operation to
> incorporate the lands of the Caucasus for the first time
> fully into the administrative structures of any state.
> It had been a border land between Europe and the Middle East
> for thousands of years, and had been fought over between
> the Turks and Persians for centuries until the 18th century
> when Russia, led by Peter the Great, fresh from victories
> against Charles XII of Sweden at battles like Poltava, first
> led a military campaign of conquest into the Caspian Sea
> region. But Peter could never hold the lands. Only much later,
> in the 1820s, did Ermelov succeed in incorporating the fierce
> mountainaineers and highlanders of the Caucasus into any
> actual modern state.
>
> Yes, South Ossestia and Abkhazia are tiny regions but
> Kosovo also declared independence recently and has been
> recognized by Western countries as such. That is one
> of Russia's arguments. If Kosovo can be an independent
> country and split from Serbia, why can't South Ossetia and
> Abkhazia be independent too? As I've tried to show, they
> have a long history of struggle for freedom and the right to
> speak their own language.

Thank you or the excellent tutorial on this situation.

My gut reaction ("knee-jerk" reaction?) is to side with the Georgians on
this but your short history has mede me question that.

Let's assume all you say is true and both Ossestia and Abkhazia deserve
consideration as indipendent nations. I find it counter-intuitive that
Russia would support this without ulterior motives. My guess is that they
would eventually (shortly?) forcibly put those two nations under their
control. I am guessing that in Ossestia's case that would be to control
oil and gas pipelines -- is it true that the pipelines run through that
territory?
 >> Stay informed about: Nuke Moscow Now? 

On Aug 20, 12:26 am, "Francis A. Miniter" <famini....DeleteThis@comcast.net>
wrote:

> As usual, you cut what you did not like to read.  That is
> not an honest way to respond.

LOL! As is very plain to be seen, you are up to your old rhetorically
labrinthine maze of tricks again, my dear Mr. Minotaur, and this time,
so pot-kettle-black-wise as it is, I hope you can see how you have
surely painted yourself into a corner for the next time and every time
you shall, as so often before, employ such a device in any reply as
from yourself.

> You read something that
> disagrees with you and it disappears in your response.

Yes, you recognize the dodge very well, so expert as you've always
been at it, but as any objective third observer would note it cannot
apply here, where it is shown to be futile to address a plethora of
false conclusions following from false (or ambiguous) premises as from
your source brought in my reply under scrutiny. . .

> >> Published: August 7 2008 22:29 | Last updated: August 8 2008
> >> 01:48
>
> >> Fierce fighting erupted in Georgia s breakaway enclave of
> >> South Ossetia on Thursday night and Friday morning, and
> >> government troops reportedly surrounded Tskhinvali, the
> >> region s capital, following days of clashes with separatist
> >> forces in the area.

First things first! Why do you not address the trouble with that
first clause? Why have you dodged this question as from my former
reply? What about this "fierce fighting" that "erupted" on Thursday
night "following days of clashes with separatist forces"--before
"government troops surrounded Tskhinvali" on Friday morning?

There is NO POINT in addressing any of the spin of conclusions that
follow from that, until YOU have addressed what is clearly the
intentional ambiguity in this report containing NO conclusive
information concerning how the matter got started in the first place.

Address that!

> The
> quotes you cut are from Georgian officials made while they
> thought that Russia would not respond.

Spin. Nothing of the kind.

> Naive, and stupid.

The conclusion you, the willing dupe, is intended to "think".


> But they thought they could get away with it.

Like "it"? There is no 'it' here. There is what the Georgians are
charging: South Ossetian rebel attacks against ethnic Georgian
enclaves.

Address that!


> And the
> Financial Times, a a very conservative journal, deemed the
> report fit to print.

And how does conservative or liberal enter into a matter where neither
apply? You have the conservative view, the liberal view and then
always other than those, you have the Truth.


>
> And The Economist is one of the more conservative news

It used to be.

> journals around.  I chose it for that reason.  It is a
> "capitalist tool" and usually reflects very much a right of
> center viewpoint.  But you have known that if you read it,
> which you do not.

Of course I don't read it! What manner of dupe of fools and poltroons
do you you take me for?

>
> Then there is this clip from the BBC News if you don't like
> the others:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7546639.stm

I have heard the BBC spin on this, despicable, lily-livered plea for
apathy or vicious wrong-headed action that it always comes down to.

> ---------------------------
> Georgia says it aims to finish "a criminal regime" and
> restore order.
>
> At least 15 people are reported dead. Moscow called on the
> world community to work "to avert massive bloodshed".

Good God! Can you see yourself kissing Putin on the mouth to be
saying this?

>
> At Russia's request, members of the UN Security Council are
> holding a rare emergency session to discuss a response to
> the escalating violence.
>
> The BBC's Matthew Collin in Tbilisi says there has been a
> series of huge explosions and rocket fire in and around
> Tskhinvali.
> --------------------------
>
> Or, maybe you just don't believe any source of information,
> in which case, why are you taking any position?

Any objective observer will identify that statement for what it is.

> > It's like maybe you got a missing part in your head or your heart?
>
> > Permit me to inquire . . .
>
> > Have you ever had reason to suppose that any possibility exists in
> > this filthy sack of rags, bone and hanks of hair that goes by the
> > title of "human being" for any such alleged thing as an immortal soul?
>
> > And if so, in what, from a point of view of biology or physics would
> > you hypothesize it might consist?


--
JM http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://jesusexegesis.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Nuke Moscow Now? 

On Aug 20, 7:24 am, rcp <r....DeleteThis@dont.spam.me> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:22:09 -0700, Marko Amnell wrote:
>
> > It's wrong to think of the Ossetians as purely "rebels" against
> > their own country, Georgia, and its legitimate government.

<snip>

Oh, like "wrong"? And who is your strawman this time, Marko, who says
they are "purely" rebels? And who really, is this conveniently
fictional adversary that is completely ignorant of the history behind
this thing?

As I used the term "rebels" before, I use it again to compare the
actions of these South Ossetian rebels, not to the Confederate
secessionists of 1863 America, but to their guerrilla Jayhawker &
Bushwhacker comrades in the middle states of Missouri, Kansas and
Nebraska; people who did not want to be included as part of the Union
North, but who saw, despite their location above the Mason-Dixon Line,
their heritage as distinctly Southern.

So it goes for the rebels of South Ossetia who talk different than the
people of Georgia and don't want to be identified as Georgian. Even
to this day, there are people, my own neighbors, of southern Missouri
who display on their porches, their pick-ups, even as drapes in their
windows that piss and beer stinking emblem of the Confederacy--they
live in the North but are not of the North and they speak with a
southern drawl.

In my own view, these people are a bunch of coarse, xenophobic hicks
(pushovers for a provincial pressure of conformity) who can't get with
the inexorable course of History. Their pride in heritage is over the
top into ethnocentric conceit, a chip on the shoulder (begging to be
knocked off) built only of prejudice and an outworn siege mentality
that is always ripe for exploitation by the ulterior motives of people
like Putin, just as it was for that former Soviet tool, Arafat.

Facts on the ground in internationally recognized borders say that
South Ossetians are Georgians. It was no different for the Bushwhacker
likes of Bloody Bill Anderson, Jesse James, and William Clark
Quantrill--they were Missourians, living within the legitimately
established Union enclave of the Yankee North--but hating it for
stupid reasons, just as South Ossetia is part of Georgia--yet no part
of Russia, as Missouri was no part of the American South.

This is a case where heritage and ethnic identity comes down to a
matter of no ethical or rational regard, where the history of ethnic
clashing needs be relegated to nothing but a bloody ignorance of
feuding between the Hatfields & McCoys--it is always inimical to a
status of peace in the world.

No ethnic region the size of Ossetia or Abkhazia can have a tax base
large enough to support its existence as an independent nation--not in
this world. How a principality the like of Monaco pulls it off, is a
wonder attributable only to its location on the Riviera--and of course
there is the revenue that comes by the sale of their--ahem--postage
stamps.

> Thank you or the excellent tutorial on this situation.

It is a needful addition to the dialogue--albeit entirely irrelevant
to the geopolitical realities on the ground that need be preserved,
defended and respected in spite of it. See Ulster. See Chiapas in
Mexico, the rebel jungle enclave of FARC in Colombia, the Spanish
Basques.

>
> My gut reaction ("knee-jerk" reaction?) is to side with the Georgians on
> this but your short history has mede me question that.

Don't see how.

>
> Let's assume all you say is true and both Ossestia and Abkhazia deserve
> consideration as indipendent nations.

They don't.

> I find it counter-intuitive that
> Russia would support this without ulterior motives.

You've got that right.

> My guess is that they
> would eventually (shortly?) forcibly put those two nations under their
> control.

Exactly. And then where is their "independence"?

> I am guessing that in Ossestia's case that would be to control
> oil and gas pipelines -- is it true that the pipelines run through that
> territory?

They run through Georgia proper, which is close enough for government
work--Russian style.
--
JM http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Nuke Moscow Now?