Georgia, the Olympics, the US armada and Iran

metalman said:
Did the UN approve this and where does international law stand on the Russian attack on Georgia?? No Blood for Oil!
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the UN, and it is in all likelihood legal since Georgia is the aggressor and Russia is within its rights to repel the Georgians from South Ossetia. Remember the region has been autonomous since 1991 - it does not recognize itself as part of Georgia and fought to be separate. It was under the protection of joint peacekeeping forces that included Russians and Georgians. The Georgians started shelling the region and killed over a thousand civilians before the Russians went in. The Russians are on much firmer legal soil than the Georgians. Even if the Georgians were part of NATO and NATO forces were obliged to help a member who was attacked it wouldn't be clear that NATO would be required to step to the aid of a member who starts a war.
 
metalman said:
Did the UN approve this and where does international law stand on the Russian attack on Georgia?? No Blood for Oil!
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the UN, and it is in all likelihood legal since Georgia is the aggressor and Russia is within its rights to repel the Georgians from South Ossetia. Remember the region has been autonomous since 1991 - it does not recognize itself as part of Georgia and fought to be separate. It was under the protection of joint peacekeeping forces that included Russians and Georgians. The Georgians started shelling the region and killed over a thousand civilians before the Russians went in. The Russians are on much firmer legal soil than the Georgians. Even if the Georgians were part of NATO and NATO forces were obliged to help a member who was attacked it wouldn't be clear that NATO would be required to step to the aid of a member who starts a war.
 
metalman said:
Did the UN approve this and where does international law stand on the Russian attack on Georgia?? No Blood for Oil!
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the UN, and it is in all likelihood legal since Georgia is the aggressor and Russia is within its rights to repel the Georgians from South Ossetia. Remember the region has been autonomous since 1991 - it does not recognize itself as part of Georgia and fought to be separate. It was under the protection of joint peacekeeping forces that included Russians and Georgians. The Georgians started shelling the region and killed over a thousand civilians before the Russians went in. The Russians are on much firmer legal soil than the Georgians. Even if the Georgians were part of NATO and NATO forces were obliged to help a member who was attacked it wouldn't be clear that NATO would be required to step to the aid of a member who starts a war.
 
metalman said:
Did the UN approve this and where does international law stand on the Russian attack on Georgia?? No Blood for Oil!
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the UN, and it is in all likelihood legal since Georgia is the aggressor and Russia is within its rights to repel the Georgians from South Ossetia. Remember the region has been autonomous since 1991 - it does not recognize itself as part of Georgia and fought to be separate. It was under the protection of joint peacekeeping forces that included Russians and Georgians. The Georgians started shelling the region and killed over a thousand civilians before the Russians went in. The Russians are on much firmer legal soil than the Georgians. Even if the Georgians were part of NATO and NATO forces were obliged to help a member who was attacked it wouldn't be clear that NATO would be required to step to the aid of a member who starts a war.
 
metalman said:
Did the UN approve this and where does international law stand on the Russian attack on Georgia?? No Blood for Oil!
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the UN, and it is in all likelihood legal since Georgia is the aggressor and Russia is within its rights to repel the Georgians from South Ossetia. Remember the region has been autonomous since 1991 - it does not recognize itself as part of Georgia and fought to be separate. It was under the protection of joint peacekeeping forces that included Russians and Georgians. The Georgians started shelling the region and killed over a thousand civilians before the Russians went in. The Russians are on much firmer legal soil than the Georgians. Even if the Georgians were part of NATO and NATO forces were obliged to help a member who was attacked it wouldn't be clear that NATO would be required to step to the aid of a member who starts a war.
 
metalman said:
Did the UN approve this and where does international law stand on the Russian attack on Georgia?? No Blood for Oil!
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the UN, and it is in all likelihood legal since Georgia is the aggressor and Russia is within its rights to repel the Georgians from South Ossetia. Remember the region has been autonomous since 1991 - it does not recognize itself as part of Georgia and fought to be separate. It was under the protection of joint peacekeeping forces that included Russians and Georgians. The Georgians started shelling the region and killed over a thousand civilians before the Russians went in. The Russians are on much firmer legal soil than the Georgians. Even if the Georgians were part of NATO and NATO forces were obliged to help a member who was attacked it wouldn't be clear that NATO would be required to step to the aid of a member who starts a war.
 
Speelgoedmannetje said:
Normally, one only protests against their own government. If our government support this war, it's indeed strange no-one's protesting.
Click to expand...

People tend not to protest proxy wars. The whole point of proxy wars is to fight with other peoples armies and make it look like it's nothing to do with us. The connections are buried so people don't know who they're supposed to protest to.

But that is secondary to the beating that the protest movement has taken in the last decade. Protests are never covered by the media (unless there is some violence, then the violence is covered - unless it is police violence, then it isn't). Protests do nothing. Governments have closed up so no information comes out and no protesting goes in. Protesting has no effect and if it ever did it would never have been allowed, same for voting. All the effective strategies for the wresting control away from the controllers are illegal - because threatening the power of the rulers is always illegal.
 
Speelgoedmannetje said:
Normally, one only protests against their own government. If our government support this war, it's indeed strange no-one's protesting.
Click to expand...

People tend not to protest proxy wars. The whole point of proxy wars is to fight with other peoples armies and make it look like it's nothing to do with us. The connections are buried so people don't know who they're supposed to protest to.

But that is secondary to the beating that the protest movement has taken in the last decade. Protests are never covered by the media (unless there is some violence, then the violence is covered - unless it is police violence, then it isn't). Protests do nothing. Governments have closed up so no information comes out and no protesting goes in. Protesting has no effect and if it ever did it would never have been allowed, same for voting. All the effective strategies for the wresting control away from the controllers are illegal - because threatening the power of the rulers is always illegal.
 
Speelgoedmannetje said:
Normally, one only protests against their own government. If our government support this war, it's indeed strange no-one's protesting.
Click to expand...

People tend not to protest proxy wars. The whole point of proxy wars is to fight with other peoples armies and make it look like it's nothing to do with us. The connections are buried so people don't know who they're supposed to protest to.

But that is secondary to the beating that the protest movement has taken in the last decade. Protests are never covered by the media (unless there is some violence, then the violence is covered - unless it is police violence, then it isn't). Protests do nothing. Governments have closed up so no information comes out and no protesting goes in. Protesting has no effect and if it ever did it would never have been allowed, same for voting. All the effective strategies for the wresting control away from the controllers are illegal - because threatening the power of the rulers is always illegal.
 
Speelgoedmannetje said:
Normally, one only protests against their own government. If our government support this war, it's indeed strange no-one's protesting.
Click to expand...

People tend not to protest proxy wars. The whole point of proxy wars is to fight with other peoples armies and make it look like it's nothing to do with us. The connections are buried so people don't know who they're supposed to protest to.

But that is secondary to the beating that the protest movement has taken in the last decade. Protests are never covered by the media (unless there is some violence, then the violence is covered - unless it is police violence, then it isn't). Protests do nothing. Governments have closed up so no information comes out and no protesting goes in. Protesting has no effect and if it ever did it would never have been allowed, same for voting. All the effective strategies for the wresting control away from the controllers are illegal - because threatening the power of the rulers is always illegal.
 
Speelgoedmannetje said:
Normally, one only protests against their own government. If our government support this war, it's indeed strange no-one's protesting.
Click to expand...

People tend not to protest proxy wars. The whole point of proxy wars is to fight with other peoples armies and make it look like it's nothing to do with us. The connections are buried so people don't know who they're supposed to protest to.

But that is secondary to the beating that the protest movement has taken in the last decade. Protests are never covered by the media (unless there is some violence, then the violence is covered - unless it is police violence, then it isn't). Protests do nothing. Governments have closed up so no information comes out and no protesting goes in. Protesting has no effect and if it ever did it would never have been allowed, same for voting. All the effective strategies for the wresting control away from the controllers are illegal - because threatening the power of the rulers is always illegal.
 
Speelgoedmannetje said:
Normally, one only protests against their own government. If our government support this war, it's indeed strange no-one's protesting.
Click to expand...

People tend not to protest proxy wars. The whole point of proxy wars is to fight with other peoples armies and make it look like it's nothing to do with us. The connections are buried so people don't know who they're supposed to protest to.

But that is secondary to the beating that the protest movement has taken in the last decade. Protests are never covered by the media (unless there is some violence, then the violence is covered - unless it is police violence, then it isn't). Protests do nothing. Governments have closed up so no information comes out and no protesting goes in. Protesting has no effect and if it ever did it would never have been allowed, same for voting. All the effective strategies for the wresting control away from the controllers are illegal - because threatening the power of the rulers is always illegal.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
This has nothing to do with the UN, and it is in all likelihood legal since Georgia is the aggressor and Russia is within its rights to repel the Georgians from South Ossetia. Remember the region has been autonomous since 1991 - it does not recognize itself as part of Georgia and fought to be separate. It was under the protection of joint peacekeeping forces that included Russians and Georgians. The Georgians started shelling the region and killed over a thousand civilians before the Russians went in.
Click to expand...
Georgians were sitting around with nothing better to do and just dreamed up this idea to shell the crap out of S. Ossetia? I believe there's more to it then that. I'm sure you've heard the reports that the S. Ossetians shelled Georgia first. The days leading up to the Georgian assault there were continuous skirmishes and word of a sniper war developing. Georgia offered unconditional negotiations but S. ossetia wasn't interested.

My take is that Russia orchestrated this. The S. Ossetia government is pretty much run from Moscow. Gazprom has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in S. Ossetia and the Russian government has handed out Russian passports to everyone and their dog in the region - not to mention the Russian made weapons given to the S. ossetian "freedom fighters". Making the Georgian's look like the aggressors is a classic trick. The Russians, playing the good guys here, moving in to rescue their poor citizens, have also managed to bomb the crap out of Georgia proper, destroying any military target they can with their air power (along with several appartment blocks that just happened to be in the way). Politically, Russia has won big here and Georgia (and the West) have lost serious ground. BP has closed a pipeline and Georgia looks weak and unstable. The Russian hopes are for new Georgian leadership - preferably a new leader who isn't keen on joining NATO and is friendly to the idea of obeying Moscow's wishes.

- Mike
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
This has nothing to do with the UN, and it is in all likelihood legal since Georgia is the aggressor and Russia is within its rights to repel the Georgians from South Ossetia. Remember the region has been autonomous since 1991 - it does not recognize itself as part of Georgia and fought to be separate. It was under the protection of joint peacekeeping forces that included Russians and Georgians. The Georgians started shelling the region and killed over a thousand civilians before the Russians went in.
Click to expand...
Georgians were sitting around with nothing better to do and just dreamed up this idea to shell the crap out of S. Ossetia? I believe there's more to it then that. I'm sure you've heard the reports that the S. Ossetians shelled Georgia first. The days leading up to the Georgian assault there were continuous skirmishes and word of a sniper war developing. Georgia offered unconditional negotiations but S. ossetia wasn't interested.

My take is that Russia orchestrated this. The S. Ossetia government is pretty much run from Moscow. Gazprom has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in S. Ossetia and the Russian government has handed out Russian passports to everyone and their dog in the region - not to mention the Russian made weapons given to the S. ossetian "freedom fighters". Making the Georgian's look like the aggressors is a classic trick. The Russians, playing the good guys here, moving in to rescue their poor citizens, have also managed to bomb the crap out of Georgia proper, destroying any military target they can with their air power (along with several appartment blocks that just happened to be in the way). Politically, Russia has won big here and Georgia (and the West) have lost serious ground. BP has closed a pipeline and Georgia looks weak and unstable. The Russian hopes are for new Georgian leadership - preferably a new leader who isn't keen on joining NATO and is friendly to the idea of obeying Moscow's wishes.

- Mike
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
This has nothing to do with the UN, and it is in all likelihood legal since Georgia is the aggressor and Russia is within its rights to repel the Georgians from South Ossetia. Remember the region has been autonomous since 1991 - it does not recognize itself as part of Georgia and fought to be separate. It was under the protection of joint peacekeeping forces that included Russians and Georgians. The Georgians started shelling the region and killed over a thousand civilians before the Russians went in.
Click to expand...
Georgians were sitting around with nothing better to do and just dreamed up this idea to shell the crap out of S. Ossetia? I believe there's more to it then that. I'm sure you've heard the reports that the S. Ossetians shelled Georgia first. The days leading up to the Georgian assault there were continuous skirmishes and word of a sniper war developing. Georgia offered unconditional negotiations but S. ossetia wasn't interested.

My take is that Russia orchestrated this. The S. Ossetia government is pretty much run from Moscow. Gazprom has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in S. Ossetia and the Russian government has handed out Russian passports to everyone and their dog in the region - not to mention the Russian made weapons given to the S. ossetian "freedom fighters". Making the Georgian's look like the aggressors is a classic trick. The Russians, playing the good guys here, moving in to rescue their poor citizens, have also managed to bomb the crap out of Georgia proper, destroying any military target they can with their air power (along with several appartment blocks that just happened to be in the way). Politically, Russia has won big here and Georgia (and the West) have lost serious ground. BP has closed a pipeline and Georgia looks weak and unstable. The Russian hopes are for new Georgian leadership - preferably a new leader who isn't keen on joining NATO and is friendly to the idea of obeying Moscow's wishes.

- Mike
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
This has nothing to do with the UN, and it is in all likelihood legal since Georgia is the aggressor and Russia is within its rights to repel the Georgians from South Ossetia. Remember the region has been autonomous since 1991 - it does not recognize itself as part of Georgia and fought to be separate. It was under the protection of joint peacekeeping forces that included Russians and Georgians. The Georgians started shelling the region and killed over a thousand civilians before the Russians went in.
Click to expand...
Georgians were sitting around with nothing better to do and just dreamed up this idea to shell the crap out of S. Ossetia? I believe there's more to it then that. I'm sure you've heard the reports that the S. Ossetians shelled Georgia first. The days leading up to the Georgian assault there were continuous skirmishes and word of a sniper war developing. Georgia offered unconditional negotiations but S. ossetia wasn't interested.

My take is that Russia orchestrated this. The S. Ossetia government is pretty much run from Moscow. Gazprom has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in S. Ossetia and the Russian government has handed out Russian passports to everyone and their dog in the region - not to mention the Russian made weapons given to the S. ossetian "freedom fighters". Making the Georgian's look like the aggressors is a classic trick. The Russians, playing the good guys here, moving in to rescue their poor citizens, have also managed to bomb the crap out of Georgia proper, destroying any military target they can with their air power (along with several appartment blocks that just happened to be in the way). Politically, Russia has won big here and Georgia (and the West) have lost serious ground. BP has closed a pipeline and Georgia looks weak and unstable. The Russian hopes are for new Georgian leadership - preferably a new leader who isn't keen on joining NATO and is friendly to the idea of obeying Moscow's wishes.

- Mike
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
This has nothing to do with the UN, and it is in all likelihood legal since Georgia is the aggressor and Russia is within its rights to repel the Georgians from South Ossetia. Remember the region has been autonomous since 1991 - it does not recognize itself as part of Georgia and fought to be separate. It was under the protection of joint peacekeeping forces that included Russians and Georgians. The Georgians started shelling the region and killed over a thousand civilians before the Russians went in.
Click to expand...
Georgians were sitting around with nothing better to do and just dreamed up this idea to shell the crap out of S. Ossetia? I believe there's more to it then that. I'm sure you've heard the reports that the S. Ossetians shelled Georgia first. The days leading up to the Georgian assault there were continuous skirmishes and word of a sniper war developing. Georgia offered unconditional negotiations but S. ossetia wasn't interested.

My take is that Russia orchestrated this. The S. Ossetia government is pretty much run from Moscow. Gazprom has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in S. Ossetia and the Russian government has handed out Russian passports to everyone and their dog in the region - not to mention the Russian made weapons given to the S. ossetian "freedom fighters". Making the Georgian's look like the aggressors is a classic trick. The Russians, playing the good guys here, moving in to rescue their poor citizens, have also managed to bomb the crap out of Georgia proper, destroying any military target they can with their air power (along with several appartment blocks that just happened to be in the way). Politically, Russia has won big here and Georgia (and the West) have lost serious ground. BP has closed a pipeline and Georgia looks weak and unstable. The Russian hopes are for new Georgian leadership - preferably a new leader who isn't keen on joining NATO and is friendly to the idea of obeying Moscow's wishes.

- Mike
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
This has nothing to do with the UN, and it is in all likelihood legal since Georgia is the aggressor and Russia is within its rights to repel the Georgians from South Ossetia. Remember the region has been autonomous since 1991 - it does not recognize itself as part of Georgia and fought to be separate. It was under the protection of joint peacekeeping forces that included Russians and Georgians. The Georgians started shelling the region and killed over a thousand civilians before the Russians went in.
Click to expand...
Georgians were sitting around with nothing better to do and just dreamed up this idea to shell the crap out of S. Ossetia? I believe there's more to it then that. I'm sure you've heard the reports that the S. Ossetians shelled Georgia first. The days leading up to the Georgian assault there were continuous skirmishes and word of a sniper war developing. Georgia offered unconditional negotiations but S. ossetia wasn't interested.

My take is that Russia orchestrated this. The S. Ossetia government is pretty much run from Moscow. Gazprom has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in S. Ossetia and the Russian government has handed out Russian passports to everyone and their dog in the region - not to mention the Russian made weapons given to the S. ossetian "freedom fighters". Making the Georgian's look like the aggressors is a classic trick. The Russians, playing the good guys here, moving in to rescue their poor citizens, have also managed to bomb the crap out of Georgia proper, destroying any military target they can with their air power (along with several appartment blocks that just happened to be in the way). Politically, Russia has won big here and Georgia (and the West) have lost serious ground. BP has closed a pipeline and Georgia looks weak and unstable. The Russian hopes are for new Georgian leadership - preferably a new leader who isn't keen on joining NATO and is friendly to the idea of obeying Moscow's wishes.

- Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top