NationStates Jolt Archive

In all seriousness, what kind of retard decides to declare war on the biggest and most powerful nation in the world then cry to USA and Nato for help

It is like a small child poking at a bear with a stick then running off to Uncle Sam when the bear gets mad and bites back

The allied propaganda machine worked into overtime to tell the world that the rest of the world is upset about it - but in reality, WHAT rest of the world is upset about it?

The other major nations: China, South America, and Africa dont care, why should they?
The Middle East hates USA, so its obvious they would take Russia's side in the argument
Minor nations that sit on the border of other nations, like Mexico, Spain and Scandanavia dont care
Europe sits on the fence - they may or may not care but wont take a side because even though they partly support USA through the finance that comes in, they rely on Russian exports and cant afford to get Russia angry at them

So who is this world that they speak of? USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand? As much as the USA tries to take things back to the days when maps had any territory outside their own nations marked with 'thar be dragons', that still doesnt limit the 'world' to only those nations who throw their lot in with USA

You the people of NationStates, what are Your opinions?
Will you cry for Georgia, or will you look at reality?





http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13946204&postcount=97[/url] And follow the link to the appropriate thread. - Euro

Not doing shit =/= not giving a shit.

what point are you trying to make?

If the USA wasn't embroiled in two other costly wars, it might be different... But then Russia knows this, hence the military posturing.

NOBODY like someone throwing their weight around like that, as it makes the world a less secure place (see: Iraq, etc), but I think it is more than just 5 countries, as NATO is considerably more than that....

if you insist on doing meth, don't post right afterwords, ok?

It is like a small child poking at a bear with a stick then running off to Uncle Sam when the bear gets mad and bites back

i agree, it was kinda stupid, but this is a bear that should know better and know when to stop.

Biggest & most powerful?

China says hello.

So do the Yanks.

Will you cry for Georgia, or will you look at reality?

With this sentence, you've established that your opinion is the only valid opinion in your mind. What is the point of trying to debate you? If I disagree with your personal assessment of the situation, I'm ignoring reality, according to you. So is there a reason for this thread, other than your own personal soapbox? Because otherwise I don't see why you couldn't have just posted this in the Russia/Georgia thread we already have.

Just wanna point out that South America and Africa arent nations...

Theyre continents and dont act as a unit...This isnt Risk, lol...


But, they didnt pick a fight with Russia, the South Ossetian leadership asked them to come and let them join Russia and they took it as an excuse to invade the whole damn country...

Besides, they have to cry to somebody, or admit defeat, Russia's kickin their ass, for obvious reasons, and they cant very well fight em off on their own...

Although, im not sure anybody's really gonna listen however...

Uhhhhh Georgia didn't declare war on Russia, Russia declared war on Georgia.

Big difference.

Uhhhhh Georgia didn't declare war on Russia, Russia declared war on Georgia.

Big difference.

Indeed. The UN is now obligated to declare war on Russia - since the prime reason for its existence is to deter countries from invading other countries.

the more sticky question, to my mind, is whether or not the caribbean islands are in north america or if they are ...well, islands that are not part of the continent at all.

so does anyone have a clue as to what the OP is trying to say?

Isn't that normally defined by position on whichever relevant continental shelf?

I think the poster may have been saying "Russia ftw!"

A more accurate depiction involving a bear would be:

Your son is an idiot and wants to join a bear and live in the wilderness... You beat your son for his stupidity... The bear flips out and helps your son kill you...

If we want to use fairly bad examples, that one will do.

Indeed. The UN is now obligated to declare war on Russia - since the prime reason for its existence is to deter countries from invading other countries.

And therein lies the fatal flaw in the security council veto system....

Uhhhhh Georgia didn't declare war on Russia, Russia declared war on Georgia.

Big difference.

We never declared war with Georgia.

Georiga did though when they killed our peacekeepers.

Indeed. The UN is now obligated to declare war on Russia - since the prime reason for its existence is to deter countries from invading other countries.
but the UN cant declare war over a security council veto can it?

And therein lies the fatal flaw in the security council veto system....

Unless the flaw is that the purpose of the UN is to promote diplomacy (and in doing so, deter war) rather than militarily deterring conflicts.

Indeed. The UN is now obligated to declare war on Russia - since the prime reason for its existence is to deter countries from invading other countries.

Except it never will, because Russia will just veto any resolution against itself.

Isn't that normally defined by position on whichever relevant continental shelf?

I think the poster may have been saying "Russia ftw!"
dunno. i only know what i learned in 10th grade.

oh i thought he was trying to say that someone was wrong in supporting or pretending to support georgia and that if no one is going to fight, there is no sense in protesting.

We never declared war with Georgia.

Georiga did though when they killed our peacekeepers.

Why would you have biased peacekeepers in the first place? For example, if you wanted to put peacekeepers in Darfur, you wouldn't use the Sudanese government...

Never really thought about that...According to wikipedia: "Geopolitically, the West Indies are usually reckoned as a subregion of North America and are organised into 27 territories including sovereign states, overseas departments, and dependencies."

But, as to the second question, youd have to ask him...although it sounds to me like he was trying to justify not caring about Georgia...

Cant say i blame him...Its always in my way tryin to get to Carolina :D lol
if it werent for the great carpet outlets it would have no excuse for existing at all!

Unless the flaw is that the purpose of the UN is to promote diplomacy (and in doing so, deter war) rather than militarily deterring conflicts.

Woah Woah Woah!...Hold on there..Not Militarily deterring conflicts...

Think thats a little too free spirited, you may wish to get back in your cubicle, lol...

dunno. i only know what i learned in 10th grade.

oh i thought he was trying to say that someone was wrong in supporting or pretending to support georgia and that if no one is going to fight, there is no sense in protesting.

You're not probing deep enough into the subtext. It's definitely "Russia ftw!"

You're not probing deep enough into the subtext. It's definitely "Russia ftw!"
i read it again and it seems like a "lie back and enjoy being raped" kinda post.

Unless the flaw is that the purpose of the UN is to promote diplomacy (and in doing so, deter war) rather than militarily deterring conflicts.

That is indeed its primary purpose. Unfortunately, once war has already broken out, and the aggressor doesn't care to listen to diplomacy, it acts somewhat as way to legitimize conflict through international law, via resolutions (I am not an expert however, so feel free to pick that apart)

but the UN cant declare war over a security council veto can it?

Nope.
Which is why, to retain credibility, the UN must throw Russia out. As one of the core UN members Russia is supposed to be an example. Letting Russia violate the core ideas of the UN without any sort of penalty is the best way to let that whole "never again" idea die.

Nope.
Which is why, to retain credibility, the UN must throw Russia out. As one of the core UN members Russia is supposed to be an example. Letting Russia violate the core ideas of the UN without any sort of penalty is the best way to let that whole "never again" idea die.
hmmmmm

shouldnt john mccain already have demanded this?

Nope.
Which is why, to retain credibility, the UN must throw Russia out. As one of the core UN members Russia is supposed to be an example. Letting Russia violate the core ideas of the UN without any sort of penalty is the best way to let that whole "never again" idea die.

Hasn't every single member of the security council done that at some point?

Throw them all out I say!

Nope.
Which is why, to retain credibility, the UN must throw Russia out. As one of the core UN members Russia is supposed to be an example. Letting Russia violate the core ideas of the UN without any sort of penalty is the best way to let that whole "never again" idea die.

In that case America should be thrown out for the invasion of Iraq.

Hasn't every single member of the security council done that at some point?

Throw them all out I say!

Quite right. To single out Russia is hypocritical.

And wasn't Georgia the one who declared war on Russia?

Hasn't every single member of the security council done that at some point?

To a degree. The second US-Iraq war is indeed another example.
Sadly, Washington and Moscow are unlikey to ever get more punishment than a few stern words.

Throw them all out I say!

Hell - why not. What point does the organisation have if its members wipe their arses with its core values ?

Why are people suggesting going to war with a nation that has the second largest, ready nuclear arsenal in the world? Not that Russia would take out the West if they were expelled from the UN, but there was a reason they were on the Security Council in the first place.

In that case America should be thrown out for the invasion of Iraq.

Thats why i said we should be partnering up...

itll be the Cowboy and the Cossack, United in Defense of Pre-Emptive Strikes, lol..

In that case America should be thrown out for the invasion of Iraq.
too late

they already passed a resolution allowing us to stay.

it expires sometime very soon.

Why are people suggesting going to war with a nation that has the second largest, ready nuclear arsenal in the world? Not that Russia would take out the West if they were expelled from the UN, but there was a reason they were on the Security Council in the first place.
because they are not morally bereft?

In that case America should be thrown out for the invasion of Iraq.

And Russia should have been thrown out for invading Afghanistan back in '79.

To a degree. The second US-Iraq war is indeed another example.
Sadly, Washington and Moscow are unlikey to ever get more punishment than a few stern words.


Ha - not even that! They can even veto out the stern words in an empty resolution if they want! Unless you count general assembly resolutions...


Hell - why not. What point does the organisation have if its members wipe their arses with its core values ?

At last - A real purpose for the UN! Diplomatic Toilet Paper Provider!

because they are not morally bereft?

And neither is any country run by politicians...

And neither is any country run by politicians...
very true.

it would be stupid to start a war with russia.

Yes, but one error by another poster doesn't change the fact that the OP had no sense of geography.
I wasn't saying it did. Yeah, the OP... I dunno where to begin.:/

In all seriousness, what kind of retard decides to declare war on the biggest and most powerful nation in the world then cry to USA and Nato for help

It is like a small child poking at a bear with a stick then running off to Uncle Sam when the bear gets mad and bites back

The allied propaganda machine worked into overtime to tell the world that the rest of the world is upset about it - but in reality, WHAT rest of the world is upset about it?

The other major nations: China, South America, and Africa dont care, why should they?
The Middle East hates USA, so its obvious they would take Russia's side in the argument
Minor nations that sit on the border of other nations, like Mexico, Spain and Scandanavia dont care
Europe sits on the fence - they may or may not care but wont take a side because even though they partly support USA through the finance that comes in, they rely on Russian exports and cant afford to get Russia angry at them

So who is this world that they speak of? USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand? As much as the USA tries to take things back to the days when maps had any territory outside their own nations marked with 'thar be dragons', that still doesnt limit the 'world' to only those nations who throw their lot in with USA

You the people of NationStates, what are Your opinions?
Will you cry for Georgia, or will you look at reality?
Russia is the most powerful country in the world? No, not really. The US still holds that title, and Russia needs to compete with the EU and China for second place first.

Russia is the most powerful country in the world? No, not really. The US still holds that title, and Russia needs to compete with the EU and China for second place first.

China buys most of its stuff from us or they just copy our tanks and stuff...

EU? Is that even a military allince? Even if it is, its a group of countires. Therefore it cant be one of the most powerful Countries, since it inst a country.

Russia is the most powerful country in the world? No, not really. The US still holds that title, and Russia needs to compete with the EU and China for second place first.

Russia has bigger balls, at least right now.

When we invaded Iraq, that was a big set of balls, but we've been kicking ourselves in the scrotum ever since, so we're not as willing to get them kicked again (by kicked, I mean ~4000 dead).

As I said in the other similar thread, the US has no stomach for fighting, even though this would be the sort of war (if it remained conventional) that we could do well - so we're not going to do anything during the waning months of the Bush Administration. As for Obama doing anything -well, he'll just talk while the Russians blow up, kill, and occupy anyone they feel like fucking. The Europeans don't have the stomach to fight a war in their own backyard, so that's out.

And no one wants to "defeat" the Russians - if it looks like they're really losing badly, they'll just drop back and lob some nukes on your deployed forces.

China buys most of its stuff from us or they just copy our tanks and stuff...

EU? Is that even a military allince? Even if it is, its a group of countires. Therefore it cant be one of the most powerful Countries, since it inst a country.The EU is an anomaly where definitions are concerned. It's a superstate, notably because it has a government, a uniform immigration policy and open borders. It qualifies in the sense of a pole in defining the balance of powers.
Russia has bigger balls, at least right now.Undoubtedly. They're not the ones with George W. Olympic Mascot running the country.

The EU is an anomaly where definitions are concerned. It's a superstate, notably because it has a government, a uniform immigration policy and open borders. It qualifies in the sense of a pole in defining the balance of powers.


Doesnt it have a Military too? Granted i read that on Wikipedia, so i may be wrong...

Doesnt it have a Military too? Granted i read that on Wikipedia, so i may be wrong...There sort of is, but it can hardly be called that at the moment. The focus is still on national Armed Forces.

Doesnt it have a Military too? Granted i read that on Wikipedia, so i may be wrong...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eu_military

There's no standing army, and a possible conflict of interest with NATO if there were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eu_military

There's no standing army, and a possible conflict of interest with NATO if there were.

No conflict of interest if Russia were attacking, though.

In all seriousness, what kind of retard decides to declare war on the biggest and most powerful nation in the world then cry to USA and Nato for help

Largest geographic landmass doesn't necessarily make Russia specifically powerful as a nation. Of course it is, but you have to remember that because of it's size, and diversity there are a lot of issues that it has (Chechnya, anyone).

Whats more, isn't fighting evil always worth sacrifice? Now, I'm not saying it's Georgia vs. Satan here, or anything, but if they feel they're doing the right thing, why is that such a bad thing?

Additionally, we would've joined WWII (almost assuredly) even is a dozen nations weren't already fighting Germany, even though nation to nation, they were more powerful than us. And no doubt we cried out for others to help us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eu_military

There's no standing army, and a possible conflict of interest with NATO if there were.

Huh...seems the wikipedia articles are in slight contradiction...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#Military_and_defence

But, i guess Initiatives are different than Standing Army...

No conflict of interest if Russia were attacking, though.

Then it would just be under the aegis of NATO.

That's the objection to an EU force, it just duplicates NATO (and therefore makes any mobilisation more complicated for either party because of resources)

I think Russia is in the right when fighting Georgia. I've heard reports that Georgia hit Russia first, and even if that's not the case, I side with the seperatists in Osetia. The US has no business whatsoever in taking sides. I suspect that there's no real 'good guy' in any international conflicts nowadays anyhow.

If we get involved, it'll be because we ignored the many warnings against entangling alliances from the founding fathers of the USA.

The problem now is that the South Ossetians & Abkhazians are looting and shooting. Apparently the Russians were quite "civil".

So if we're going to string Georgia up can we at least be fair and do the same to the SE & AB troops who have been breaking the law?

The "world" you described in the OP seems to be having a hard time deciding who to demonise the most, Russia or Iran.

[QUOTE=Kirchensittenbach;13942953]In all seriousness, what kind of retard decides to declare war on the biggest and most powerful nation in the world then cry to USA and Nato for help
/QUOTE]

The Americans, Chinese and the EU say hello to.

Russia is not the most powerful nation in the world by a long shot.

True, it may not be stupid...

But, it is Bait...And biting it only lets them reel us in...
very true. and they will never accept (or respond to) any reasonable argument.

[QUOTE=Kirchensittenbach;13942953]In all seriousness, what kind of retard decides to declare war on the biggest and most powerful nation in the world then cry to USA and Nato for help
/QUOTE]

The Americans, Chinese and the EU say hello to.

Russia is not the most powerful nation in the world by a long shot.
besides if another country is messing with you not fighting is the same as declaring surrender.

Just wanted to throw in a quick two cents -

There's actually no war here; not, at least, a new one. Most of the current conflict stems from the 1991-1992 South Ossetian War, where a tiny country's even tinier fragment got all uppity and decided to secede. They actually handed Georgia's ass back to them (for as small as they are), so Georgia had to settle for a ceasefire, and South Ossetia had to settle for de facto independence, although everyone still considers them part of Georgia. Russia had to settle for puppeteering the whole thing by stationing "peacekeepers" in South Ossetia. Woe is Mother Russia.

Fast forward to early August, someone (accounts vary, Georgia claims the Ossetians started it, South Ossetia replies with a big "nuh-uh") starts the fighting up again. New Georgian president (relatively new, anyway) Saakashvili decides it's time to put South Ossetia in its place, and takes over the South Ossetian capital with relatively little effort. Little did they know, they poked a very large, vodka-induced-comatose bear, and thus Russia decides to show Georgia the meaning of "unnecessary force."

There you have it - a tale of political intrigue, woe, and military rape and counter-rape. Who's to blame? Your mileage may vary, but I tend to think that South Ossetia, which is roughly the size of Rhode Island, trying to break away from Georgia, which is only slightly larger than West Virginia, may have gotten a bit too big for their britches. Of course, the real reason this whole conflict started was because Russia hasn't started any good fights since poisoning Alexander Litvinenko, and let's face it: assassination is small-time shit for a Stalin wannabe like Putin.

Indeed. The UN is now obligated to declare war on Russia - since the prime reason for its existence is to deter countries from invading other countries.
What? No. You're simply wrong.

Nope.
Which is why, to retain credibility, the UN must throw Russia out. As one of the core UN members Russia is supposed to be an example. Letting Russia violate the core ideas of the UN without any sort of penalty is the best way to let that whole "never again" idea die.
What? No. You're wrong again.

[QUOTE=Kirchensittenbach;13942953]In all seriousness, what kind of retard decides to declare war on the biggest and most powerful nation in the world then cry to USA and Nato for help
/QUOTE]

The Americans, Chinese and the EU say hello to.

Russia is not the most powerful nation in the world by a long shot.

[QUOTE=Kirchensittenbach;13942953]In all seriousness, what kind of retard decides to declare war on the biggest and most powerful nation in the world then cry to USA and Nato for help
/QUOTE]

The Americans, Chinese and the EU say hello to.

Russia is not the most powerful nation in the world by a long shot.

Interesting. I've been following this conflict since day one, reaching the tragic realization that everyone is powerless to stop the Russian occupation.

This invulnerability isn't a characteristic that's exclusively Russian, far from it; this is a characteristic that has, and will, typify an ever globalized, nuclear world. Just as the United States could occupy and restructure Iraq, Russia can (if it wishes) have its way with Georgia. Keep in mind that this situation doesn't come down to simple militarism. It reduces, as far as I can tell, to economics AND militarism. The nations of Western Europe import 50% of their natural gas and crude oil from the Russian Federation (Source: CNN). Furthermore, since the Russian government is often related to private enterprise (for instance, President Medvedev is the CEO of a Russian natural gas interest known as GAZPROM), this supply role could be easily manipulated as an instrument of aggression. Such threats aren't theoretical, they've been used on-and-off in the post-Soviet Russian state. One might remember the 2007 Russian response to a Czech 'missile battery' arrangement with the United States (similar to the arrangement with Poland). Before the agreement was finalized, the Russian government warned the Czechs about potential ramifications. Once it was finalized, Russian oil pipelines in the Czech Republic cut their productivity by 20-30%. Pretty significant for a land-locked nation like the Czech Republic. Fortunately, the Czech state had established relations with Middle-Eastern oil...but the sentiment remains (the pipelines were finally brought to full-productivity again in July, 2008).
Now we come to the recent Georgian crisis. In my opinion, Russian forces were responding to a legitimate threat in South Ossetia (especially considering the fact that Georgian militants targeted Ossetians...many of which carry Russian passports). That said, the Russians have consequently taken advantage of a poorly-equipped nation, breaking numerous promises to the international community.

While the conflict has inspired 'Cold War' revivalism from pundits and politicians, alike...one question remains: how could this happen?
For what it's worth, the western world has all but ignored Russia in the time since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Additionally, the United States has been particularly hostile towards the Russians following the commencement of this 'situation.' Condoleezza Rice (meaning well, and probably following a legitimately stringent position) noted in a Press Conference, "This isn't Prague in 1968." I don't think mentioning the bygone Imperialistic grandeur of an already agitated state is going to accomplish anything. So, in essence, global apathy is partially responsible for the current Russian state, and we're treading water as a result.

Can we do anything? Not exactly. Let's analyze our options. Option one: Diplomacy. Unfortunately, the first refuge of civilized coexistence has yielded little more than empty promises and hurt feelings. Option two: Aggressive Diplomacy. Aggressive diplomacy hasn't, and can't, deter Russia...since they're a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, any Chapter 7 Resolution could fall victim to veto. Option three: Military Response. Not only would a military response be impractical, it would be suicidal. Fortunately, it's highly unlikely that Russia will attack any NATO/EU affiliates.

With luck, the United States and her allies will be able to reach an amiable compromise with the Russians.

I thought Ackabar's advice was to concentrate all fire on that Super Star Destroyer?

So surely we should concentrate all fire on Russia?

I thought Ackabar's advice was to concentrate all fire on that Super Star Destroyer?

So surely we should concentrate all fire on Russia?

No, his advice was, "Its a Trap!" lol...

So who is this world that they speak of? USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand?

You the people of NationStates, what are Your opinions?
Will you cry for Georgia, or will you look at reality?

There is nothing any of us could do even if we wanted to, and I'm sure alot of people do. It's not a complete case of ah shit, we can't do anything because the Russians are too high and mighty, because they aren't. It's a case of the fact no one wants to go to war over a nation they provoked the reprisal. That reprisal may be seen as undeserved, but, it's beyond the point, the fact remains when the Russians openly say, if you go here it may result in war. You take note. I'd be far more worried about the fact they are flexing their muscles over the US missile defence system. The Georgia Russia war, is minor, typically a border dispute, and happens to be extremely well publicised. I do feel that Russian forces should not of encroached on Georgian sovereign territory at all, I think their response was far too heavy handed. The Georgians may of had the right to take back land that was once theirs, but they knew the consequences, and still continued to call the bluff. Brave yes. Did it do them any favours? no.

In all seriousness, what kind of retard decides to declare war on the biggest and most powerful nation in the world then cry to USA and Nato for help

It is like a small child poking at a bear with a stick then running off to Uncle Sam when the bear gets mad and bites back

The allied propaganda machine worked into overtime to tell the world that the rest of the world is upset about it - but in reality, WHAT rest of the world is upset about it?

The other major nations: China, South America, and Africa dont care, why should they?
The Middle East hates USA, so its obvious they would take Russia's side in the argument
Minor nations that sit on the border of other nations, like Mexico, Spain and Scandanavia dont care
Europe sits on the fence - they may or may not care but wont take a side because even though they partly support USA through the finance that comes in, they rely on Russian exports and cant afford to get Russia angry at them

So who is this world that they speak of? USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand? As much as the USA tries to take things back to the days when maps had any territory outside their own nations marked with 'thar be dragons', that still doesnt limit the 'world' to only those nations who throw their lot in with USA

You the people of NationStates, what are Your opinions?
Will you cry for Georgia, or will you look at reality?

I didn't have time to read through the entire thread before, so I apologize in advance if someone has already made this point.

South Ossetia is part of Georgia you idiot! They have a legitimate right to move forces into their own sovereign territory. The Georgian parliament only agreed to a limited and temporary declaration of war against Russia after Russian forces invaded the Georgian territory of South Ossetia, AND other parts of Georgia as well. They had every right to do that.

Let's just imagine that Hawaii tries to declare independence from the USA but everyone ignore them, except for China. China gives everyone in Hawaii a Chinese passport and recognises Hawaii as an independent state. The USA sends forces to Hawaii to restore order as you would think they have a right to do, but China then declares that the USA is invading a sovereign nation and commiting genocide against Chinese citizens. China invades Hawaii and pushes the Americans out. Then, just cause they feel like it they take American Samoa and Guam as well. A peace is brokered whereby they will return to pre-conflict positions. A week or two goes by, and all China has done is to loot all the American military stockpiles in these captured territories. Everyone knows they don't really want to leave.

This is exactly what has happened in Georgia, only moved to an area where more people are likely to understand.

South Ossetia is part of Georgia you idiot! They have a legitimate right to move forces into their own sovereign territory. The Georgian parliament only agreed to a limited and temporary declaration of war against Russia after Russian forces invaded the Georgian territory of South Ossetia, AND other parts of Georgia as well. They had every right to do that.

The Georgians troops killed peacekeepers in South Ossetia when they began their attack. They did not have the right to kill them. They also did not have the right to kill Russian citzens in South Ossetia or any one there for that matter. We had to go into to Georgia after they attacked our troops.

South Ossetia will not be part of Georgia anymore.

I didn't have time to read through the entire thread before, so I apologize in advance if someone has already made this point.

South Ossetia is part of Georgia you idiot! They have a legitimate right to move forces into their own sovereign territory. The Georgian parliament only agreed to a limited and temporary declaration of war against Russia after Russian forces invaded the Georgian territory of South Ossetia, AND other parts of Georgia as well. They had every right to do that.

Let's just imagine that Hawaii tries to declare independence from the USA but everyone ignore them, except for China. China gives everyone in Hawaii a Chinese passport and recognises Hawaii as an independent state. The USA sends forces to Hawaii to restore order as you would think they have a right to do, but China then declares that the USA is invading a sovereign nation and commiting genocide against Chinese citizens. China invades Hawaii and pushes the Americans out. Then, just cause they feel like it they take American Samoa and Guam as well. A peace is brokered whereby they will return to pre-conflict positions. A week or two goes by, and all China has done is to loot all the American military stockpiles in these captured territories. Everyone knows they don't really want to leave.

This is exactly what has happened in Georgia, only moved to an area where more people are likely to understand.

There's fallacy in your analogy. First, the majority of South Ossetians are ethnically and culturally Russian. Next, the Georgians WERE committing atrocities...in fact, Georgia as a nation has a worse record on Human Rights than Russia does (not an easy accomplishment). Their allegedly 'democratic' government is led by President Mikhail Saakashvili...a man who gave himself the power to dismantle Parliament and other branches of government. Also, incest isn't considered to be a crime in Georgia, and prisoners are frequently beaten to death by police.
It isn't too hard to believe that...perhaps... the Georgians were killing people in South Ossetia.

Some fun reading: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100560.htm

That's mild compared to a report that was given to the UN on torture in Georgia.

Incidentally, the BBC noted that the majority of South Ossetians blame GEORGIA for the damage done to their cities.

That said, I hope for a withdrawal of Russian troops...they were given an inch, they took a mile.

The Georgians troops killed peacekeepers in South Ossetia when they began their attack. They did not have the right to kill them. They also did not have the right to kill Russian citzens in South Ossetia or any one there for that matter. We had to go into to Georgia after they attacked our troops.

South Ossetia will not be part of Georgia anymore.
Thus it is decreed.

big problem is...

Many tiny nations believe they can make a deal with NATO to put missiles under Russia's arse and scream democracy!!! and the USA will come in it's shiny armor to defend them from Russia's obvious (not justified but still obvious) reaction about having missiles under its arse.

I wonder who gave the right to Russians to decide what territory belongs where...?

But it wasn't clarifying anything. Saying Mexico isn't part of South America doesn't say where Mexico is. Again,
"Ralph is white"
"Ralph isn't white"
Okay, so what color is Ralph? That comment adds nothing to the discussion.

Laerod's comment added that although Mexico is a Latinoamerican country, it is not a South American country, marking the difference between the two divisions. Miss one or two meetings of the debate club, you are taking this to the extreme. Actually, to the extreme where it is not fun anymore, but boring.

Just a random bit of info that lends nothing to the argument following a sentence that only says where a place isn't, but not where it is.

It said where the country is.

What on earth does that have to do with anything. Or are you illustrating the whole random bits of information that don't follow the original thought?

Means I jumped to a different topic. Different paragraph. Should I add an empty quote space so you can distinguish the fact that I changed subject? Can you read normal, standard writing or should I add write:

1
1.1
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
2
2.1

Damn.

We never declared war with Georgia.

Georiga did though when they killed our peacekeepers.

I suppose Israel and Hezbollah declared war on the UN back in 2006 then when both sides assaulted or captured that UN outpost.

Collateral Damage, have you heard of it? Your peacekeepers should have ran like heck when the shelling started.

Accidently killing 3 to 7 peacekeepers does not equal a full scale invasion of Russia.

This made me laugh :D Why is it that so many Americans dont know anything about rest of the world? You said that rest of the world dont care, but I Think you guys are those who dont care.
There is no major nations in Africa. There is only poor and hungry nations. Ok, maybe Egypt but thats it. By major nations you should mean France, United Kingdom etc and not nations that have hard enought just by trying to staying alive. Ofcource poor nations in Africa dont care because they have more important issues.

Scandanavia dont care? What the beeb are you talking about? Scandinavia does care. I live in Finland (which is nation in scandinavia) and we do care, because Russian is our neighbour. Some of us even scares that we are next.

Moral of the story here, is that Georgia made an ass of themselves by thinking the world would save them, even though they are just as guilty as starting this as we are.

Moral of the story here, is that Georgia made an ass of themselves by thinking the world would save them, even though they are just as guilty as starting this as we are.
Thank you, like I've been saying, both sides were being idiots, however Georgia has wised up and has decided to be the bigger man and stop it.

Thank you, like I've been saying, both sides were being idiots, however Georgia has wised up and has decided to be the bigger man and stop it.

I'm not sure "being the bigger man" was really anything to do with their capitulation, it was more the risk of annihilation! A simple look at the numbers of the respective armed forces is ample to illustrate this. Throw in a soupçon of history too.

I wonder who gave the right to Russians to decide what territory belongs where...?

It looks to me as if it's the South Osetians who want to choose who governs them.

There's fallacy in your analogy. First, the majority of South Ossetians are ethnically and culturally Russian..
No, they're ethnically and culturally Ossetian. The language is of the Iranian group, distantly akin to Kurdish and Farsi; they are survivors of the Scythian group which used to control a lot of territory millenia ago, so they have a lot of epic sagas about how great they used to be.

Next, the Georgians WERE committing atrocities.
There has been no credible evidence of that. I'm not saying I don't think it possible, but the Russians have been long on assertions, short on substantiation.

However, there is no particular reason to regard any part of Ossetia as intrinsically a part of Georgia. All of Ossetia had the "autonomous" ASSR status under the Soviet Union; there were about 20 of these ASSR which had separate administrations, and only tangential connection to the SSR's that they were assigned to. Ossetia was partitioned into North Ossetia (assigned to the Russian SSR) and South Ossetia (assigned to the Georgian SSR) because it straddles a sharp mountain ridge with few convenient transportation routes across. Of course those assignments were made without any concept that the Soviet Union was ever going to break up, without any intention of defining a future international boundary, and totally without any consultation of the people on the ground.

I wonder who gave the right to Russians to decide what territory belongs where...?

The fact no one have the balls to try and stop them.

Christ, if it was Yugoslavia war would start, Oh, it did. The only difference is the location of the land, numbers involved in the genocide, and the religion of the participants. It's definitely a case of rules applying to some but not others.

Either that or the case of the UN/NATO not doing anything against someone that would prove a match. And yes, as Georgia has been promised NATO membership, maybe that means NATO Should do something? Lets invade some small country and moan about a defence system. That seems to get us scared, might work in reverse...

Collateral Damage, have you heard of it? Your peacekeepers should have ran like heck when the shelling started.

Accidently killing 3 to 7 peacekeepers does not equal a full scale invasion of Russia.

No, but it is an excuse to go in, just like alleged missiles were an excuse to attack Iraq. I'm sorry to say it, but the precedent has been set. Now, everyone can make up false claims to justify invasion as long as they hold a veto on the UN sec. council.

Well, I am an american, but I don`t live in U.S.A. (like other 550 millions)

that makes us 2...

about Osetia... i still cant understand why in the world Georgia is the good guy, even that there have been genocidal practices against Russians in Osetia, and also... this particular case reminds me Tibet...

If Tibet wants independence, and China doesn't let them... 50 million people says "Free Tibet" (China being no aligned with USA may be a cause?)

If Osetia wants independence, and Georgia doesn't... Georgians are the good guys??...

And what happens with Kosovo, Bosnia, Croatia, and all of what happened in the ex-Yugoslavia??? :confused: ...

cmon people... dont be so hypocrite

I hate to disillusion you, but the free people of the Georgian republic are going to win out here. Russia's imperial ambitions are the only reason for this skirmish, and the rest of the world knows it.

I hate to disillusion you, but the free people of the Georgian republic are going to win out here. Russia's imperial ambitions are the only reason for this skirmish, and the rest of the world knows it.

Errr.... Georgia attacked South Osetia and LOST... (crying a lot, actually)

PD: "Free people"... In 1939 the "free people" of Germany started WWII

No, but it is an excuse to go in, just like alleged missiles were an excuse to attack Iraq. I'm sorry to say it, but the precedent has been set. Now, everyone can make up false claims to justify invasion as long as they hold a veto on the UN sec. council.

Yes and you saw what happened to the US's reputation after they pulled that.

Russia is now suffering under the same fallout. I'm sure if they DID try to occupy Georgia they would end up suffering their own personal Iraq.

Yes and you saw what happened to the US's reputation after they pulled that.

Russia is now suffering under the same fallout. I'm sure if they DID try to occupy Georgia they would end up suffering their own personal Iraq.

Lets see...

Georgia ATTACKED South Osethia...

So, it`s not the same that Irak.

PD: South Osethia held free elections to decide their independence... a 99% win

I love it when NZ gets mentioned!

But, I think the OPer has us a wee bit confused. We don't exactly 'throw our lot' in with the USA. Our government was against the invasion of Iraq, for example. Our staunch anti-nuclear program has led to a few hiccups in our relations with the US. There is almost an undercurrent of mis-trust in NZ society towards America (perhaps).

Specifically, our PM merely called for a ceasefire. I would hardly call that throwing our lot in with the US. It was in accordance with what the majority of countries around the world did.

Lets see...

Georgia ATTACKED South Osethia...

So, it`s not the same that Irak.

PD: South Osethia held free elections to decide their independence... a 99% win

They never wanted to be part of Georgiam as soon as the Soviet Union fall they wanted independce. They tried to gian their indpendce peacefuly for many years' now

TO accept our view, the should change the name. Nothing less. I know they won't, so they are not showing any respect...

You are absolutely right. We Americans have no respect for those who also live on our continent. As a matter of fact, calling ourselves Americans is just a subtle form of imperialism, because we really want to conquer all of South America, and this seemed like a good way to start the subjugation without letting you know.

We aren't changing our views. Neither are you. So stop with the threadjack.

So, the nazi education standards justified Auschwitz... Great

You are kidding. Right?

You're seriously comparing teaching genocide to teaching a commonly accepted name for a country? Really?


On topic, I think that S. Ossetia deserves indipendence, but the Russians need to get the hell out of Georgia. Frankly, it wasn't their decision to make, and occupying Poti and blowing up railroad bridges way outside the conflict zone do not really help the Russian's case that they were just protecting peacekeepers.

Sieg Hail!

Anything else, master?

Or I don't deserve to speak anymore?


Certainly you deserve to speak. Everyone does. And on that principle, I have the right to tell you that you are pissing into the wind, and nothing is going to change because of your petulant complaints. So again, please stop with the threadjack.



Really. It`s the same principle...

Correct me if I'm wrong here...you believe that

a) teaching children that killing millions of innocent people based on religon, race, or creed is ok
is equally as heinous a crime as
b) teaching children to identify themselves in the manner that the vast majority of the world identifies them?

Yes and you saw what happened to the US's reputation after they pulled that.

Russia is now suffering under the same fallout. I'm sure if they DID try to occupy Georgia they would end up suffering their own personal Iraq.

Possibly. I hope there's a political fallout. Russia deserves it. Georgia too, to be honest.

There has been no credible evidence of that. I'm not saying I don't think it possible, but the Russians have been long on assertions, short on substantiation.

Well, Georgia attacking Tskhinvali with artillery barrages surely could be called "atrocities". That attack is not disputed, while any casualty number reported from that attack is.

"This is unfortunately when everything started," said Kezerashvili, the Georgian defense minister. "At 12 at night."

Georgian forces fired artillery rounds into Tskhinvali, which sits in a hollow. They attacked villages on surrounding higher ground. By 1 a.m., they were shelling the road along which a Russian column of more than 100 vehicles, including tanks and other armored vehicles, was moving south from the Roki Tunnel.

The column stopped for 90 minutes, Kezerashvili said.

By 2 a.m. on Friday, Aug. 8, Kezerashvili said, Georgian ground troops had advanced to the edge of Tskhinvali, and Georgian units had unleashed the BM-21 multiple rocket system, which can launch 40 rockets in 20 seconds.

Kezerashvili said the system was used to target separatist government buildings in the center of Tskhinvali, including the Defense Ministry and the Interior Ministry, where police forces have their headquarters. "It's not like a very open and big city, and I can tell you that we only targeted the places, the governmental organizations," Kezerashvili said.

But military experts said the BM-21 is a weapon for battlefield combat and not for use anywhere near civilians. "The BM-21 was designed to attack forces in large areas, and, as a consequence, if you use them in an urban environment, the likelihood of collateral damage is high," said retired Army Maj. Gen. William L. Nash, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

The artillery fire on the city continued until daylight, according to the reports of three OSCE monitors who were there in a cellar; their building was shelled and damaged. The three got out of Tskhinvali on Friday afternoon during a lull in fighting.
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/16/AR2008081600502_4.html?sid=ST2008081700211&s_pos=)


The genocide claims remain unsubstantiated however.

TO accept our view, the should change the name. Nothing less. I know they won't, so they are not showing any respect...?
To accept your view, we agree to speak Spanish the way you speak Spanish. What you are doing is absolute and total disrespect to us.

Well I have seen alot of creative debate here

I would like to apologise for the confusion of grouping several small nations under one banner based on area, like south america, africa, etc, but still these areas should not care because Russian activity should not affect them in any real way
In regards to Scandanavia and our Finnish friend who raised his concerns, I meant that that area does not care in regards to the Russian activity down in georgia,
given that Estonia has been the only nation in that general area, stupid enough to upset russia, by moving that russian memorial statue, but scandanavia as a rule seems to be behaving, there should be no issues there

As far as US involvement is concerned, it should be obvious that USA should stop trying to hold itself as the 'big brother' power that steps into everyones problems and puts in a solution that ends the problem and not only benefits the side america chose to defend, but also the USA itself

Russia is by far the worlds largest and most powerful nation, it just has its power spread over a larger area, with alot of untapped potential that can be called up when needed,
and unlike the USA, Russia does not need to parade its power to the world, it just knows it is more powerful - the USa having to regularly boast about its power is like the kid at school who boasts that he is better than others just to cover up his personal feelings of being insecure

South Ossetia is part of Georgia you idiot! They have a legitimate right to move forces into their own sovereign territory. The Georgian parliament only agreed to a limited and temporary declaration of war against Russia after Russian forces invaded the Georgian territory of South Ossetia, AND other parts of Georgia as well. They had every right to do that.

S, Ossetia is part of Georgia the same way Massachussetts was part of the UK in 1780.

Let's just imagine that Hawaii tries to declare independence from the USA but everyone ignore them, except for China. China gives everyone in Hawaii a Chinese passport and recognises Hawaii as an independent state. The USA sends forces to Hawaii to restore order as you would think they have a right to do, but China then declares that the USA is invading a sovereign nation and commiting genocide against Chinese citizens. China invades Hawaii and pushes the Americans out. Then, just cause they feel like it they take American Samoa and Guam as well. A peace is brokered whereby they will return to pre-conflict positions. A week or two goes by, and all China has done is to loot all the American military stockpiles in these captured territories. Everyone knows they don't really want to leave.

There's a few problems with this analogy. To make it work Hawaii would have had to successfully fought a war of independence against the US (a strange requirement for independence so many people seem to have) over 10 years ago and went to China for protection because no one found it politically expedient to recognize them.

Also, you're strongly discounting the strategic values of Poti and Gori, which are nothing like Samoa and Guam in this scenario. Gori is well within modern artillery range of the S. Ossetian capital, as well as hosting large military facilities. Poti is also the site of numerous military facilities. It doesn't excuse the Russians for staying there so long, but it does explain it, and a bit more accurately than your analogy.

I've found some of the eyewitness accounts on France24 quite interesting.

http://observers.france24.com/

In all seriousness, what kind of retard decides to declare war on the biggest and most powerful nation in the world then cry to USA and Nato for help

It is like a small child poking at a bear with a stick then running off to Uncle Sam when the bear gets mad and bites back

The allied propaganda machine worked into overtime to tell the world that the rest of the world is upset about it - but in reality, WHAT rest of the world is upset about it?

The other major nations: China, South America, and Africa dont care, why should they?
The Middle East hates USA, so its obvious they would take Russia's side in the argument
Minor nations that sit on the border of other nations, like Mexico, Spain and Scandanavia dont care
Europe sits on the fence - they may or may not care but wont take a side because even though they partly support USA through the finance that comes in, they rely on Russian exports and cant afford to get Russia angry at them

So who is this world that they speak of? USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand? As much as the USA tries to take things back to the days when maps had any territory outside their own nations marked with 'thar be dragons', that still doesnt limit the 'world' to only those nations who throw their lot in with USA

You the people of NationStates, what are Your opinions?
Will you cry for Georgia, or will you look at reality?




Heheh, you mean like this?

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm69/Sebastian16_photo/2757795812_13d4238203.jpg



Georgia did not declare war on Russia. They declared war on South Ossetia, which is protected by Russia since the majority of South Ossetians carry Russian passports. There's that reason for Russia being involved, and when the absolutely brilliant, totally US ( greatest military in the world) supplied Georgian forces attacked South Ossetia, the killed Russian peace-keepers. Instead of giving up their operation, and begging Russia for mercy like any half-brained government would do, Georgia decided to take on the bear; and were totally decimated. President Sakaashvili of Georgia is definitley in the club of brainless leaders recieving US help.

Russia is by far the worlds largest and most powerful nation, it just has its power spread over a larger area, with alot of untapped potential that can be called up when needed,
and unlike the USA, Russia does not need to parade its power to the world, it just knows it is more powerful - the USa having to regularly boast about its power is like the kid at school who boasts that he is better than others just to cover up his personal feelings of being insecure

You, my friend, need to spend some time studying Russia's economy and political system. Luckily, the United States is still much stronger than the Russian Federation in every sense of the word.

Some stats:

Exchange rate: 1 US Dollar = 24.4 Russian Rubles

-Population-
US: 303,824,646
Russia: 140,702,094

-Military Draft Potential (if draft is implemented)-
US (Total): males age 16-49: 72,715,332
females age 16-49: 71,638,785 (2008 est.)
US (Able-bodied): males age 16-49: 59,413,358
females age 16-49: 59,187,183 (2008 est.)

Russia (Total):males age 16-49: 36,219,908
females age 16-49: 37,019,853 (2008 est.)
Russia (Able-Bodied):males age 16-49: 21,488,878
females age 16-49: 28,760,976 (2008 est.)

-Gross Domestic Product-
US (Purchasing Power Parity): $13.84 trillion
Russia (Purchasing Power Parity): $2.088 trillion

US (Per Capita): $45,800
Russia (Per Capita): $14,700

-Labor Force
US: 153,100,000
Russia: 74,100,000

I think the numbers speak for themselves.
If you want to verify any of this: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html

- America is NOT an english word.
- America is the CONTINENT.

Any other use, is colonialism and an insult to inteligence.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but is the title of this thread "Proper usage of the word 'America'"? I do believe that it's actually "Reality versus Georgia and the USA", and you're continuing to hijack the actual topic of discussion with your crusade against the name 'United States of America'. Please stop hijacking the thread. If you want so desperately to talk about the name 'United States of America', then may I suggest you create a new thread where this discussion would be relevant.

I didn`t bring the topic, so if you don`t like it, talk to who did.

I don`t need your permission to write all what I want. If you don`t like it, its your problem, not mine.

Actually, it is your problem because you're continuing the thread hijack. I won't hand out any warnings this time, as I'm currently splitting this topic into a seperate one, but let this be your (and everyone else who has continued this topic in the wrong place) unofficial warning. Sdaeriji is correct on this issue.


Edit: Thread split. Any further discussion of "America" here will warrant an official warning. The thread is here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=563731

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/4883/russianattackgerogiaux7.jpg

Kinda surprised no one posted that yet. Unless I missed it.

In all seriousness, what kind of retard decides to declare war on the biggest and most powerful nation in the world then cry to USA and Nato for help


First and foremost.. you already have it wrong. Georgia did not attack Russia, they attempted to reclaim territory that had split from the nation but failed after over a decade to to gain international recognition, and hence was not considered a sovereign state. Russia responded by attacking Georgia but left the combat limited to those areas that are currently not under anyone's official control.

Seems to me that Russia was trying to take the opportunity to bully around its neighbor sort of like with Poland.

Lets see...

Georgia ATTACKED South Osethia...

Georgia declared South Ossetia attacked them first.


PD: South Osethia held free elections to decide their independence... a 99% win Bullshit, 99% no way. Unless they polled the 99% of those who ALREADY wanted to become independent.

You are beginning to smell very suspisious.

Bullshit, 99% no way. Unless they polled the 99% of those who ALREADY wanted to become independent.

You are beginning to smell very suspisious.

I don't know, 99% support is par for the course when it comes to Russian "elections".

No one has yet been able to explain why South Osetia cannot separate itself from Georgia if the people there wish to do so. Why can't the people of various regions be permitted to govern themselves as they see fit or choose which nation is sovereign over them?

The Balkan peninsula mess
Taiwan
Tibet
South Osetia
the 13 colonies in 1776
the southern states in 1860
Ireland
East/West Germany
and doubtless many more

Why must a group that seeks to determine its own fate be forced back into submission? What is so holy about preserving territorial status quo? I know we as humans try to choose the good guys to support our positions, but there's never a real White Hat good guy outside of the old western movies.

I believe that my country (the USA) should immediately pursue a nonintervention foreign policy. We should always be willing to mediate at the treaty table, and never on the battlefield.

Look at it from the other side though. That's your land and some of those people won't want to break away. Why should they be cast aside for the wishes of a minority (overall in the country)? Why should land that is legally yours just be taken from you?

Sometimes you have to punch someone in the face to make them comply.

Look at it from the other side though. That's your land and some of those people won't want to break away. Why should they be cast aside for the wishes of a minority (overall in the country)? Why should land that is legally yours just be taken from you?

Sometimes you have to punch someone in the face to make them comply.

How does the nation have a right to claim ownership of the people? Isn't it tyranny when a government uses violence to enforce the will of the government?

How does a group of people have the right to claim ownership of land that they occupy within a Sovereign state?

Russia is trying to bring back the old U.S.S.R and start a new Cold War

Russia is trying to bring back the old U.S.S.R and start a new Cold War

No, they are just trying to reassert their influence and prove remind people they are not to be fucked with.

It'd be closer to the truth if they wanted to restore their empire, but not under communist rule. (as the commies only have a small percentage of the vote, as far as I know).

How does a group of people have the right to claim ownership of land that they occupy within a Sovereign state?

What gives the state authority? If Georgia wishes to present itself as a democracy, it cannot claim authority over those who vote to break ties. Government doesn't own land, people do. If the people wish to divest themselves of rulers they feel to be corrupt or simply bothersome, it is their right to do so. The people give power to the state, not vice-versa. When the people feel that the state has failed to represent them, they have the right to sever ties with it. The age of the 'divine right of kings' is over, as is the era of an oligarchy controlling and owning the peasants. At least, that's the theory.

What gives the state authority? If Georgia wishes to present itself as a democracy, it cannot claim authority over those who vote to break ties. Government doesn't own land, people do. If the people wish to divest themselves of rulers they feel to be corrupt or simply bothersome, it is their right to do so. The people give power to the state, not vice-versa. When the people feel that the state has failed to represent them, they have the right to sever ties with it. The age of the 'divine right of kings' is over, as is the era of an oligarchy controlling and owning the peasants. At least, that's the theory.

I think my people tried to do that once......Yeah, it didnt go so hot, lol...In fact i believe Georgia tried to join the party :tongue:

I think my people tried to do that once......Yeah, it didnt go so hot, lol...In fact i believe Georgia tried to join the party :tongue:

After much thought and much research, I have come to the conclusion that despite the slavery issue, the south should have been left alone when they seceded. Oh, well. Too late now. I recommend that you try again soon, though, because now there isn't the slavery issue to demonize the south.

there have been murmerings of Oregon, washington, and British Columbia creating a new nation called "Cascadia", and there's also the "Republic of Lakotah" movement as well.

After much thought and much research, I have come to the conclusion that despite the slavery issue, the south should have been left alone when they seceded. Oh, well. Too late now. I recommend that you try again soon, though, because now there isn't the slavery issue to demonize the south.

there have been murmerings of Oregon, washington, and British Columbia creating a new nation called "Cascadia", and there's also the "Republic of Lakotah" movement as well.

Nah, All the Rednecks are very "Patriotic"...Used only because i cant think of a better term for it...

I dont think theyd ever rebel against the Government these days...

EDIT: if only Shattered Union wasnt such a Horrible game, lol

What gives the state authority? If Georgia wishes to present itself as a democracy, it cannot claim authority over those who vote to break ties. Government doesn't own land, people do. If the people wish to divest themselves of rulers they feel to be corrupt or simply bothersome, it is their right to do so. The people give power to the state, not vice-versa. When the people feel that the state has failed to represent them, they have the right to sever ties with it. The age of the 'divine right of kings' is over, as is the era of an oligarchy controlling and owning the peasants. At least, that's the theory.

What gives the people authority to go against those they elect to rule them?

What gives the people authority to go against those they elect to rule them?

Usually? Military strength. You can get a lot of things with sufficient military strength. Legitimacy, authority, heck, even independence.

What gives the people authority to go against those they elect to rule them?

If the people object to those they elect, it is within their rights to withdraw their support of their elected leaders. The power belongs to the people, and when government abuses that power, it is always the right of the people to take back the power they granted. When the system is so corrupt that it does not allow peaceful parliamentary actions, that power nay be withdrawn by civil disobedience. If the government uses violence against protestors, then the government is open to attack by the people.

Violent revolution is never the best solution, but sometimes it is the only option. It appears that Georgia was using violence against the separatists, and also attacked Russian peacekeepers. That justified Russia's reprisal attack. I wouldn't say Georgia is wholly wrong or that Russia/South Osetia are blameless, but the evidence I've heard suggests that the Russians were less in the wrong when compared to Georgia.

Uhhhhh Georgia didn't declare war on Russia, Russia declared war on Georgia.

Big difference.In Soviet Russia it is the other way around due to the government saying it is.

We never declared war with Georgia.

Georiga did though when they killed our peacekeepers.

they are not peace keepers when you alone send them, and they are only there to protect and defend the separatist you encourage and fund.

You've made a lot of assumptions in your first post, most of them false.
I'm sure someone may have already said this, but what the Hell:

1) Georgia didn't declare war on Russia - Russia fabricated an assortment of excuses to justify attacking Georgia and moving more men into South Ossetia, including 'ethnic cleansing' and apparent death of Peace Keepers. If any Peace Keepers were killed in the invasion of South Ossetia - which I highly doubt - they were most likely caught supplying the separatists with weapons, and were thus breaching their responsibilities as PKs.

2) Europe cares about this issue A LOT. Georgia has been attempting to join NATO for years now, while constantly being blocked by Russia, who is terrified of ex-Soviet states breaking free of it's sphere of influence.

3) In the UK at least, there are a lot of worries about the return to the old days of the 20th century, when Russia did as it pleased without regulation or restriction.

4) The Georgian Premier Saakashvilli may have been wrong to invade South Ossetia, but who are we to judge? If South Ossetia became part of Russia, it would encourage other breakaway regions, and would allow Russia a front directly into the heart of Georgia. It's not exactly like we in the West haven't got our hands dirty recently, on nations much further away than a neighbouring state. At any rate, he is a good man who cares about his country, has tackled many of Georgia's issues and is creating more and more democracy. Even on the eve of the Russian invasion, Saakashvilli still waited for the Georgian Congress to ratify the Martial Law decree before he would let himself exercise it.

5) Russia, however, has no excuse to move troops into South Ossetia, nevermind Georgia. If the stories are true that Russian PKs were killed, then Russia should have ordered a UN investigation. Likewise any so-called ethnic cleansing. Instead, Russia uses the flimsiest of excuses to give it's old adversary Georgia a bloody nose, as well as solidate it's position in supporting an illegal state. Was it not Russia who voted against recognising Kosovo as an independent nation? Furthermore, Russia's blatant disobediance of the terms of the ceasefire and defiant attitude is more that of a cruel bully than a righteous crusader.

Summarily, Georgia should have found a peaceful solution to the South Ossetia issue, but with Russia abusing its UN status and supplying the separatists with firearms and Russian passports that would be near impossible. Russia should never have set foot in South Ossetia, let alone the capital of Georgia, and needs to cut down on its imperialistic attitude. The UN needs to replace the Russian PKs in South Ossetia with others from neutral countries, as well as establish observers there. Furthermore, the UN needs to give Russia a reality check, before we end up on the brink of another Cold War. NATO needs to quickly allow Georgia to join the alliance, regardless of Russia's consent, so that violence in the Caucasus can be curbed and we'll never have a repeat of this incident again.
And for the love of Christ, people need to stop going on about this conflict like it was World War Three.

I don't know, 99% support is par for the course when it comes to Russian "elections".
No, it was all fair and well observed. It's simpler - see below.
BTW, elections in Russia, as far as I've heard, aren't staged. The situation is simply such that the ruling party candidate is the only viable one, as others never had the power to prove themselves with deeds, and the Russians don't trust words. It's somewhat like in US with two big parties dominating, except their big parties agree on the president beforehand.


Bullshit, 99% no way. Unless they polled the 99% of those who ALREADY wanted to become independent.
It was pretty simple, actually. South Ossetia is tiny. 65% of its population lives in the capital, the rest is split between a few towns and a lot of villages. Generally, Tskhinvali consists almost entirely of Ossetians and some Russians.
Until 1990, South Ossetia was an Autonomous Region of USSR, Georgian SSR. In 1990, as the federal rule has weakened, Georgia deprived South Ossetia first of political freedoms, and later of their Autonomous Region status.
In protest, the Ossetian population refused to recognize the authority of Georgian SSR. The city of Tskhinvali decided to secede, virtually unanimously, and organized their Republic of South Ossetia, to which all towns joined. Villages, mostly Georgian, declined the secession. Those ethnic Georgians who still stayed in towns moved to villages, and vice versa. The Republic created a functional government.

In 1991, as a response, the Republic has been attacked by some forces of Georgian SSR, but held their ground, and in 1992 Russia has interfered as the conflict was escalating. It ended in a a ceasefire being signed and a joint - Georgian, Russian, Ossetian - peacekeeping force created.

By 2006, there was a very distinct territorial separation. The 2006 referendum has been held by the Republic, which included about 80% of the region's population by that time. Technically, villages were allowed to vote as well, but that would mean they recognize the Republic and themselves as its citizens, so most didn't. Thus, virtually all votes came from the cities.