Georgia and Russia

[Timihendrix91]

The UN is a farce, and Nato isn't much more.Unfortunately people will suffer and die and for what? To appease some ones hurt national pride...just another reason for women rulers

Right..Because it's not like women rulers have a history of incompetence too...right?

 

Mary Tudor

Mary Stuart

Margret Thatcher

Kim Campbell

Wu Zetian

 

And so on, and so forth. I hope you don't actually think that women aren't incredibly prideful too. It's quite obvious that many women are as prideful, if not moreso, than their male counterparts.

 

It's also incorrect to say that ths happened because of a "hurt national pride"..I really don't know where you're getting that from.

[desperado2008]

Ironically, the most dreadful leader of Soviet Stalin is a georgian.

[Vagrant0]

Honestly, I initially tried making a joke about the Georgia that was invaded and the US state to feign ignorance. Unfortunately I couldn't really come up with anything... So just pretend I did, and that it was funny or something.

 

Anyway, the only reason why the US might get involved is because there is a major oil pipeline that runs through that country, and that nobody needs more conflict in that part of the world. It would however be ironic if this became some sort of steppingstone for WWIII where it's Russia, China, and a few others VS everyone else. I doubt it'll come to something like that, but never know. It would however be a great way for Bush to go out with a bang instead of a wimper. Not saying it's a good thing, but this generation does seem to need some great conflict or some grand horror to make those with potential rise to the occasion. Afterall, the last two generations have been pretty spoiled, all things considdered.

[humanbean234]

The whole mess is complicated by Georgia's committment of troops to the Coalition in Iraq. After the US and UK, Georgia holds the #3 seat for troops-on-the-ground in Iraq (which would explain the US & UK's backing of Georgia's balk at the UN resolution). Less than three months ago, there were US Marines in residence on a military installation in Georgia.

 

Regardless of who attacked whom, and how the conflict is being conducted, the US is very likely to side with Georgia in this matter. The ethics or correctness of the position is irrelevant; US politics are very rarely about ethics or correctness... they tend to be more about expediency and money.

[Chesto]

As in so many fields of endeavour , I have already proven my vast ignorance in this. So wont add anything... other than 'truth is the first casualty of war'...and i probably got that wrong too. ...and were'nt Rasputin, and Beria, Georgians, too?

[DarkWarrior45]

The whole mess is complicated by Georgia's committment of troops to the Coalition in Iraq. After the US and UK, Georgia holds the #3 seat for troops-on-the-ground in Iraq (which would explain the US & UK's backing of Georgia's balk at the UN resolution). Less than three months ago, there were US Marines in residence on a military installation in Georgia.

 

Regardless of who attacked whom, and how the conflict is being conducted, the US is very likely to side with Georgia in this matter. The ethics or correctness of the position is irrelevant; US politics are very rarely about ethics or correctness... they tend to be more about expediency and money.

 

The ethical thing for the US and the UK is to back Georgia up. Not necessarily with military force, but backing them up politically and through other means. Not doing so is like abandoning your best budy when he gets into a fight. It's not about money here; I don't see any dollar signs.

 

"At the request of Russia, the UN Security Council held an emergency session in New York but failed to reach consensus early Friday on a Russian-drafted statement. The council concluded it was at a stalemate after the U.S., Britain and some other members backed the Georgians in rejecting a phrase in the three-sentence draft statement that would have required both sides "to renounce the use of force," council diplomats said. "

 

Right. Lets say your Georgia. Regardless of the reason, somebody starts shooting at you. Then that same person comes up to you with an olive branch after unloading several clips of ammo at you. Would you accept that olive branch? I wouldn't; I'd be shooting back at the fart.

[humanbean234]

<snip for space>.

 

The ethical thing for the US and the UK is to back Georgia up. Not necessarily with military force, but backing them up politically and through other means. Not doing so is like abandoning your best budy when he gets into a fight. It's not about money here; I don't see any dollar signs.

 

"At the request of Russia, the UN Security Council held an emergency session in New York but failed to reach consensus early Friday on a Russian-drafted statement. The council concluded it was at a stalemate after the U.S., Britain and some other members backed the Georgians in rejecting a phrase in the three-sentence draft statement that would have required both sides "to renounce the use of force," council diplomats said. "

 

Right. Lets say your Georgia. Regardless of the reason, somebody starts shooting at you. Then that same person comes up to you with an olive branch after unloading several clips of ammo at you. Would you accept that olive branch? I wouldn't; I'd be shooting back at the fart.

 

Okay, I'm unfamiliar with how the actual shooting started, but if Georgia was the initial agressor, crossing over an established national border (regardless of any historical claims to the land), why would they resist signing a treaty that would require them to renounce the use of force?

Mind you, I'm not certain if Georgia drew first-blood or not.

 

While it is indeed ethical to honor one's treaties with other countries, is it safe or sane to honor such treaties when the peace is upset by foolishness? Consider the webwork of alliances and treaties that existed on June 28th, 1914, that pulled an entire continent into the maelstrom of war when Gavrilo Princip took a shot at Archduke Franz Ferdinand? All those nations chose to do the "honorable" thing, and abide by their treaty agreements, but where is the balance of Honor -vs- Sanity, when one dead Archduke results in nearly ten million dead, 21 million wounded, and over seven million missing?

 

As far as money goes, Georgia controls most of the Caucasus mountains and routes through them, and the eastern border of the Black Sea. Azerbaijan lies to the east, and Georgia holds the Baku-T'bilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, the Baku-T'bilisi-Erzerum gas pipeline, and the Kars-Akhalkalaki Railroad, all bringing energy supplies from central Asia into ports on the Black Sea, and across their southern border with Turkey.

Yep, there's oil involved in this alliance.

Big surprise, eh?

[dezdimona]

The UN is a farce, and Nato isn't much more.Unfortunately people will suffer and die and for what? To appease some ones hurt national pride...just another reason for women rulers

Right..Because it's not like women rulers have a history of incompetence too...right?

 

Mary Tudor

Mary Stuart

Margret Thatcher

Kim Campbell

Wu Zetian

 

And so on, and so forth. I hope you don't actually think that women aren't incredibly prideful too. It's quite obvious that many women are as prideful, if not moreso, than their male counterparts.

 

It's also incorrect to say that ths happened because of a "hurt national pride"..I really don't know where you're getting that from.

Ah, and great women they were too!

And my comment on hurt national pride was a generalisation about wars in general, please don't take my words out of context,make off hand comments and then assume because I'm a woman I'm stupid

Typical male behavior is what you've just shown and why the world is as it is!

Wars are started by men for the most part,for power and greed and yes!!!! Hurt national pride!

Women are more apt to work things out then to raise a weapon in anger!

[humanbean234]

Ah, and great women they were too!

And my comment on hurt national pride was a generalisation about wars in general, please don't take my words out of context,make off hand comments and then assume because I'm a woman I'm stupid

Typical male behavior is what you've just shown and why the world is as it is!

Wars are started by men for the most part,for power and greed and yes!!!! Hurt national pride!

Women are more apt to work things out then to raise a weapon in anger!

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome back to the Battle of the Sexes!

(Relax, Dez... I'm pretty-much on your side, here.)

 

Within the past two centuries, wars have been started nearly-entirely for control of natural resources. Aside from WWI, I can't bring to mind a war that's begun over hurt national pride.

Wars are predominately started by men, due to demographic percentages of leadership, but let's consider female leaders during times of war (two examples that I can think of quickly).

 

Margaret Thatcher went to war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands without undue qualms (granted, Argentina started it by seizing those islands), proving that any national leader will pursue a casus bellum if the situation requires it. Eleanor Roosevelt made countless decisions on behalf of her husband during his extended illness during WWII, handling it quite capably.

 

I have seen that women, when dealing with difficulties on a person:person level, are indeed more apt to pursue diplomacy before force. When serving as heads of state, however, they can be just as ruthless as any male. This has nothing to do with personal characteristics of gender... this is all about the requirements of the job.

War is just diplomacy taken one step further; when national interests outweigh the prospective losses incurred from use of military force, the leader will hoist the flag for war... and it matters not what sex the leader is.

[dezdimona]

Ah, and great women they were too!

And my comment on hurt national pride was a generalisation about wars in general, please don't take my words out of context,make off hand comments and then assume because I'm a woman I'm stupid

Typical male behavior is what you've just shown and why the world is as it is!

Wars are started by men for the most part,for power and greed and yes!!!! Hurt national pride!

Women are more apt to work things out then to raise a weapon in anger!

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome back to the Battle of the Sexes!

(Relax, Dez... I'm pretty-much on your side, here.)

 

Within the past two centuries, wars have been started nearly-entirely for control of natural resources. Aside from WWI, I can't bring to mind a war that's begun over hurt national pride.

Wars are predominately started by men, due to demographic percentages of leadership, but let's consider female leaders during times of war (two examples that I can think of quickly).

 

Margaret Thatcher went to war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands without undue qualms (granted, Argentina started it by seizing those islands), proving that any national leader will pursue a casus bellum if the situation requires it. Eleanor Roosevelt made countless decisions on behalf of her husband during his extended illness during WWII, handling it quite capably.

 

I have seen that women, when dealing with difficulties on a person:person level, are indeed more apt to pursue diplomacy before force. When serving as heads of state, however, they can be just as ruthless as any male. This has nothing to do with personal characteristics of gender... this is all about the requirements of the job.

War is just diplomacy taken one step further; when national interests outweigh the prospective losses incurred from use of military force, the leader will hoist the flag for war... and it matters not what sex the leader is.

Sorry, but it just irks me when someone takes what I say out of context and then tries to make it seem like I'm a ditz.

I'm not the brightest star in the sky, but I'm nobodys fool either

 

Very well said by the way!