Yes, it’s the ‘liberal’ media that would focus on the indiscretions of a Democrat to the exclusion of a potentially major foreign war. Some people must have a very odd definition of the word ‘liberal’.
(OK, nothing against you. It’s just that I’m sick of the media being portrayed as liberal whether they act liberal or not.)
That came across as the complete opposite of what I was trying to say. I’m trying to say that it isn’t some ‘liberal media’ that is acting retarded in the stories they decide to obsess over, but all media, whether liberal or conservative, who decide that an affair takes precedence over a potentially major foreign war.
Is that making any sense? I feel like I’m not clearly making my point.
I’m glad I ordered a case of 7.62x39 ammunition last month, because this will probably make the prices go up.
Good questions and I’d add one more: How does the current political situation in Moscow affect the decision to invade Georgia (and vice versa)?
Apparently this military action was prompted by a couple of recent diplomatic events that Russia didn’t like.
One was Kosovo’s recent secession from Serbia. Russia has generally supported Serbia and doesn’t like that so many western countries recognized Kosovar independence. They specifically linked recognition of Kosovar indpendence at the time with the possibility of their recognizing South Ossitian independence from Georgia.
The second was a recent announcement that Georgia is being considered for possible future membership in NATO. Obviously this would greatly raise the stakes of a Russian invasion. So they may have decided to do it now before any formal treaty obligation is created.
OK, you’re making sense now. It was just the incongruity of the phrase ‘liberal media’ in context (focusing on Edwards while ignoring South Ossetia) where a much more apt phrase would be ‘conservative media’ or simply ‘dumbass media’.
The fact that it was the Georgians who initiated the hostilities (or escalated them to their current level, which ever nuance you prefer) just doesn’t get much play with you folks, does it? :dubious:
I have no dog in this fight. I don’t really know if South Ossetia has a legitimate claim to independence or if Georgia has a legitimate claim to keeping South Ossetia. But I’m pretty sure the issue should be resolved by Georgia and South Ossetia without Russian tanks stepping in to express their opinion.
I just want to know…why? Why, Georgia, why?
Care to mention here just why Georgia is not allowed to put down rebels in their own country without getting invaded?
In fairness, NATO is marching relentlessly eastward. If you look at a map of Russia, the major population and industrial centers are in the European part of the country. The buffer zone is out where the Chinese might invade.
You are the one who made the conjecture that
The Russians didn’t “decide” to do anything, as it was the GEORGIANS who chose to launch the massive attack this morning.
I know…it’s like a teardrop on the fire.
Sometimes I feel like giving up on the whole world peace idea and just work on getting people not to start new wars before finishing the previous ones.
Against rebels in Georgia. What’s Russia got to do with it? Is South Ossetia the Sudeten in disguise?
You can read the BBC website or Wikipedia just as well as I can, I see no need for me to copy and paste it here. I was addressing a very specific comment by Little Nemo.
Yes, he mentioned that Russia might be invading before Georgia becomes a member of NATO. To which your defence is that Georgia started it. So, at what point did Georgia invade Russia?
Guess we don’t know which godless commie bastiges to cheer for… 
I found myself struggling a little bit, in my role as a copy editor, to write a headline for this story so that people wouldn’t think that hordes of MiGs were flying over Atlanta (and wouldn’t subsequently wonder why we tucked such a huge story away on an inside page). Eventually, I just substituted “country” for “Georgia.”
I see on Wikipedia that the country’s native name is Sakartvelo. It would be nice if the media gravitated toward that so as to cut down on confusion.
God-damn, the Russians are comin’! I better git me some more of them MRE’s, and head over to the gun store! I never did trust that bastard Gorbachev, not with that forehead. The Russians are comin’! The Russians are–
Oh, wait, Sakartvelo. Well, that’s certainly a most regrettable turn of events.
It seems to me that South Ossetia had been de facto independent for the last 16 years, and it was a compromise that had something to offer to everyone. Georgia could pretend that South Ossetia is a part of their country, while the Ossetians could basically enjoy independence (or place themselves in Russia’s sphere of influence, whichever’s best for them). It was the same as with any other unrecognized but (relatively) stable state currently in existence. The Georgian government knew that if they tried to reassert their control over the region, they would elicit a response from Russia, especially with Russia having granted citizenship to a large number of Ossetians. So I’m not entirely sure why Georgia decided that they had to do this, now. What I’ve heard is that president Saakashvili had been elected with the platform to reassert control over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and for some reason he thought that now was the time.