Are you suggesting that I have made such a claim? If you are you are wrong.
Do you disagree with the EU Commissioned Report here:
“21.) When considering the legality of Russian military force against Georgia, the answer needs to be differentiated. The Russian reaction to the Georgian attack can be divided into two phases: first, the immediate reaction in order to defend Russian peacekeepers, and second, the invasion of Georgia by Russian armed forces reaching far beyond the administrative boundary of South Ossetia.”
Do you agree with the EU Commission finding that the immediate reaction by Russia under President Medvedev to defend Russian peacekeepers was legal?
Here is a another quote from the EU Commission report on the legality Medvedev’s decision to send the Russian Army into Georgian territory:
"In the first instance, there seems to be little doubt that if the Russian peacekeepers were attacked, Russia had the right to defend them using military means proportionate to the attack. Hence the Russian use of force for defensive purposes during the first phase of the conflict would be legal.
Do you agree or disagree with both of those statements?
Have you ever heard of temporary insanity? In both cases that you’ve mentioned, a nation’s leader **‘decided’ to attack **human beings with heavy and disproportionate use of military force at a time when no one in the attacked territory and heavily populated areas were a threat to the ‘attacking’ nation.
I certainly see no ‘lick’ of ‘sanity’ in purposely and deliberately ordering a massive military attack on innocent human beings that were doing nothing that could possibly justify indiscriminately killing, wounding and destroying their personal property and lives.
You must think both leaders made a ‘sane’ decision then? Is that right?
See 2258 and you may begin to see the distinction. I’d like you and the others to commit to whether you and they agree with the EU Commission that, “The Russian reaction to the Georgian attack can be divided into two phases”.
Reasonable based on sensible, reasonable, or rational thinking.
Got it. Human Action is on the quibbling kick again. He objects to my viewpoint that both Bush and Sakaashvili’s decisions to use the massive use of military force on populated areas that were no threat or engaged in any hostile act were deliberate decisions NOT based on sensible, reasonable, or rational thinking.
It’s that or consult tea leaves or sheep’s knuckles. Your actual posts have, at best, a vague, temporary, commonality with your points.
I remain bewildered by the difference you see between “invading Georgia” and “sending the army in Georgia”, if it’s not the idea that the latter precludes self-defense.
There was a threat to Georgia: persistent artillery, small arms, and IED attacks, combined with Russian military aircraft violating their airspace. The invasion was a rational response to the attacks, if an illegal, and poorly thought out one. Also, the target wasn’t civilians, though civilians were killed, the target was South Ossetian militia:
There wasn’t a threat to the United States, but, as I’ve argued with you before, just enough evidence to make a case that there was, if evidence to the contrary was marginalized or ignored - which is confirmation bias, not insanity.
Did the ‘event’ of the 09/11/01 immediately increase the popularity of George W. Bush? Or did Americans wait until Bush sent the US Military to ‘defensively’ invade Afghanistan before they decided to rally behind and fully support the President?
On 04-04-2014 at 05:34 AM I posted a part of the EU Commission report that included this:
{"In the first instance, there seems to be little doubt that if the Russian peacekeepers were attacked, Russia had the right to defend them using military means proportionate to the attack. Hence the Russian use of force for defensive purposes during the first phase of the conflict would be legal.
On the second item, it must be ascertained whether the subsequent Russian military campaign deeper into Georgia was necessary and proportionate in terms of defensive action against the initial Georgian attack. Although it should be admitted that it is not easy to decide where the line must be drawn, it seems, however, that much of the Russian military action went far beyond the reasonable limits of defence."}
It should be noted that so many here seem to know exactly where ‘the line must be drawn’. I refuse to criticize the Russian public upon learning that their soldiers had been viciously attacked and some killed, when they approve that the ‘line should be drawn’ much farther into Georgia that those living in western countries think the line for Russian restraint should have been drawn.
So, basically you are down to a semantic issue with the wording. Good grief, that’s really lame. So, putting this into the perspective of what originally kicked off this whole ridiculous series of antics on your part, your actual problem with that opinion piece I posted was with the wording of one word in one sentence, and this, in your opinion, rendered the entire thing ‘obviously so biased against Russia its worthless’? There really aren’t enough to show how silly your contortions are. Of course, you COULD have started off this side discussion by stating, clearly (for a change) that your actual issue was with the word ‘invasion’, and that by saying ‘invasion’ instead of whatever your contorted logic is for one country invading another, regardless of the pretext (‘dynamic defense’? ‘retaliatory and patriotic movement into the country and territory of the vicious attackers’?)…but it would be too much to ask for you to be clear, concise and attempt to actually debate in good faith, wouldn’t it?
Unsurprisingly, you have completely missed the point of the portion of the article you are criticizing. It is in no way a criticism of the Russian public, or even Putin. Rather, it is the observation that previous military action worked to Putin (and his crony Medvedev)'s benefit, coupled with a prediction that this one would not, and a discussion of why that would be the case (that is, the difference between then and now).
This post just needs a conga line behind it to be a cheesy Hollywood Musical. Because, as we all know, the US of A was clearly transparent in their Iraq invasion. And YES it’s obviously going to come up again and again. What’s that you you say? Ignore the hypocrisy? Hmmm…not going to happen, my dear CA disaffiliate. Not in a thousand years.
You must be one funny guy, XT – amongst family and close friends.
On 03-28-2014 at 03:34 PM **XT complained **that past U.S. transgressions should have NOTHING to do with the Crimea situation and debate:
And then three days later on 03-31-2014 at 05:53 PM **XT posts a CNN opinion **that falsely claims that Russia 'STARTED" three wars in the past “to solve domestic problems” and then brings up the “HITLER” refrain against the ‘war-starting’ Putin.
In the midst of the past couple dozen posts anyone can see that XT and his chums admit that the 2008 war was NOT STARTED by Putin or Medvedev according to the EU Commission that investigated which side started the five day war amid the Olympic games. And more importantly Russia was found by that commission to be legally justified in defending Russia Troops who were sitting ducks to Georgia’s murderous ‘massive artillery assault’ on Tskhinvali civilians on the night of August 7, 2008.
It’s a clear cut case where XT says we can’t bring up US/UK transgressions of the past but it’s quite alright to post opinions that go back further to bring up actually phony easily debunked opinions about Putin/Russia’s **WAR-STARTING **past.
The war was not started by Putin. I don’t think anyone here has argued against that. What we argue about is the proportionality of Russia’s response. Read your favourite Commission report and you’ll see that Russia’s invasion was not proportional, and thus illegal.
to show how silly your contortions are. Of course, you COULD have started off this side discussion by stating, clearly (for a change) that your actual issue was with the word ‘invasion’, and that by saying ‘invasion’ instead of whatever your contorted logic is for one country invading another, regardless of the pretext (‘dynamic defense’? ‘retaliatory and patriotic movement into the country and territory of the vicious attackers’?)…but it would be too much to ask for you to be clear, concise and attempt to actually debate in good faith, wouldn’t it?