Bush Visits Georgia

[mollag]

He reckons the reports are way out, he travelled all through Atlanta and saw no Russian tanks at all.

[Blixo]

He reckons the reports are way out, he travelled all through Atlanta and saw no Russian tanks at all.

 

I wish the worst cancer on him and his cock head government

 

 

This whole Georgia thing is one big setup

 

questions

 

1, why did the US/NATO partake in a huge military build-up of Geogian forces before the event

 

2, What the f*%k are 1000 Israeli 'advisors' doing there? - anything to do with Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan-Ashkelon Pipeline?

[germann]

You've just got to love the double standards at play here:

 

Think back to a very similar situation 9 years ago

 

For ethnic Russians- read ethnic Albanians

For Ossetia-Kosovo

For Georgia-Serbia

 

The only major difference is that Russia, unlike Albania had the power to come to the aid of its people in a breakaway province.

 

And as for Saakashvili.. The sooner the FSB send in a hitman, the better.

[manshimajin]

The only major difference is that Russia, unlike Albania had the power to come to the aid of its people in a breakaway province.

 

See the Russians continue to talk with forked tongue...

 

Russian Troops Still In Georgia

 

Maybe there is a way to get them out though....

 

Create a small dissident group of Chelsea supporters; offer them lifetime membership of Arsenal; encourage the 'Arsenal' Chelsea supporters to occupy the Shed End; when Chelsea try to expel them get Arsenal to invade Stamford Bridge to protect 'the Arsenal minority'; Arsenal occupy half of Stamford Bridge; get President Sarkozy to negotiate an Arsenal withdrawal; allow Arsenal to leave 'peacekeepers' behind; reinforce 'peacekeepers'; 'peacekeepers' take control of all Chelsea turnstiles and refuse admission to Chelsea supporters; Arsenal organise removal of Abramovitch and seizure of Chelsea assets; Abramovitch flees to Moscow; let it be known he can have Chelsea back if Saakashvili can have Georgia back; Abramovitch in desperation talks to his mate Vlad Putin; VP in deference to Abramovitch's oil wealth withdraws all Russian troops from Georgia; Arsenal retain presence in Shed End and incorporate it into the Emirate's Stadium.

 

This seems the Russian way of doing business.

[mollag]

Its called the Kosovo method as developed and tested by the West. [oh, its just for the west no nasty rusks may use it]

 

 

 

Gorra say when i look to Bush/McCain then to Putin and sincerely ask which one scares me the most, it has to be Bush.

[Chinahand]

Russia will recognise break away regions.

 

This is interesting as its so against Russia's interests. Previously they'd always maintained a policy of defending National Soverignty. They have too many break away regions, disaproved of Kosovo etc.

 

Now they are basically throwing that policy all away.

 

To hear Medvedev going on about self determination is just fascinating. Unfortunately he'll probably be eating his words whenever the situation changes, but at the moment I'm intrigued.

 

The major issue for Georgia and its western allies is what to do when people do peacefully vote for sessession [not that is what has happened yet in Georgia, but more than likely a majority would so vote], I pretty much agree with Medvedev's current words - self determination should be respected.

 

But country's inability to accept that has been the major cause of conflict over the last few years in Yugoslavia, Serbia, Chetchenia, Georgia, Tibet, Xinjiang etc etc.

 

Lets hope Taiwan doesn't cause a nuclear exchange - or Kashmir which has blown up again recently.

[mollag]

This is politics in its essential, we stamp our collective feet over Georgia hoping no one thinks to mention the Kosovo/Iraq/ Afghanistan word, no WMD please-we dont talk about that anymore. Five years in Iraq, longer than the 2nd world war but then again French, English and Usa troops still occupy Germany.

We speak to Medvedev from the moral lowground

[Skeddan]

The major issue for Georgia and its western allies is what to do when people do peacefully vote for sessession [not that is what has happened yet in Georgia, but more than likely a majority would so vote], I pretty much agree with Medvedev's current words - self determination should be respected.

 

The question though is when the right to self-determination may be used to acheive secession - i.e. the right to unilateral secession regardless of 'territorial integrity'. There is an excellent paper on the topic of unilateral secession by Prof. James Crawford (one of the most highly respected people in the field of international law). This covers...

 

... modern state practice in respect of unilateral secession and the right of self-determination. This report summarises that practice. It is based on an extensive review of published sources, agreements and other documents to which reference is made below. I believe it to be a fair, full and accurate account of modern state practice in relation to these matters..."

 

A copy of it is online here: http://www.tamilnation.org/selfdetermination/97crawford.htm

 

A key section of this is as follows:

 

Outside the colonial context, the United Nations is extremely reluctant to admit a seceding entity to membership against the wishes of the government of the state from which it has purported to secede. ....where the government of the state concerned has maintained its opposition to an attempted unilateral secession, such secession has in modern practice attracted virtually no international support or recognition.

 

(b) This pattern is reflected in the so-called "safeguard" clause to the Friendly Relations Declaration of 1970, as restated by the 1993 Declaration of the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights. In accordance with this formula, a state whose government represents the whole people of its territory on a basis of equality complies with the principle of self-determination in respect of all of its people and is entitled to the protection of its territorial integrity. The people of such a state exercise the right of self-determination through their participation in the governmental system of the state on a basis of equality.

 

© But the inhibitions on international recognition of unilateral secession movements go further, and are even stronger than the "safeguard clause" in the 1970 and 1993 Declarations imply. If the 1970/1993 proviso is taken to mean that unilateral secession is permissible where the government is constituted on a discriminatory basis, it is doubtful whether the proviso reflects international practice. But however this may be, a state which is governed democratically and respects the human rights of all its people is entitled to respect for its territorial integrity.

 

Crawford's Report was produced in 1997, so things have moved on. With Kosovo, it appears that the right of unilateral secession per 1970/1993 Declarations was established and recognised - i.e. where the government is constituted on a discriminatory basis, and since then this proviso now reflects international practice.

 

As I understand it, that was the argument for Kosovo. However it is a slippery slope - where does one draw the line for when there is a right of unilateral secession under the 1970/1993 proviso ? Tibet? The Georgian break-aways? Chechnya? Sri Lanka? Kurds? Quebec? Brittany? Cornwall? Who decides when unilateral secession is justified or not? Is it a free-for all? Is it up to individual states to recognise whoever they chose to think is justified in breaking away? Obviously this gives room for a lot of conflict. (Remember the Sudetenland)

 

Kosovo did seem to be a departure from accepted 'state practice' in international law, and had this secession not occured, then perhaps the situation in Georgia wouldn't have developed as it did. It shouldn't have been too hard to see that Kosovo's independence could have a destablising effect by encouraging unilateral secession, and further disputes and conflicts:

 

Interesting whether Kosovo's independence might have contributed to unrest in Tibet and may prove to be de-stabilising elsewhere - e.g. it might encourage Chechnyans etc.

 

The likely effect of this 'new practice' is that this is now probably less 'rule based' and more on the basis of power and might, making the world a more dangerous place. i.e. Russia says ok for South Ossetia to unilaterally secceed, but not ok for Chechnya - and this is based on 'Bush rules of international law'. (We're prepared to go to war with anyone who wants to disagree with us and settle the dispute over whose right that way). Russia is just pushing itself to have the same 'prerogative' to decide things as it sees fit by 'challenge of right' without regard to international law as the US has claimed for itself - i.e. a superpower governed by the rule of war rather than rule of law. (Er - just like the German policy which led to WWII).

[thesultanofsheight]

I'm sure he's such a fucktard that he thinks the Russians have invaded Georgia - USA. I'm convinced he thinks that tanks are currently rolling through Atlanta killing bango playing rednecks.

[manshimajin]

This is politics in its essential, we stamp our collective feet over Georgia hoping no one thinks to mention the Kosovo/Iraq/ Afghanistan word, no WMD please-we dont talk about that anymore. Five years in Iraq, longer than the 2nd world war but then again French, English and Usa troops still occupy Germany.

We speak to Medvedev from the moral lowground

 

Moral low ground or moral high ground does not alter the fact that Medvedev and his boss Putin have been provoking a situation in Georgia in order to try and claw back bits of the USSR that were lost when the Soviet Union imploded. They are playing a very dangerous and immature game with horrendous implications for Europe. By doing this they clearly demonstrate that they are more stupid than George Bush as they have failed to learn from his mistakes! they are also indiating that the Russian Government has no understanding of how to negotiate other than by waving big sticks.

 

I'm sure he's such a fucktard that he thinks the Russians have invaded Georgia - USA. I'm convinced he thinks that tanks are currently rolling through Atlanta killing bango playing rednecks.

 

I suspect you are suffering from some sort of delusion syndrome. Whatever else one thinks of Dubya you simply don't get to be President of the USA, speak excellent Spanish and be capable of flying jet aircraft without a reasonable level of intelligence. Giving a demonstatation of the behaviour one is trying to condemn in another person does not exactly build a credible argument.

[mollag]

Moral low ground or moral high ground does not alter the fact that Medvedev and his boss Putin have been provoking a situation in Georgia in order to try and claw back bits of the USSR that were lost when the Soviet Union imploded. They are playing a very dangerous and immature game with horrendous implications for Europe. By doing this they clearly demonstrate that they are more stupid than George Bush as they have failed to learn from his mistakes! they are also indiating that the Russian Government has no understanding of how to negotiate other than by waving big sticks.

 

This is absolutly correct except it reads like its fine for us to to provoke a situation ie Iraq but not Russia, its ok for us to stamp over a countries border integrity ie Serbia but not Russia Why is this? other than blind nationalism i cant see the difference. Learn fro Bush's mistakes? he set precedences that others can justifiably copy.

[Skeddan]

mollag - I agree with you 100%. The concern with this is these precedents are now becoming the 'norm' of how international relations are governed, and that this is replacing rules of international law i.e. 'Might is Right' is now (once again) becoming an acceptable override to the rule of law. It goes against UN principles - which were established to avoid the devastation and conflicts which invariable follow when this is how states conduct themselves.

 

Not good.

 

The specialty of rule hath been neglected:

..hark, what discord follows!

 

What plagues and what portents! what mutiny!

.. frights, changes, horrors,

Divert and crack, rend and deracinate

The unity and married calm of states

 

Strength should be lord of imbecility,

Force should be right; or rather, right and wrong,

Between whose endless jar justice resides,

Should lose their names, and so should justice too.

Then every thing includes itself in power,

Power into will, will into appetite;

And appetite, an universal wolf,

So doubly seconded with will and power,

Must make perforce an universal prey

[mollag]

mollag - I agree with you 100%. The concern with this is these precedents are now becoming the 'norm' of how international relations are governed, and that this is replacing rules of international law i.e. 'Might is Right' is now (once again) becoming an acceptable override to the rule of law. It goes against UN principles - which were established to avoid the devastation and conflicts which invariable follow when this is how states conduct themselves.

 

Not good.

 

The specialty of rule hath been neglected:

..hark, what discord follows!

 

What plagues and what portents! what mutiny!

.. frights, changes, horrors,

Divert and crack, rend and deracinate

The unity and married calm of states

 

Strength should be lord of imbecility,

 

 

 

Force should be right; or rather, right and wrong,

Between whose endless jar justice resides,

Should lose their names, and so should justice too.

Then every thing includes itself in power,

Power into will, will into appetite;

And appetite, an universal wolf,

So doubly seconded with will and power,

Must make perforce an universal prey

Amen to that----I think it's time for the West to take a step back and look at what we have become.

 

[sorry made a hosses of that]

[manshimajin]

This is absolutly correct except it reads like its fine for us to to provoke a situation ie Iraq but not Russia, its ok for us to stamp over a countries border integrity ie Serbia but not Russia Why is this? other than blind nationalism i cant see the difference. Learn fro Bush's mistakes? he set precedences that others can justifiably copy.

 

mollag - I agree with you 100%. The concern with this is these precedents are now becoming the 'norm' of how international relations are governed, and that this is replacing rules of international law i.e. 'Might is Right' is now (once again) becoming an acceptable override to the rule of law. It goes against UN principles - which were established to avoid the devastation and conflicts which invariable follow when this is how states conduct themselves.

 

Not good.

 

You appear to be arguing that, thanks to George Bush, two wrongs make a right. In no way would I seek to justify Iraq - Saddam was a fine bloke and the Iraqis should have been allowed to resolve their own future.

 

But why would this mean that as private individuals we are not allowed to condemn the behaviour of the Russians in de-stabilising an area over the past few years for their own gain - or from being concerned that to recreate the Soviet Empire they are trying to do the same in Estonia, Latvia, Moldova, Chechnya, Armenia and the Ukraine? Does UK and US action in Iraq justify the way the Russians have behaved in the Caucasus and in the Baltic region over the past 5 years? Does it justify the way the USSR destabilised Afghanistan? Personally I don't think so. Their behaviour is just as bad as the Americans and the British and should be criticised in the same way.

[Skeddan]

It's not the same as two wrongs make a right. I agree that US, UK and Russia should be condemned and criticised for disregarding international law when it suits them and having no justification for this other than power. What I was observing is that this is fast becoming a 'norm' and the 'specialty of rule' is neglected in favour of a situation where those powerful enough assume for themselves the right to ignore this. That said, isn't this just Russia challenging US dominance and staking it's claim to still be a superpower by also claiming this 'power priviledge' for itself?

 

It doesn't make it right. Rather it leads to a very dangerous situation where 'lawlessness' is supposedly ok for the powerful - and where power is used to resolve disputes.

 

The collapse of the Soviet Union left a void where US supremacy could be asserted (i.e. it takes on this 'priviledge' of being above the law by virtue of power and strength) - this could be done without too much danger of opposition provided the US don't get too close to home with China. Now Russia is saying it's a player again. With this either the US-UK has to back down and rule of law re-established (which is difficult) or, inevitably there will be friction. Sooner or later that will ignite into serious conflict. Meanwhile we are probably entering the second cold war (which could get very cold for us if Russia shuts off our gas this winter).

 

I take it you're being sarcastic about Saddam Hussein. IMO he should have been removed. I also think Mugabe should be removed. But I think there first has to be a clear process of 'impeachment' which is accepted in international law and which can be applied without such action being used as a pretext for self interest. If not, then it is a free for all - and becomes dangerous. (I also think grounds for impeachment shouldn't just be genocide or even 'acts of genocide', but broader crimes against humanity).