Turn on thread page Beta

Why does Georgia insist on provocation? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    Why do all these propagandists for sundry foreign conflicts seem to congregate on TSR? Russia, Iran, China... what influence do these people think we hold that it's so important we be converted to their side
    maybe some people just enjoy the discussion and exchanging ideas with other people. is that not what forums are for? if everyone had your outlook on life then not only would things like forums not exist but people wouldnt have many things to talk about. i imagine you dont talk to your friends about history,politics, current affairs, football etc because...what importance is it that they are 'converted to your side' and 'what significance would it hold' etc. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    There's no such thing as 'South Ossetian territory' - it isn't a sovereign state. Nor can Georgia 'invade' part of its own country.
    South Ossettia voted for independence:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6140448.stm

    The people clearly want their own country, and have expressed this point peacefully.

    That little tyrant Saakashvili then threw his toy out the pram, hence the conflict last year and recent tension.

    Georgia has no more right to be in South Ossestia than Spain has to be in Cuba.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grim_the_Reaper)
    South Ossettia voted for independence:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6140448.stm

    The people clearly want their own country, and have expressed this point peacefully.
    So? That doesn't make them an independent country, or give them any right to be an independent country.

    Georgia has no more right to be in South Ossestia than Spain has to be in Cuba.
    Cuba was a colony, not an integral part of a country. It was effectively sold by Spain - in a way that would be improper today - to the United States, which then gave it independence. The two are completely incomparable.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    So? That doesn't make them an independent country, or give them any right to be an independent country.



    Cuba was a colony, not an integral part of a country. It was effectively sold by Spain - in a way that would be improper today - to the United States, which then gave it independence. The two are completely incomparable.
    Osetia=Alania=Sarmatia.
    And Georgia soon may become Persian-Turkey colony (once again).Then the Georgians again will run to Kremlin asking to protect their wemen and national rights.
    But I think there are no needs in Georgia at alloor country which was feeded by all Soviet Union.Now Americans give them money to make provocations.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul PTS)
    Osetia=Alania=Sarmatia.
    And Georgia soon may become Persian-Turkey colony (once again).Then the Georgians again will run to Kremlin asking to protect their wemen and national rights.
    If any foreign country invades Georgia, then the international community should utterly condemn and ostracise them. Indeed, military aid should be provided - although obviously we won't do that against Russia.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul PTS)
    Osetia=Alania=Sarmatia.
    And Georgia soon may become Persian-Turkey colony (once again).Then the Georgians again will run to Kremlin asking to protect their wemen and national rights.
    But I think there are no needs in Georgia at alloor country which was feeded by all Soviet Union.Now Americans give them money to make provocations.
    yeah the Georgian government needs to read up on their countries history.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    If any foreign country invades Georgia, then the international community should utterly condemn and ostracise them. Indeed, military aid should be provided - although obviously we won't do that against Russia.
    In reality we don't need Georgia.Nor gas, nor oil, but 90 % of Russian criminal chiefs are Georgians.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul PTS)
    In reality we don't need Georgia.Nor gas, nor oil, but 90 % of Russian criminal chiefs are Georgians.
    countries like Georgia are nothing without Russia. we should put some sort of total economic embargo on them and prevent them from sending back any of the money their citizens earn in Russia back to Georgia. well see how much they hate Russia then when they have no one to sell their wines and oranges.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abrp)
    countries like Georgia are nothing without Russia. we should put some sort of total economic embargo on them and prevent them from sending back any of the money their citizens earn in Russia back to Georgia. well see how much they hate Russia then when they have no one to sell their wines and oranges.
    USA-Mexico relations are very similar.

    Illegal & legal Mexican immigrants send money back in the millions of US dollars, which supports the unstable Mexican economy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    So? That doesn't make them an independent country, or give them any right to be an independent country.
    Erm...Yes it does. South Ossetia does not want to be part of Georgia, and with Saakashvilli's tyrannical rule who can blame them? They voted for independence, and what right does Georgia have to stop them? Would you say Georgia wanting independence from the USSR was also wrong?


    (Original post by L i b)
    Cuba was a colony, not an integral part of a country. It was effectively sold by Spain - in a way that would be improper today - to the United States, which then gave it independence. The two are completely incomparable.
    Spain was hellbent on keeping Cuba. Spain didn't want Cuba to be independent any less than Georgia doesn't want South Ossetia to be independent.

    Both Cuba and South Ossetia wanted/want to be free from the oppressive rule from a foreign country so they seem very alike in my view.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    So Lib, what are your views on issues like Kosovo?
    I think while in general seccesionist movements aren't good things, we need to find the line between people pointlessly wanting to be part of a different country (your London borough defecting to the Soviet Union example) and a country ruling over a people who do not consider themselves part of it, do not wish to be under it, and are only ruled by that country because of arbitrary decisions made in the recent past.

    And in this case, I think the people of South Ossetia have good reason to no longer be part of Georgia, and their wishes should be respected.

    And either way, NATO is being hypocritical by supporting Kosovo's right to leave Serbia, while denying South Ossetia's right to leave Georgia.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Octopus)
    So Lib, what are your views on issues like Kosovo?
    I think while in general seccesionist movements aren't good things, we need to find the line between people pointlessly wanting to be part of a different country (your London borough defecting to the Soviet Union example) and a country ruling over a people who do not consider themselves part of it, do not wish to be under it, and are only ruled by that country because of arbitrary decisions made in the recent past.

    And in this case, I think the people of South Ossetia have good reason to no longer be part of Georgia, and their wishes should be respected.

    And either way, NATO is being hypocritical by supporting Kosovo's right to leave Serbia, while denying South Ossetia's right to leave Georgia.
    It really has to do with proximity to the EU.

    Most Europeans never heard of South Ossetia before the summer conflict.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grim_the_Reaper)
    Erm...Yes it does. South Ossetia does not want to be part of Georgia, and with Saakashvilli's tyrannical rule who can blame them? They voted for independence, and what right does Georgia have to stop them? Would you say Georgia wanting independence from the USSR was also wrong?
    No, it doesn't. What on earth makes you think it does?

    Regardless of whether SO does not want to be part of Georgia, it is. What right does the Georgian government have to stop them? The right of being the state and holding the legitimate monopoly of force over that territory.

    As for the USSR - yes, it was wrong. Georgia unilaterally declared independence. It was not recognised by the USSR or any other country. Georgia continued to be part of the Soviet Union until it collapsed and disappeared. Georgia did not take independence, it had independence thrust upon it by the disappearance of the central government.

    Spain was hellbent on keeping Cuba. Spain didn't want Cuba to be independent any less than Georgia doesn't want South Ossetia to be independent.
    Funny how they flogged it to the Yanks then, eh?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    No, it doesn't. What on earth makes you think it does?

    Regardless of whether SO does not want to be part of Georgia, it is. What right does the Georgian government have to stop them? The right of being the state and holding the legitimate monopoly of force over that territory.
    Sorry but why should South Ossetia have to live under a government which oppresses their culture and language? It's like saying Finland should've put up with Russification and the destruction of their culture during the rule of the Tsars.

    (Original post by L i b)
    Funny how they flogged it to the Yanks then, eh?
    Only after they got seven shades kicked out of them in 1898. Prior to that Spain was sending thousands of troops to Cuba, and even resorted to concentration camps to suppress the rebellion. They only sold Cuba when it was clear they were no match for the USA.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Octopus)
    So Lib, what are your views on issues like Kosovo?
    Strongly opposed. If a country descends into extreme authoritarianism, then perhaps as a last resort it should be considered as simply a way of destabilising the government. Nationalist secession movements are always uniformly wrong in my estimation.

    I think while in general seccesionist movements aren't good things, we need to find the line between people pointlessly wanting to be part of a different country (your London borough defecting to the Soviet Union example) and a country ruling over a people who do not consider themselves part of it, do not wish to be under it, and are only ruled by that country because of arbitrary decisions made in the recent past.
    In both cases, the preferences seem entirely arbitrary to me.

    And in this case, I think the people of South Ossetia have good reason to no longer be part of Georgia, and their wishes should be respected.
    Every secessionist movement has its own hard-luck stories to tell. You should hear some of the lunatic fringes of Scottish nationalism, who moan ad nauseum about oppression by the evil English. All entirely invented, of course, but I'm sure foreigners would love it just as the Americans took to the IRA a few decades ago.

    And either way, NATO is being hypocritical by supporting Kosovo's right to leave Serbia, while denying South Ossetia's right to leave Georgia.
    Indeed, but two wrongs do not make a right.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grim_the_Reaper)
    Sorry but why should South Ossetia have to live under a government which oppresses their culture and language? It's like saying Finland should've put up with Russification and the destruction of their culture during the rule of the Tsars.
    Cultural oppression is something which tends to follow nationalist and secessionist tendencies rather than create them. Which is really rather to be expected: if you have a seditious community within your borders, then breaking up that community and its opposition is the fairly obvious response that the the state will take. Still, it remains the fault of nationalism, not a justification for it.

    Cultures can certainly live together harmoniously, and the various ethnic groups of Georgia have a history of doing so. Nationalism creates problems rather than solving them.

    As for 'why should' - it's not a question of justification. It is sovereign Georgian territory: it is, as such, the Georgian state who arbitrates on these matters. No-one else.

    Only after they got seven shades kicked out of them in 1898. Prior to that Spain was sending thousands of troops to Cuba, and even resorted to concentration camps to suppress the rebellion. They only sold Cuba when it was clear they were no match for the USA.
    Well then, it was disposed of legitimately. If you're asking me whether I think were nationalist rebels in Cuba were justified in attacking Spanish interests - no.

    As for 'resorting to concentration camps' - that's rather loaded terminology. Not all concentration camps were death camps in the Nazi style to which we now associate the term. Indeed, the term was only born later during the Boer War to describe British camps.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    So do you just want to preserve the Status Quo in any international situation? Even in hypothetical cases where the entire population of the seceding state would be better of ruling themselves?

    I dislike nationalism as much as anyone, but in terms of simply improving people's quality of life, sometimes we have to accept that more people would be better off, if they were part of a new state.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    As for 'why should' - it's not a question of justification. It is sovereign Georgian territory: it is, as such, the Georgian state who arbitrates on these matters. No-one else.
    And South Ossetia is not Georgian. Therefore if South Ossetia wants to be independent then Georgia has no right to interfere. If Saakashvilli doesn't like this then tough luck, he should get back to oppressing his own people and leave the South Ossetians be.

    (Original post by L i b)
    Well then, it was disposed of legitimately. If you're asking me whether I think were nationalist rebels in Cuba were justified in attacking Spanish interests - no.
    Even though the Cuban rebels intended to create a free, democratic Cuba free of oppressive Spanish colonial rule? I take it you believe the Americans had no justification in rebelling against Britain in 1776?

    (Original post by L i b)
    As for 'resorting to concentration camps' - that's rather loaded terminology. Not all concentration camps were death camps in the Nazi style to which we now associate the term. Indeed, the term was only born later during the Boer War to describe British camps.
    The policy was dubbed 'reconcentration' and led to thousands of Cuban civilians starving to death. It provoked an international outcry. It was no different from the Nazi camps. Were the Cuban rebels unjustified to resist that?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Cultural oppression is something which tends to follow nationalist and secessionist tendencies rather than create them. Which is really rather to be expected: if you have a seditious community within your borders, then breaking up that community and its opposition is the fairly obvious response that the the state will take. Still, it remains the fault of nationalism, not a justification for it.

    Cultures can certainly live together harmoniously, and the various ethnic groups of Georgia have a history of doing so. Nationalism creates problems rather than solving them.

    As for 'why should' - it's not a question of justification. It is sovereign Georgian territory: it is, as such, the Georgian state who arbitrates on these matters. No-one else.



    Well then, it was disposed of legitimately. If you're asking me whether I think were nationalist rebels in Cuba were justified in attacking Spanish interests - no.

    As for 'resorting to concentration camps' - that's rather loaded terminology. Not all concentration camps were death camps in the Nazi style to which we now associate the term. Indeed, the term was only born later during the Boer War to describe British camps.
    So the United States should not help Taiwan (which it has hinted at), if the Chinese army chooses to let's say "invade"?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grim_the_Reaper)
    And South Ossetia is not Georgian. Therefore if South Ossetia wants to be independent then Georgia has no right to interfere. If Saakashvilli doesn't like this then tough luck, he should get back to oppressing his own people and leave the South Ossetians be.
    Legally, practically and morally, it most certainly is Georgian. The only people who'll say otherwise are the Russian Government, and frankly they're a bit barmy, not to mention completely self-contradictory.

    Even though the Cuban rebels intended to create a free, democratic Cuba free of oppressive Spanish colonial rule? I take it you believe the Americans had no justification in rebelling against Britain in 1776?
    As I've said, in colonial possessions the matter is different. The colonies in the Americas were never part of Britain, yet were subjected to its laws. To overthrow the colonial governments of the time necessitated the overthrow of the British government by proxy. That is a far more convoluted situation. However with the proviso that the situations are incomparable - and I realise I'm playing right into your 'argue by false analogy' hands here - I do not believe the American colonies were justified in their revolution. Nor did the British government, of course, who fought them in a bloody war.

    The policy was dubbed 'reconcentration' and led to thousands of Cuban civilians starving to death. It provoked an international outcry. It was no different from the Nazi camps. Were the Cuban rebels unjustified to resist that?
    Let's get this out of the way: what a state does, it should be judged upon. Not the ethnic group or whatever other attributes it is assumed to have. That a state is oppressive to its people does not justify nationalism. As I said before, state oppression rarely creates nationalism, but is rather a response to seditious uprisings. This would certainly seem to be the case in Cuba.

    (Original post by UGeNe)
    So the United States should not help Taiwan (which it has hinted at), if the Chinese army chooses to let's say "invade"?
    I don't at all like the People's Republic of China, but I have no moral objections to them attempting to control the entire territory of China. It is hardly immoral for them to attack the Republic of China government - who of course claim exactly what the PR China government do: that China is one state, and that they are the legitimate government of it.

    However it must be remembered that I believe that the Republic of China has the more legitimate claim to China, being that it was the lawful state overthrown by illegal and violent means.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,237

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.