Following their liberation by the magnanimous Russian imperial armed forces, South Ossetians have chosen to celebrate their newfound 'freedom' by engaging a series of ethnic cleansing parties.
Human Rights Watch (obviously a huge fan of the Bush administration's great respect for the rule of law) has reported that its researchers have personally observed South Ossetians burning ethnic Georgian villages, 'massive looting' by Ossetian militias in Russian occupied territory, to say nothing of liberating 'Russian tanks systematically firing into the homes.'
Additionally: "Human Rights Watch researchers spoke with several members of the Ossetian militias who openly admitted that the houses were being burned by their associates, explaining that the objective was to ensure that ethnic Georgians would not have the houses to return to."
My initial reaction is to deplore this ethnic cleansing. But rest that if the Bush administration condemns these actions, I will retract my criticism and give these freedom parties my seal of approval!
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
The gaffes of St. John
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
I was amused to read somewhere that as soon as Sen. Barack Obama announced Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, the GOP unveiled a Biden 'gaffe-meter.' This is from the party whose own standard bearer has made a current reference to a country that dissolved 15 years ago, doesn't know who is the president of the world's largest and one of its most dangerous countries and is going to sell us an Iraq strategy (well, at least empty slogans portrayed as a strategy) without knowing the difference between Sunnis and Shias.
But I guess you can't say anything about any of Saint John's gaffes on serious questions for fear of being accused of ageism and of smearing a former POW... (checks The Script) I mean, war hero... (remembers John Kerry) I mean, REPUBLICAN war hero.
I was amused to read somewhere that as soon as Sen. Barack Obama announced Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, the GOP unveiled a Biden 'gaffe-meter.' This is from the party whose own standard bearer has made a current reference to a country that dissolved 15 years ago, doesn't know who is the president of the world's largest and one of its most dangerous countries and is going to sell us an Iraq strategy (well, at least empty slogans portrayed as a strategy) without knowing the difference between Sunnis and Shias.
But I guess you can't say anything about any of Saint John's gaffes on serious questions for fear of being accused of ageism and of smearing a former POW... (checks The Script) I mean, war hero... (remembers John Kerry) I mean, REPUBLICAN war hero.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Beijing bans blacks from bars
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
Beijing bans blacks from bars
What three things do basketballer Kobe Bryant, tennis player James Blake and soccer player Ronaldinho have in common?
1) They're black.
2) They're each among the most talented Olympians in their sport.
3) They're not allowed into any bars while they're in Beijing.
The litany of human rights abuses committed by the Chinese dictatorship has been well documented, if not by the NBC/General Electric family of Olympic broadcasters. But for most abuses, the regime tries to hide or outright deny them. But while perhaps less severe than forced labor, arbitrary arrest and religious repression, the regime is more brazenly open about its racism. Beijing authorities have explicitly banned bar owners from serving blacks during the Olympics. Oh, and Mongolians can't down a pint either.
If the 2012 London Olympic authorities banned Asians from bars, somehow I think international criticism would be a little louder.
On a sporting note: Congratulations to Michael Phelps for his record breaking haul of eight gold medals and to Usain Bolt for being the first person to break the world records for both the 100 and 200 meters in the same Olympics. After the 100m, some criticized Bolt for slowing up toward the end. It's a mark of how amazing his performance was that he could visibly slow up in such a short race and still break the world record.
Beijing bans blacks from bars
What three things do basketballer Kobe Bryant, tennis player James Blake and soccer player Ronaldinho have in common?
1) They're black.
2) They're each among the most talented Olympians in their sport.
3) They're not allowed into any bars while they're in Beijing.
The litany of human rights abuses committed by the Chinese dictatorship has been well documented, if not by the NBC/General Electric family of Olympic broadcasters. But for most abuses, the regime tries to hide or outright deny them. But while perhaps less severe than forced labor, arbitrary arrest and religious repression, the regime is more brazenly open about its racism. Beijing authorities have explicitly banned bar owners from serving blacks during the Olympics. Oh, and Mongolians can't down a pint either.
If the 2012 London Olympic authorities banned Asians from bars, somehow I think international criticism would be a little louder.
On a sporting note: Congratulations to Michael Phelps for his record breaking haul of eight gold medals and to Usain Bolt for being the first person to break the world records for both the 100 and 200 meters in the same Olympics. After the 100m, some criticized Bolt for slowing up toward the end. It's a mark of how amazing his performance was that he could visibly slow up in such a short race and still break the world record.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
American culture at its finest
I was watching CNN International's Inside Africa a few mornings ago; it's quality programming, which is why it doesn't run on CNN domestic. They were airing a story about the risk of a 'green famine' in Ethiopia
I think God clearly likes jabbing us humans with irony... because later that day, I read an article in the local daily about a nearby hot dog eating contest. It was a shameless exercise in glorifying gluttony. Not just the competition, but glowing FRONT-PAGE article.
I enjoy food. I enjoy good food. I even enjoy hot dogs... though no more than a few at a sitting.
But enjoying food has nothing to do with this. In fact, enjoying food gets in the way of so-called 'competitive eating.'
We're not talking about comfort or pleasure or even extravagance, but downright gluttony. And the daily had the nerve to celebrate this as though the competitors were gunning for some sporting achievement greater than Michael Phelps'.
The 'winner' (the opposite label seems more appropriate) inhaled 23 1/4 hotdogs in 10 minutes. And then he had the nerve to brag about his gluttonous prowess.
"I'm not even full," he snorted. "I'll probably go and eat some ice cream now."
It made me sick and I didn't even have a bite.
Too bad the hundreds or thousands of dollars wasted on this orgy of excess weren't donated instead to the World Food Programme.
I think God clearly likes jabbing us humans with irony... because later that day, I read an article in the local daily about a nearby hot dog eating contest. It was a shameless exercise in glorifying gluttony. Not just the competition, but glowing FRONT-PAGE article.
I enjoy food. I enjoy good food. I even enjoy hot dogs... though no more than a few at a sitting.
But enjoying food has nothing to do with this. In fact, enjoying food gets in the way of so-called 'competitive eating.'
We're not talking about comfort or pleasure or even extravagance, but downright gluttony. And the daily had the nerve to celebrate this as though the competitors were gunning for some sporting achievement greater than Michael Phelps'.
The 'winner' (the opposite label seems more appropriate) inhaled 23 1/4 hotdogs in 10 minutes. And then he had the nerve to brag about his gluttonous prowess.
"I'm not even full," he snorted. "I'll probably go and eat some ice cream now."
It made me sick and I didn't even have a bite.
Too bad the hundreds or thousands of dollars wasted on this orgy of excess weren't donated instead to the World Food Programme.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
'Koran abuse' worse than ethnic cleansing?
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
I read an interesting article in The Chicago Tribune about the spin coming from the Russian and Georgian governments recently. A few interesting tidbits:
Regarding hysterical Russian claims of genocide:
"Genocide is what's happened," said Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, a longtime member of Putin's inner circle. "Widespread physical destruction—with artillery shells, tanks and guns—of thousands of Russian citizens. Basically, an ethnic cleansing operation was carried out."
But when Human Rights Watch researchers talked to doctors at Tskhinvali Regional Hospital, they were told that most of those killed in the capital were brought to the hospital, and the toll was 44, a count that included combatants and civilians. Bodies were not taken to the city morgue because the fighting had knocked out the city's electricity.
"That's 44 too many, and clearly unacceptable," said Marc Garlasco, a senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch. "But the Russian propaganda machine is clearly working very hard right now."
And regarding allegations that Georgia arbitrarily launched an unprovoked assault of South Ossetia for no particular reason, the Tribune piece reports:
Much of the information war has focused on who instigated the conflict. Russia has repeatedly insisted that Georgia waged its assault on South Ossetia unprovoked. "Who, after all, started military action in South Ossetia?" [Russian de jure president] Medvedev said at a news conference Friday. "Was it Russian peacekeepers, Russian forces or the Georgian army?"
Medvedev did not mention the barrage of shelling from South Ossetian separatists directed at Georgian villages that preceded the Georgian assault. While [Georgian President Mikheil] Saakashvili has been widely criticized both in Georgia and in the international community for overreacting to the South Ossetian shelling, the beginnings of the conflict were not as black and white as the Kremlin has portrayed.
But while Georgia's shelling of a town drew loud condemnation from the much of the North American left, 'massive'* Russian bombardement of Georgian civilian areas merits barely a mention.
(*-Human Rights Watch's description)
A Human Rights Watch (HRW) report weighed in on the situation.
It notes that both armies have used 'indiscriminate' force at various times in the conflict. It criticized the Georgians for "indiscriminate force during their assault on Tskhinvali [the South Ossetian capital] and neighboring villages."
HRW has "confirmed the Russian military’s use of cluster bombs in two towns in Georgia."
It also reported that the Russian military has 'targeted' civilian convoys fleeing the conflict for aerial bombing. It also accuses the Russian military of "Ongoing looting, arson attacks, and abductions by militia are terrorizing the civilian population, forcing them to flee their homes and preventing displaced people from returning home."
In other words, Georgia's crime was recklessness. Russia's crimes were conscious and planned. Both are unacceptable, but they are not equal, neither in intent, nor in scale.
Another HRW report accuses South Ossetian militas, armed by Moscow, of burning and looting Georgian villages. Essentially, the same ethnic cleansing that Russia attributed to Georgia... except far more fitting of such a high charged phrase.
The North American left's response to all this? Silence. Or some half-hearted apologia that tosses in a little token criticism of Russia while implying that Georgia got what it deserved for befriending Bush.
The progressive left shouldn't stick their finger in the wind, find out what the neo-cons argue and base their principles on the opposite. If the progressive left is going to claim to stand against imperialism and for human rights, it must unequivocally condemn all war crimes and all militarism, including Russia's.
Certainly, ethnic cleansing and targeting fleeing civilians for bombing are at least as worthy of outrage as 'Koran abuse.'
I read an interesting article in The Chicago Tribune about the spin coming from the Russian and Georgian governments recently. A few interesting tidbits:
Regarding hysterical Russian claims of genocide:
"Genocide is what's happened," said Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, a longtime member of Putin's inner circle. "Widespread physical destruction—with artillery shells, tanks and guns—of thousands of Russian citizens. Basically, an ethnic cleansing operation was carried out."
But when Human Rights Watch researchers talked to doctors at Tskhinvali Regional Hospital, they were told that most of those killed in the capital were brought to the hospital, and the toll was 44, a count that included combatants and civilians. Bodies were not taken to the city morgue because the fighting had knocked out the city's electricity.
"That's 44 too many, and clearly unacceptable," said Marc Garlasco, a senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch. "But the Russian propaganda machine is clearly working very hard right now."
And regarding allegations that Georgia arbitrarily launched an unprovoked assault of South Ossetia for no particular reason, the Tribune piece reports:
Much of the information war has focused on who instigated the conflict. Russia has repeatedly insisted that Georgia waged its assault on South Ossetia unprovoked. "Who, after all, started military action in South Ossetia?" [Russian de jure president] Medvedev said at a news conference Friday. "Was it Russian peacekeepers, Russian forces or the Georgian army?"
Medvedev did not mention the barrage of shelling from South Ossetian separatists directed at Georgian villages that preceded the Georgian assault. While [Georgian President Mikheil] Saakashvili has been widely criticized both in Georgia and in the international community for overreacting to the South Ossetian shelling, the beginnings of the conflict were not as black and white as the Kremlin has portrayed.
But while Georgia's shelling of a town drew loud condemnation from the much of the North American left, 'massive'* Russian bombardement of Georgian civilian areas merits barely a mention.
(*-Human Rights Watch's description)
A Human Rights Watch (HRW) report weighed in on the situation.
It notes that both armies have used 'indiscriminate' force at various times in the conflict. It criticized the Georgians for "indiscriminate force during their assault on Tskhinvali [the South Ossetian capital] and neighboring villages."
HRW has "confirmed the Russian military’s use of cluster bombs in two towns in Georgia."
It also reported that the Russian military has 'targeted' civilian convoys fleeing the conflict for aerial bombing. It also accuses the Russian military of "Ongoing looting, arson attacks, and abductions by militia are terrorizing the civilian population, forcing them to flee their homes and preventing displaced people from returning home."
In other words, Georgia's crime was recklessness. Russia's crimes were conscious and planned. Both are unacceptable, but they are not equal, neither in intent, nor in scale.
Another HRW report accuses South Ossetian militas, armed by Moscow, of burning and looting Georgian villages. Essentially, the same ethnic cleansing that Russia attributed to Georgia... except far more fitting of such a high charged phrase.
The North American left's response to all this? Silence. Or some half-hearted apologia that tosses in a little token criticism of Russia while implying that Georgia got what it deserved for befriending Bush.
The progressive left shouldn't stick their finger in the wind, find out what the neo-cons argue and base their principles on the opposite. If the progressive left is going to claim to stand against imperialism and for human rights, it must unequivocally condemn all war crimes and all militarism, including Russia's.
Certainly, ethnic cleansing and targeting fleeing civilians for bombing are at least as worthy of outrage as 'Koran abuse.'
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Blame Isaac Newton!
I was watching TV at the Y yesterday but someone else had the remote so I was forced to watch the Yankees game. Unfortunately, they were winning; fortunately, this doesn't happen as often as it used to.
But at least the announcers were tolerable this time (as opposed to the last time I'd watched a bit when they were going on and on and on about something Manny Ramirez had done several days prior... and they weren't even playing the Red Sox at the time).
Anyway, they somehow got onto the topic of instant replay. One of the announcers said something like, "I don't mind instant replay in baseball, if it doesn't take too long."
I snorted soda out of my nosing laughing. Because when you're suffering through a 4 hour, 9 inning baseball game, your top priority must be to avoid the horror of having to spend an extra 90 seconds for the umps to get a call right!
I don't care strongly about instant replay. It makes sense in baseball, if it's designed the right way. But the amount of time it would add to the game is miniscule compared to other things.
If you really care about shortening the interminably long MLB games, they should go to the high school rule where the batter is not allowed to step out of the batter's box after a pitch if it's caught by the catcher. The at-bat routine of some players may be comical, but it makes baseball games last forever... and unwatchable on TV in their full form.
If a game's going to last an extra 90 seconds, I want it to be because the umps got a big call right, not because a jacked up hitter needed to spit tobacco juice, undo his batting glove and re-arrange his jock.
**
Sometimes you wonder how some people get jobs as sports announcers, a profession that you'd think would require a degree of coherence.
I was watching the US-Canada Olympic women's quarterfinal match a few days ago. At one point, announcer Brandi Chastain criticized the US team for 'playing too many negative passes.' She went on to explain that if the US couldn't break down Canada in the attacking half, they should bang the ball (forward) to the corners instead of playing it backwards.
The idea of turning a soccer match into a track meet is unfortunately the accepted 'conventional wisdom' in American soccer circles. Americans tend to believe that soccer should be first and foremost about athleticism instead of extravagancies like... foot skills.
That's not what good coaching focuses on but that's what American coaching tends to emphasize.
Ok, so be it.
But then only a few minutes later, Chastain complains about the US' inability to possess the ball and says they shouldn't be impatient. If they don't have anything, they should pass the ball back to the keeper and reset the play.
MAKE UP YOUR BLOODY MIND!
I've heard her speak in person and she's very intelligent and well-spoken. Few people on Earth have won more major international soccer trophies. But if you don't know what position to take, at least pick a side and stick with it! Or better yet, keep your mouth shut.
**
Some people like sports announcers who are unabashedly biased in favor of the home squad. They're called 'homers.' Some of the most beloved announcers in US sports history have been homers. The most (in)famous of them being the late Cubs' voice Harry Caray.
I've never really understood the desire to listen to people who are nothing more than fans with microphones. If I wanted to listen to Joe Six Pack spout off ignorantly, I'd watch the game at a bar. The point of having TV announcers is to bring something that the ordinary fan can't get by watching on his own.
I loathe announcers who insult my intelligence. If Joe Homeboy takes a cheap shot at his opponent, I'm yelling at him for doing something stupid and costing my team. I don't want to listen to some a** kisser saying he got screwed by the officials or that he was 'unlucky.' Have the balls to say he took a cheap shot at the other guy. If I see something plain as day with my own two eyes, don't tell me I saw something else.
The Boston Bruins' old color guy Derek Sanderson was infamous for that. When an opponent took a cheap shot at a Boston player, he'd scream with outrage and demand the guy be expelled from the league and castrated to boot. When a Boston player did the exact same thing, he'd chuckle, "Boys will be boys."
I'm a Bruins' fan but I couldn't stand him. The only saving grace was that he was partnered with Hall of Fame announcer Fred Cusick, who was the epitome of class in broadcasting... except for the very end when he descended into homerism himself.
New England's soccer team has a similar odd couple: the best color guy in the league (Greg Lalas) combined with the most shameless, Kool-Aid drinking, propaganda spewing suckup in the league (Brad Feldman).
I was watching New England's match in San Jose on Saturday, though it was with San Jose's broadcasting crew. Every time a New England player went down, the SJ color man whined about it being a 'dive.' A SJ defender kicked the ankle of the NE forward who fell down. Not hard, but there was enough contact that the smaller NE player, going at full speed weaving through the defense, was knocked over. But the color guy didn't seem to notice the kick, so of course it was a 'dive.'
Get a clue!
Listen, I hate diving as much as anyone. I think it's an affront to the game. BUT... just because a player goes down doesn't mean it's a dive... even if the contact appears to be minimal.
Think about it. You're running as fast as you can, trying to stay balanced enough to closely control a soccer ball with your feet. This is hard enough to do when there's nobody around. Try it sometime if you think otherwise.
You're probably a little smaller because those players tend to be quicker. If you're going at top speed, it doesn't take much contact to knock you off balance, especially when you're trying to stay close enough to the ball and especially if you're smaller.
There certainly is real diving that occurs in soccer. But not every time a guy goes to ground is a dive. Sometimes is nothing more than the LAWS OF PHYSICS.
But at least the announcers were tolerable this time (as opposed to the last time I'd watched a bit when they were going on and on and on about something Manny Ramirez had done several days prior... and they weren't even playing the Red Sox at the time).
Anyway, they somehow got onto the topic of instant replay. One of the announcers said something like, "I don't mind instant replay in baseball, if it doesn't take too long."
I snorted soda out of my nosing laughing. Because when you're suffering through a 4 hour, 9 inning baseball game, your top priority must be to avoid the horror of having to spend an extra 90 seconds for the umps to get a call right!
I don't care strongly about instant replay. It makes sense in baseball, if it's designed the right way. But the amount of time it would add to the game is miniscule compared to other things.
If you really care about shortening the interminably long MLB games, they should go to the high school rule where the batter is not allowed to step out of the batter's box after a pitch if it's caught by the catcher. The at-bat routine of some players may be comical, but it makes baseball games last forever... and unwatchable on TV in their full form.
If a game's going to last an extra 90 seconds, I want it to be because the umps got a big call right, not because a jacked up hitter needed to spit tobacco juice, undo his batting glove and re-arrange his jock.
**
Sometimes you wonder how some people get jobs as sports announcers, a profession that you'd think would require a degree of coherence.
I was watching the US-Canada Olympic women's quarterfinal match a few days ago. At one point, announcer Brandi Chastain criticized the US team for 'playing too many negative passes.' She went on to explain that if the US couldn't break down Canada in the attacking half, they should bang the ball (forward) to the corners instead of playing it backwards.
The idea of turning a soccer match into a track meet is unfortunately the accepted 'conventional wisdom' in American soccer circles. Americans tend to believe that soccer should be first and foremost about athleticism instead of extravagancies like... foot skills.
That's not what good coaching focuses on but that's what American coaching tends to emphasize.
Ok, so be it.
But then only a few minutes later, Chastain complains about the US' inability to possess the ball and says they shouldn't be impatient. If they don't have anything, they should pass the ball back to the keeper and reset the play.
MAKE UP YOUR BLOODY MIND!
I've heard her speak in person and she's very intelligent and well-spoken. Few people on Earth have won more major international soccer trophies. But if you don't know what position to take, at least pick a side and stick with it! Or better yet, keep your mouth shut.
**
Some people like sports announcers who are unabashedly biased in favor of the home squad. They're called 'homers.' Some of the most beloved announcers in US sports history have been homers. The most (in)famous of them being the late Cubs' voice Harry Caray.
I've never really understood the desire to listen to people who are nothing more than fans with microphones. If I wanted to listen to Joe Six Pack spout off ignorantly, I'd watch the game at a bar. The point of having TV announcers is to bring something that the ordinary fan can't get by watching on his own.
I loathe announcers who insult my intelligence. If Joe Homeboy takes a cheap shot at his opponent, I'm yelling at him for doing something stupid and costing my team. I don't want to listen to some a** kisser saying he got screwed by the officials or that he was 'unlucky.' Have the balls to say he took a cheap shot at the other guy. If I see something plain as day with my own two eyes, don't tell me I saw something else.
The Boston Bruins' old color guy Derek Sanderson was infamous for that. When an opponent took a cheap shot at a Boston player, he'd scream with outrage and demand the guy be expelled from the league and castrated to boot. When a Boston player did the exact same thing, he'd chuckle, "Boys will be boys."
I'm a Bruins' fan but I couldn't stand him. The only saving grace was that he was partnered with Hall of Fame announcer Fred Cusick, who was the epitome of class in broadcasting... except for the very end when he descended into homerism himself.
New England's soccer team has a similar odd couple: the best color guy in the league (Greg Lalas) combined with the most shameless, Kool-Aid drinking, propaganda spewing suckup in the league (Brad Feldman).
I was watching New England's match in San Jose on Saturday, though it was with San Jose's broadcasting crew. Every time a New England player went down, the SJ color man whined about it being a 'dive.' A SJ defender kicked the ankle of the NE forward who fell down. Not hard, but there was enough contact that the smaller NE player, going at full speed weaving through the defense, was knocked over. But the color guy didn't seem to notice the kick, so of course it was a 'dive.'
Get a clue!
Listen, I hate diving as much as anyone. I think it's an affront to the game. BUT... just because a player goes down doesn't mean it's a dive... even if the contact appears to be minimal.
Think about it. You're running as fast as you can, trying to stay balanced enough to closely control a soccer ball with your feet. This is hard enough to do when there's nobody around. Try it sometime if you think otherwise.
You're probably a little smaller because those players tend to be quicker. If you're going at top speed, it doesn't take much contact to knock you off balance, especially when you're trying to stay close enough to the ball and especially if you're smaller.
There certainly is real diving that occurs in soccer. But not every time a guy goes to ground is a dive. Sometimes is nothing more than the LAWS OF PHYSICS.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Satire is impossible with reality like this
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
Launching an unprovoked aggression against a foreign country under the fake pretexts of protecting security and human rights with the real objectives of seizing the country's resources and imposing regime change on a defiant government.
According to the Bush administration, such behavior 'has no place in the 21st century.'
President Bush himself called such behavior “bullying and intimidation" and demanded the invaded country's sovereignty and territorial integrity 'be respected.' He also said that such actions damaged the invading country's credibility and international standing.
By all accounts, this was said with a straight face.
My guess is that the Bush administration uses the Ethiopian calendar.
Under that system, March 2003 was in the 20th century.
Launching an unprovoked aggression against a foreign country under the fake pretexts of protecting security and human rights with the real objectives of seizing the country's resources and imposing regime change on a defiant government.
According to the Bush administration, such behavior 'has no place in the 21st century.'
President Bush himself called such behavior “bullying and intimidation" and demanded the invaded country's sovereignty and territorial integrity 'be respected.' He also said that such actions damaged the invading country's credibility and international standing.
By all accounts, this was said with a straight face.
My guess is that the Bush administration uses the Ethiopian calendar.
Under that system, March 2003 was in the 20th century.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Top 'diplomat' admits Russia's true expansionist intentions in Georgia
Russia's original position when it launched its aggression against Georgia was that it was merely bitchslapping an insolent little child as 'punishment.' It claimed that once the child cowered into proper obedience to its master, Russia would stop its 'defensive' action.
Perhaps realizing that its actions have revealed its words as lies, especially after basically ignoring the 'cease fire' they agreed, Russia has finally admitted what was its true desire from well before the invasion: annexing Georgian territory.
Russia's foreign minister told the press that the world "can forget about any talk about Georgia's territorial integrity" because it has unilaterally decided that South Ossetia and Abkhazia don't want to remain part of Georgia.
If this is really the case, then Russia would surely have no problem letting its occupation force be replaced by UN peacekeepers while the international body conducted a referendum so that South Ossetians and Abkhazians could decide their own futures rather than being dictated to by Moscow. (wink/nod)
Can you imagine the international outrage if under Saddam's rule, the US snapped its fingers and unilaterally declared that Iraqi Kurdistan would henceforth be an American commonwealth like Puerto Rico?
Some have asked why I'm giving Georgia's President Sakashvili a free pass. That's not true. I've stated several times that the military action in South Ossetia was reckless stupidity of monstrous proportions. I read yesterday that US Sec. of State Rice said she warned Sakashvili several months ago not to provoke Russia.
But it's true I've criticized him far less than Russia's de facto leader Prime Minister Putin. And the simple fact is that Sakashvili's sin of grotesque stupidity is far less grave both in moral terms and geopolitical implications than Putin's sin of aggressive imperialism. I view Russia's actions as a) far more dangerous to international stability and b) at best debatable in fact and totally out of control in scale. Both countries are wrong but I'm not going to pull a moral equivalency here. I'm far more critical of Russia because I believe they are far more wrong.
If there's compelling evidence from an objective source that Sakashvili is implicated in war crimes, then by all means he should be indicted. However, that 'objective' source can not be any Russian government official, especially Vladimir Putin crying 'genocide'... the same Putin who himself should've have been put up on war crimes and crimes against humanity charges years ago for Chechnya.
I understand Russia's fear of being 'surrounded' (at least on the west) by NATO countries. But on the other hand, I also understand the desire of most European former Soviet states to gain the protection of NATO membership.
It started with things like Russia meddling in Ukraine's domestic politics and poisoning the then-opposition leader; the man is now Ukraine's president and, not shockingly, isn't buddy-buddy with Putin. It continued with things like Russia's apparent cyberattack on Estonia. It's escalated with Russia cutting off energy supplies to former satellites for being pro-western, such as Poland and Ukraine. And it's reached its peak with Russia's aggression against Georgia. Well, let's hope it's the peak.
Let's not forget that places like Poland spent 45 years under Russian domination.
Let's also not forget that places like Georgia and Ukraine spent most of the 20th century as conquered lands under the formal subjugation of the Russian empire after being conquered.
So if these countries are mistrustful of Russia's true intentions, I'd say they have pretty darn good reason. The invasion of Georgia followed by Russia's now explicit desire to annex* parts of this small country only illustrates this wisdom of this mistrust.
(*-Excuse me, I mean re-annex)
Regime change is also widely believed to be a main objective of the invasion. Russia has declared it won't talk to the Georgian government until Sakashvili reigns. Reports suggest that Russian tanks continue to advance into Georgia, well beyond the zone of conflict, despite the cease fire Russia agreed to.
Russia has spent most of this decade destabilizing South Ossetia and enabling the criminal gangs there with close links to elements in the Kremlin. They'd fabricated an excuse to meddle in South Ossetia by giving passports to every Tom, Dick and Harry in the land. They'd whipped up anti-Georgian sentiment not only in South Ossetia but in Russia itself. All these factors were carefully planned pretexts to an invasion and annexation they obviously wanted for a long time... as evidenced by the statement of Russia's foreign minister.
What exactly was Georgia supposed to do in the face of all these years of provocation and destabilization of its territory?
Bear in mind, this is a country that twice in the last two centuries has been conquered and annexed by imperial Russia.
And it's a country that, we know now, Russia has designs on it yet again.
It seems Russia was always going to annex South Ossetia and Abkhazia one way or another. They seemed content on doing it slowly but had obviously prepared to do it quickly. Sakashvili's decision gave them a chance to fast track the process. But it was something that looked like was going to happen either way, regardless of what Sakashvili did.
International opinion seems clear on what Georgia should NOT have done, but what exactly WERE they supposed to do?
When Libya sent arms to the IRA in the 1980s, Britain was furious. Arming secessionists is only one aspect of Russia's destabilization campaign in South Ossetia.
When French President de Gaulle went to Montreal in 1967 and stoked Quebec nationalism, Canada was livid. The mass outrage was provoked by three little words: 'Vive le Québec libre.' This is less than peanuts compared to what Russia was doing in South Ossetia even before the invasion.
But when Russia does far worse to destabilize South Ossetia (before the full scale invasion), Georgia is supposed to say nothing, do nothing and hope their behemoth neighbor with a repeated history of conquering it might decide to play nice?
Again, critics make it clear what Georgia should not have 'provoked' Russia by trying to re-assert control over its territory, but what exactly should they have done?
I hate to say it but some countries are going to look at this and conclude, "If Georgia had nuclear weapons, they wouldn't have been invaded."
Then, some countries have looked at the invasion of Iraq and the non-invasion of North Korea and concluded the same thing.
Perhaps realizing that its actions have revealed its words as lies, especially after basically ignoring the 'cease fire' they agreed, Russia has finally admitted what was its true desire from well before the invasion: annexing Georgian territory.
Russia's foreign minister told the press that the world "can forget about any talk about Georgia's territorial integrity" because it has unilaterally decided that South Ossetia and Abkhazia don't want to remain part of Georgia.
If this is really the case, then Russia would surely have no problem letting its occupation force be replaced by UN peacekeepers while the international body conducted a referendum so that South Ossetians and Abkhazians could decide their own futures rather than being dictated to by Moscow. (wink/nod)
Can you imagine the international outrage if under Saddam's rule, the US snapped its fingers and unilaterally declared that Iraqi Kurdistan would henceforth be an American commonwealth like Puerto Rico?
Some have asked why I'm giving Georgia's President Sakashvili a free pass. That's not true. I've stated several times that the military action in South Ossetia was reckless stupidity of monstrous proportions. I read yesterday that US Sec. of State Rice said she warned Sakashvili several months ago not to provoke Russia.
But it's true I've criticized him far less than Russia's de facto leader Prime Minister Putin. And the simple fact is that Sakashvili's sin of grotesque stupidity is far less grave both in moral terms and geopolitical implications than Putin's sin of aggressive imperialism. I view Russia's actions as a) far more dangerous to international stability and b) at best debatable in fact and totally out of control in scale. Both countries are wrong but I'm not going to pull a moral equivalency here. I'm far more critical of Russia because I believe they are far more wrong.
If there's compelling evidence from an objective source that Sakashvili is implicated in war crimes, then by all means he should be indicted. However, that 'objective' source can not be any Russian government official, especially Vladimir Putin crying 'genocide'... the same Putin who himself should've have been put up on war crimes and crimes against humanity charges years ago for Chechnya.
I understand Russia's fear of being 'surrounded' (at least on the west) by NATO countries. But on the other hand, I also understand the desire of most European former Soviet states to gain the protection of NATO membership.
It started with things like Russia meddling in Ukraine's domestic politics and poisoning the then-opposition leader; the man is now Ukraine's president and, not shockingly, isn't buddy-buddy with Putin. It continued with things like Russia's apparent cyberattack on Estonia. It's escalated with Russia cutting off energy supplies to former satellites for being pro-western, such as Poland and Ukraine. And it's reached its peak with Russia's aggression against Georgia. Well, let's hope it's the peak.
Let's not forget that places like Poland spent 45 years under Russian domination.
Let's also not forget that places like Georgia and Ukraine spent most of the 20th century as conquered lands under the formal subjugation of the Russian empire after being conquered.
So if these countries are mistrustful of Russia's true intentions, I'd say they have pretty darn good reason. The invasion of Georgia followed by Russia's now explicit desire to annex* parts of this small country only illustrates this wisdom of this mistrust.
(*-Excuse me, I mean re-annex)
Regime change is also widely believed to be a main objective of the invasion. Russia has declared it won't talk to the Georgian government until Sakashvili reigns. Reports suggest that Russian tanks continue to advance into Georgia, well beyond the zone of conflict, despite the cease fire Russia agreed to.
Russia has spent most of this decade destabilizing South Ossetia and enabling the criminal gangs there with close links to elements in the Kremlin. They'd fabricated an excuse to meddle in South Ossetia by giving passports to every Tom, Dick and Harry in the land. They'd whipped up anti-Georgian sentiment not only in South Ossetia but in Russia itself. All these factors were carefully planned pretexts to an invasion and annexation they obviously wanted for a long time... as evidenced by the statement of Russia's foreign minister.
What exactly was Georgia supposed to do in the face of all these years of provocation and destabilization of its territory?
Bear in mind, this is a country that twice in the last two centuries has been conquered and annexed by imperial Russia.
And it's a country that, we know now, Russia has designs on it yet again.
It seems Russia was always going to annex South Ossetia and Abkhazia one way or another. They seemed content on doing it slowly but had obviously prepared to do it quickly. Sakashvili's decision gave them a chance to fast track the process. But it was something that looked like was going to happen either way, regardless of what Sakashvili did.
International opinion seems clear on what Georgia should NOT have done, but what exactly WERE they supposed to do?
When Libya sent arms to the IRA in the 1980s, Britain was furious. Arming secessionists is only one aspect of Russia's destabilization campaign in South Ossetia.
When French President de Gaulle went to Montreal in 1967 and stoked Quebec nationalism, Canada was livid. The mass outrage was provoked by three little words: 'Vive le Québec libre.' This is less than peanuts compared to what Russia was doing in South Ossetia even before the invasion.
But when Russia does far worse to destabilize South Ossetia (before the full scale invasion), Georgia is supposed to say nothing, do nothing and hope their behemoth neighbor with a repeated history of conquering it might decide to play nice?
Again, critics make it clear what Georgia should not have 'provoked' Russia by trying to re-assert control over its territory, but what exactly should they have done?
I hate to say it but some countries are going to look at this and conclude, "If Georgia had nuclear weapons, they wouldn't have been invaded."
Then, some countries have looked at the invasion of Iraq and the non-invasion of North Korea and concluded the same thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)