Who is to blame in the Georgian conflict?

Question

Some people say that georgian people attacked russian militia, how true is that?

Answer 1

Russia is to blame.  South Ossetia was always part of Georgia, but the Russians backed the traitors living there and provoked the Georgians.  They violated Georgian airspace, fired missiles into Georgia, and allowed Ossetians to attack Georgian troops.  They also gave Ossetian Georgians Russian passports to claim they were protecting Russian citizens, but if they were Russian citizens why were they living in South Ossetia, Georgia?  

As for connections with the USA, Georgia is a sovereign country that can ally itself with whoever it wants.  Russia hates that fact.  It hates that Georgians are free to befriend the USA.

Answer 2

Sighs.  I'd like to start by pointing out that the U.S. although it is number one in arms exports, is largely so because we're such a good supplier of higher end high value (and high priced) items, that make a significant contribution to the ability of legitimate governments legally recognized by the U.N. to defend their sovereign territory, through the diversification of combined arms.  I know that reads like a sales pamphlet.  But when it comes down to it, Joe Insurgent is NOT buying a cutting edge top of the line AWACs in order overthrow the legitimate government of his nation, and sow general anarchy.

The thinking by many about this sort of thing I think is best represented in the 2007 movie Shooter.  (Yes I'm an American who's using a movie analogy.)  In it, it is revealed that the United States is responsible for a particular atrocity in Ethiopia.  When this is revealed it is stated off-hand that the most powerful country on earth is responsible for everything that happens on earth, both the good and the bad.  So EVERYTHING wrong in the world is our fault.

Pardon my french, but non sequitor much?  I mean let's consider the logic here.  For that to be true, the United States' power would have to be absolute.  The United States' power isn't even absolute in our own country, let alone everyone else's.

You could argue sure we might not have a direct hand in everything, but as long as we're telling everyone that we're the global cop, that means that whenever there's injustice in the world we're not doing our job, or at least not good enough.

But you know what?  We were never meant to be the global cop alone.  The original analogy, that is the root of the global cop notion, was that neighbors have a responsibility to their neighbors, and to render aid when the situation calls for it.

Guess what?  You're neighbors to.  (And I know ending a sentence in a preposition is bad english.)  If there is injustice in the world it means we're ALL not doing our jobs the way we should.  And I gotta say, sometimes it seems us Americans are the only ones who are actually trying.

Back to the point on arms exports.  Do you know where the U.S. ranks in small arms exports?  Fourth or fifth.  After countries like France, China, Russia, and Israel.  The weapons used in the conflict in Georgia are far more likely to be from these countries.  (Well in Russia's case obviously so.)

(This is doubtless confusing since we're clearly number one in small arms manufacture.  But of course, the small arms manufactured in the U.S. are largely absorbed by our large domestic market.  Which oddly presents a strong argument against U.S. gun-control laws.  Anytime small arms are restricted from being sold on the U.S. market, you can expect a surge of U.S. and foreign made arms being sold around the world, with the predictable results.)

And we're not talking about weapons for soldiers.  We're talking about light arms that can be handled by a child.  Inaccurate arms with large clips and a full auto selector suitable for shooting into dense crowds.  And, compact arms suitable for concealment in one's clothing or elsewhere.  These are the weapons of an insurgent fighter.

As for the notion of the U.S. training terrorists.  I have to write that's been over-played.  The big example, of course, is our role in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and its roots in Al Quaeda.  You know what?  I've heard it said by Central Intelligence Agents who worked that operation that they were very careful about who got what money.  Others have pointed out the bilions of dollars that Pakistan was free to divvy out as they deemed fit.

I don't buy that.  I think that if you wanted to maintain a degree of deniability that you would say that you put it up to someone else's discretion.  Of course, maybe that just proves America's malice in this case.  I don't think so.

I personally don't think that Osama and his buddies saw a dime of those funds during the war.  And, I think that's one of the things that ticked them off.  Here they were true champions of Islam in a Jihad against an ungodly host, and instead of them getting the support they wanted, a bunch of Jews and capitalist money changers were deciding that the local hicks should get the real support.

As for U.S. chemical weapons to Saddam, we're talking about chemical components as part of normal chemical trade, such that it would've been only really bizarre, if Iraq hadn't purchased these chemicals.  And, we're not even the one's who Iraq got the large portion of these chemicals from.  Other countries made much larger chemical sales to Iraq at this time, some of whom I think were well aware of there intended use.

And now for me to actually answer the question.  Basically I have to write that they're are better ways for a country, such as Georgia, to politically integrate a territory, such as Ossetia.  Ways that do not involve military aggression and a violation of political sovereignty.  In the meantime Russia is within their rights under international law to come to the aid of their neighbor (Ossetia).  Oh and back to my point about how sometimes it seems that us Americans are the only ones who are actually trying, way to go Russia!  Good job!

Edit:  Raymond II if Al Quaeda didn't do 9/11 then why did they send out a video with Osama and his cleric buddy rejoicing at how they didn't think the towers were going to fall but yay they did?  I mean if that was a frame-up job then why didn't the real Osama say something about the defamation of his character?

Edit2:  Al Quaeda isn't a CIA creation.  They're only loosely associated with (not under the control of) the Merovingians and the Illuminati, who don't even really like the CIA, the United States, and the Freemasons who founded this country and made it what it is today.  I'd like to reiterate Al Quaeda controls their own destiny.

As for big media and their lies, I have to say that's not an entirely invalid point.  Keep in mind that, if you treat a democractic system as an emerged social order formed by the people who make it up, the healthy function of that system is highly dependant on the public remaining well informed by the truth.

That's even more of an issue when you get countries, such as China, but not just China, who have no respect for democratic principles, and are all to eager to manipulate public thought towards their own ends.  Keep in mind that these countries and their ministries of whatever they call it have the sovereign national right to use their state-run media however they choose on their own citizens.  However with the worldwide web these institutions are actually deliberately and with premeditation influencing the forming of public opinions outside their own borders.

I find it interesting that you're essentially saying that Big Media is a part of the conspiracy to make us believe in the false pretense for this war.  In case you haven't noticed lately Big Media doesn't even support this war.  Keep in mind that a big point the guys in the video you provided were saying was that media is separate from, and in many ways a more powerful force than, the government, that contravenes the authority of lawfully elected political representatives, such as our President.

I also find it ironic that these guys chose their particular title.  George Orwell was an anti-communist propaganda mouthpiece for the British government at the time.  You need only look at his other works to see that.  And I say that was a good thing to.

Edit3:  I think it's worth pointing out, yes there are "secret societies" in the world.  Yes there are secrets worth keeping in the world.  That's why any national military has "Top Secret" folders.  And I think the notion put forth by some that full disclosure is the key to international harmony, and that won't compromise the national security of any nation that complies is absurd.

Yet the point I'm trying to make here (and this is true even if the X-files stuff is or is not true) is the strategic world situation is composed of many competing interests.  There is not any one agency that controls the world or is trying to take over the world.

What there is, is a tapestry of separate interests and agendas.  It is from this, something resembling a balance of power emerges (even if one part of that tapestry is very powerful, it is not anywhere near as powerful as the rest combined).

This is also where the world's conflict comes from.  And that, is the true source of evil in this world.  Not from the machinations of any one group of people.

That's not to say we should want a unified world on the other hand...

Answer 3

Israel  

Answer 4

Georgia is to blame for the conflict. They're doing the same thing they did 17 years ago when they burned and leveled 10 villages in South Ossetia and killed over 3,000 civilians. South Ossetia became part of Georgia in 1920's after Soviet Union absorbed them and countless other small minority regions.

Answer 5

The USA and Israel are interfering, and it is over oil pipelines:

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=135...

Answer 6

Just a wild guess ... probably the same elite global freaks who blew up the world trade center to get us into Afghanistan and Iraq for their new world order game.

Paul G.

Bin Laden was a CIA asset. Al Q is a CIA creation.You have been scooping up too much mainstream media propaganda dude. Watch this film to learn how media lies. It will insulate your mind from further media brainwash.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

Answer 7

No, it's Georgia who aggravated Russia into doing this, and the West seems to be throwing its might behind Georgia...All part of the usual routine to villainise Russia.

Answer 8

GEORGIA  AND USA MADE NICE AND ARE ALLIES. THEY DID NOT START THE CLASH

Answer 9

"US started this conflict from very beginning - they finance and support Georgian genocide attack against Osetia"

Financing the Georgians didn't start the conflict, something else happened  and was happening if they were needing support.

"biological and chemical weapon supplies by US gov for Saddam"

What does this have to do with georgia or russia.

"Stalin was Georgian by nationality "

and that is significant because...... all Georgians are Stalins followers?

I know we are looking into the situation, but pipelines would be more of a significant reason for russia or georgia to control the area. The US is actually calling for a truce between the two, as people are now criticizing the US for not aiding the Georgians.

I would possible believe what you say more if half of what your wrote were not red herrings. Your list of evidence is incredible weak, it just seems like you just want to blame the US for everyone's troubles. If you could post some sources I'll be happy to read them.

I am not saying we are not supplying them, I don't have any concrete source for that and I don't doubt it either.

What I am trying to say is perhaps its possible the conflict originated somewhere between the gergoeans and russians.

Answer 10

Georgia, for killing ethnic Russians in South Ossetia.  Ossetia is divided into two parts.  The southern part is in Georgia, the north in Russia.  Russia will eventually claim all of Ossetia.

Answer 11

I've just been watching the Russian News channel on Freesat.  

According to them Russia is sending in a peace keeping force because Georgia is attack it's own people.  The peace keeping force has been attacked by the Georgian soldiers.

Of course Bush has a slightly different perspective on the matter.