RoR: Forum

BTW, the idea that countries believe or do not believe in this or that is a category mistake--countries cannot believe, people can.

Post 21

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - 8:53am

I can fully accept the righteousness of Georgia’s cause. I’m not convinced that a NATO response is prudent.

Containing Russia on its western front is clearly an important objective for the freedom of Europe. What is the strategic value of trying to face-off Russia on its southern boarder? With the exceptions of a few tiny nations like Georgia, the lands to the south of Russia are all Islamic. Why bother with Russia’s imperialist ambitions in that neck of the woods?

Post 22

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - 10:18am

There are few conflicts that the US resists involvement in. The US does seem to leave Africa alone, such as Darfur and the genocide in Rwanda.

HL Mencken had an excellent quote on all this: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

War is big business in America, and there are too many crony capitalists who want to profit from it. The crony capitalists bribe politicians and get contracts from the feds, often no-bid contracts. If there was world peace, their golden goose would be cooked.

There is a video of Dick Cheney, for example, showing him saying that it was proper for the USA not to get Saddam Hussein. This was back in the early 1990's. Cheney later made some big bucks with Halliburton. His attitude about getting Hussein changed quickly.

Not surprisingly, a lot of countries don't really like the US throwing its weight around. The Russians especially don't appreciate that the US military is in places like Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Poland. Imagine the uproar which would occur if Russian troops were in Canada or Mexico.

There's no doubt that Russia has a long history of fighting wars with many different nations. On Wikipedia, I found well over a dozen wars that they have fought with the Turks, for example. I also found several that they fought with the old Persian Empire. And they fought them in the Caucasus Region.

In fact, Georgia initially became a Russian protectorate in the 1790's because they wanted protection from the Persians. This soon lead to full annexation.

I'm willing to bet the various groups have been fighting in these past wars. Information about past wars here is pretty hard to find, however. The Georgians and Ossetians fought in 1918 and in 1992. The main problem is that everybody wants to "settle the score."

Georgians and Armenians are mostly Christian. Ossetians are a mix of Christian and Muslim.

Interestingly enough, Stalin's father was Ossetian. His mother was Georgian. He was born in Gori. I wonder if his upbringing here created some of the hatred that lived in his soul. He especially despised the Abkhaz, Chechens, and Ingush. Stalin could also have fed some of the animosity that still exists today.

(Edited by Chris Baker on 8/26, 10:39am)

Post 23

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - 3:17pm

Tibor,

Thank you for an excellent article. The subsequent discussions and other articles referenced were also most informative, and well demonstrate to overall complexity of the situation.

jjt

Post 24

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 4:51am

"Why bother with Russia’s imperialist ambitions in that neck of the woods?" Well, Georgians may bother because their necks could well be in the noose unless the Russians are rebuffed. As I noted, it is not as if Russian imperial ambitions are something recent--I recall learning that they were quite noticeable back in 1848! Not because Russians are innately imperialistic but because their form of government lent itself too readily to statism at home and abroad. (They aren't alone in this, of course.) And besides Georgians, a lot of other neighbors of Russian could reasonably be very nervous about all this. Just what the US government should or should not do about the matter is a different issue entirely.

Post 25

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 6:10am

"Just what the US government should or should not do about the matter is a different issue entirely."

That was more of my concern. My question was closer to “what should NATO do?” even though I harbor serious reservations concerning our membership in that organization at this point in time. As I noted I’m sympathetic to the Georgian cause. But making it our cause … or NATO’s cause? I think not.

In passing, I note that others who share my skepticism of an involvement seemed impelled to disparage the Georgian cause or at least to resort to a moral equivalence. I don’t share that view nor understand the need to vilify Georgia. I’m appalled by these critics and I refuse to stand with them regardless of any accidental similarity of policy prescriptions. I share the negative assessment of the Russian state and its ambitions; and I sympathize with the Georgians.

(Edited by Jason Pappas on 8/27, 6:12am)

Post 26

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 10:54am

I am now assessing just about everybody in this region negatively. It's yet another situation in which a few rogue politicians want to show their dupes how tough they are. The Ossetians should run Kokoity out of the country. He can go to work for Vince McMahon. The Georgians should kick Saakashvili out. I'm sure Saakashvili will be able to find a job with his neo-con buddies at the American Enterprise Institute.

Part of the reason for some of the US's coddling of Georgia is that Saakashvili sent 500 troops into Iraq. Indeed, any patriotic Georgian should be asking: "Why are those 500 soldiers there when we need them here?" That certainly proves again that Saakashvili isn't just using his military to defend his own country.

It is in NATO's charter, I believe, that it will only admit countries whose borders are clearly defined. Letting Georgia into NATO is like giving a health insurance policy to someone who has just had a cancer diagnosis. NATO should have disbanded anyway, but there are too many special interests that want to send the US military everywhere.

Post 27

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 12:34pm

Here is one of the problems: If you discover that Georgians have been unjustly put upon by the Russians, apart from urging your government to go in there and protect them there is nothing you can do since the law prohibits privateering. If you were to organize an international private resistance, you would risk losing your American citizenship, etc. In short, governments have monopolized international relations. So urging us to keep government out of it is the same as urging us to simply let Georgians (and others like them) to remain helpless against Russians or other powerful aggressors. I am not sure that that is really the best course for one who loves liberty and justice to take.

Post 28

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 2:46pm

there is nothing you can do since the law prohibits privateering. If you were to organize an international private resistance, you would risk losing your American citizenship, etc. In short, governments have monopolized international relations.

This is actually a valid point. I think every American certainly has the right to fight in a foreign army if he wishes. That is currently illegal.

Here is one important question: do you trust these people?

Do you trust someone like George Bush to do the right thing when thousands of lives are at stake? Do you trust that he is competent to handle tasks such as these? George Bush already proved before he was even elected President that he is basically a human failure, who simply had the good fortune of being from a rich and well-connected family. He was a junkie who later found "god." I wouldn't trust Bush to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich--he'd probably figure out some way to screw it up and then lie about it.

Think about some of the other people I'm talking about--a former Trotskyite like Irving Kristol, another Trotskyite like David Horowitz, or a Speaker of the House who refuses to debate her electoral opponents. These are the people who are in charge of foreign policy right now.

Do you trust these people?

Post 29

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 7:52pm

The Truth About Russia in Georgia

Post 30

Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 8:23pm

Chechnya and Russia have been at war for God knows how long. Recently, the war has ended and now the region is safe.

If we play the 'what if' game, and propose actions that Russia could have taken on in the conflict with Georgia. What do you think could have happened? I know that philosophically the hypothetical doesn't stand, but at the time Russian officials were thinking exactly that. In my opinion three possibilities could have occurred:

- Let Georgia go. Amount of press the conflict would receive is minimal (relatively)(Olympic games are on, US Election, and poor economic activity). Many South Ossetians die (including some holding Russian passports). Relatives of the deceased would want vengeance, take up arms, and wage a never-ending war against the Georgian government. Georgian government would label them as 'rebels' which would give them a clear conscience to kill (they are trying to undermine democracy and change borders). Rebels would eventually stop fighting once they are all dead, but new will be born who will die and give birth to more rebels. A lot of people die.

- Again, Russia does not retaliate, but protects its people. Russia holds it's positions, thereby continuing and taking part in the never-ending war. This would be something of a new Chechnya war with hundreds of Russian and Georgian soldiers dying every year. No end in sight. Many die over an indefinite period of time.

- Russia retaliates. No hypothetical here, but prove me wrong if you think any other outcome would save more lives. No other war can be spoken of while the World is watching. Yes, they argue and hate each other, but no more confrontation. Quick, and in my opinion has the least 'opportunity cost' involved.

If you think that Russia should not have retaliated, then be aware that Georgian troops had ammunition to bombard for days and weeks! If you think Russian tanks should not have crossed the South Ossetia border then consider that MANY MORE innocent civilians could have died.

Please excuse my ignorance, but I did not read all of the posts or even the article in full. I am simply not convinced from the start.

Post 31

Thursday, September 18, 2008 - 8:07am

"Chechnya and Russia have been at war for God knows how long. Recently, the war has ended and now the region is safe."

Well, that's a good argument for genocide, isn't it? If ending the fighting is your goal, nothing beats ethnic cleansing.

The Chechen war was caused by jihadist terrorists. Remember Beslan? The war in Georgia was a premeditated act of Putin's. He had threatened it in retaliation for the declaration of Kosovar independence. Georgia did not attack Russia, or Russian nationals - it responded to shelling by Ossetian puppets, and Russian forces, which were massed on the border, used the excuse that Putin had manufactured to invade.

"Let Georgia go"? What reality do you live in? Georgia always has been a separate nation, just like Poland. Maybe Russia should try to Regain its pre WWI borders, and not "let Poland go"? The problem is not your ignorance of this thread, but of world history, and the difference between jihad and self defense.

Post 32

Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 12:00am

Many South Ossetians hold Russian passports. South Ossetia is not and was never an official region of Georgia (there was never an official contract). It declared independance a long time ago.

Looking past all the criticism, I hold it to you to find a solution that would have been short and effective at saving lives. I believe that Georgia attacked first, even though Russian tanks were ever closer. In my opinion attacking, means trying to effectively kill people and bombardment is exactly that. If Georgians were fighting separatists they should have moved in with tanks and Georgian version of SWAT, and not just blow the crap out of everybody. They attacked everybody because everybody was a separatist, at least in their eyes. Russian citzens did die from bombardment and the city was blown to pieces, so by saying `Let Georgia Go` I meant `not protecting Russian citizens by retaliation` because Georgians were prepared to bombard for a while. (and not something else whatever you meant)

The region does not support Georgian government and voted 99% against it in 2006. (Wiki). Explain to me why they don`t deserve their government as did Kosovo? (I am sure you can't) I am sure that is exactly what Putin meant and I think that it is pretty common sense. I believe all the negativity comes from the fact that you can't see that Russia did something positive and actually freed the region from the government it did not want. Obviously Ossetians now support Russia, because they like their 'independance' or at least not being assosiated with Georgians.

Again, play the 'what if game'. I really want to hear a resolution that would save more lives, because that is the limiting factor. Isn't it?

Post 33

Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 5:38am

Dear SOLHu,

Please fill out your personal profile. It would be very helpful to know your background in order to have a useful discussion.

I suggest you look up the Sudetenland Germans to see how the idea of issuing passports is relevant. If Ossetia was never part of Georgia (false) then it was never part of Russia either. What if Russia were to issue passports to people living in Alaska? You seem to be looking at a very limited and mistaken view of history from the last two decades as if it has all the answers. Ask yourself, did Georgia "sign a contract" with Russia making Georgia a part of Russia?

The bottom line is that Russia has initiated force over and over again in order to try to control the peoples on its borders. Georgia has not done anything like that in this case.

Are you an Objectivist? This is a website for the discussion of ideas within the context of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I don't get the impression that you are familiar with her philosophy. If not, you should, perhaps, read Capitalism - The Unknown Ideal, Virtue of Selfishness, and Atlas Shrugged. And you definitely need to look at Russian, European, and Georgian history for the last few centuries, not just decades.

PS, what does your username mean?

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/20, 11:37am)

Post 34

Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 9:54pm

I really don't see how my background or education can stop us from having a useful discussion. I won't look at yours either. On the contrary, it will help us not label each other because of it, since we won't be able to say anything along the lines of: "You only say these things because you are born here and beause you lived (or did not live) through this and that.

I think the idea of issuing passports is very relevant, and those who got passports chose to get them with their own free will. In essence it's another attempt to provide security against the Georgian government. If I were an Ossetian (let's say) with children I would want a back-up plan. Wouldn't you?

Next point, Ossetia was not an official part of Georgia or Russia. They were neither. " Most of the territory of the oblast was de facto independent from Georgia since it declared independence as the Republic of South Ossetia in 1991,"(Wiki) and de facto refers to Georgian Law.

If people in Alaska want to have Russian passports i think they very well could, but how many Americans want to have Russian passports? (weak point)

"The bottom line is that Russia has initiated force over and over again in order to try to control the peoples on its borders. Georgia has not done anything like that in this case."

Yes, yes and yes. "Violent conflict broke out towards the end of 1991 during which many South Ossetian villages were attacked and burned down as were Georgian houses and schools in Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia. As a result, approximately 1,000 died and about 100,000 ethnic Ossetians fled the territory and Georgia proper, most across the border into North Ossetia ( Rusian Region, So they must have had Russian passports eh?)."

Ok Objectivism, not familiar and don't even want to know. I'm sure all the good thinks like reason and morality and being objective make one great objectivist, but I hardly think my opinion is gonna swing. The bottom line is, for me at least, is trying to save human life. I think, and i wish you would at least try to counter my argument, that the way the conflict turned out is the best outcome of all. It is easy to say:"oh how horrible Putin is by trying to take over parts of \Georgia", but, again, South Ossetians did not want to be part of |Georgia. (Not taking over either, just making it independant. which is good for South Ossetia due to a boom in Russian Investment and so on) Now if you think it was done by Russian influence, it very well could have been (although i'm sure no evidence for or against it), but it's too late to accuse anyone if we are simply witnessing the final act. If you want to say that Russia is wrong, then you should have made you voice heard, 10? 15? years ago? In conclusion, If Georgia were to convince South Ossetians by means of bombardment, then many more lives would have been lost. And that is all I am saying.

Now tell me, what would have been a better solution to Georgian bombardment? And don't forget that Sakaashvili said that he PLANNED the offensive for some time. It was not spontaneous at all.

sOLHu, is nothing. You are trying to get at my roots, now that is not being objective now is it? Labeling?I'll give you a hint. I am from North America, and it's not US.

Post 35

Monday, September 22, 2008 - 9:06am

Dear sOLHu,

Objectivity requires acknowledging and addressing a speaker's context. You know mine. I do not know yours. This website is not "about" anonymous comments on South Ossetia, but rather "about" an online community interested in, among much else, human freedom. (Note that we Objectivists do not take "not fighting" as an end in itself. Maybe this is "an American thing"?) I am not interested in a mere exchange of words with someone whose principles I don't know - and who refuses to make them explicit.

As for my interest in your user name, I am a writer and an amateur linguist. Strange names fascinate me, even if they are just acronyms. I am sorry if you find my interest disturbing. (The last time I was in Canada, a young girl refused to swim in the pool with me unless I told her whether I was Catholic or Protestant. I think she was Catholic, as was I raised. But I held my tongue, and she sat while I played. But there is no fear of contagion here.) If you fill out your profile and explain your background I may be interested enough to respond. No men in black suits or priestly robes will come looking for you.

Transparently,

Ted Keer

Post 36

Monday, September 22, 2008 - 5:07pm

I guess we both lose, i was really looking for a fight, too bad. I don't wish to fill out my profile and i still don't see how it would change our discussion. Basically in response to your comment I would like to say that I really don't see how you knowing more about me has anything to do with Georgia, Russia, and this conflict in general. I still strongly believe you want to know about me because:
a) you don't want to argue with a child
b) you want to label my opinions to my education or background

It's not important who you are talking to. Don't you get it? And in term of community interest in "human freedom" I can assure you that human freedom comes to me only #2 after human life, bcause if you don't have human life, then you don't need freedom. (I think it's a pretty weak point. I mean who on this Earth is not interested in human freedom? So pretty much anybody is a member of your community is what you just said). "among other things"? Are they also as general and 'good' as human freedom? I mean does this community believe in anything that is not generally accepted as being 'good'? Something that many people could disagree on? So that this community is not simply a 'community of generally accepted good things'?

My principles are simple. I only want the best outcome possible in any situation, and that is: save human life, reduce human suffering, help the environment.

I honestly don't care for men in black robes. (obviously) Here's my address: 23 Alma St., Kingston, Ontario. Canada. Drop me a line someday.

In regards to my nikname (sOLHu), you will be surely dissapointed to know that it was merely a matter of odds that this particular name was not taken on one of those general community sites (like yahoo or hotmail). So I started using it more. That must have challenged your linguistic skills for some time, eh? (jk, sry)

No wonder that very few comments on this link are able to stick to the point being argued. Is a short attention span common? I still urge you to stop this foolish game of who`s who because i am not interested in who you are, but what you have to say interests me (about the conflict that is). I no nothing more of you than that your name is Ted, that you are a linguist, and a Catholic. Good for you. (no sarcasm)
So lets argue, and if you choose to respond I really hope you could propose a solution to the conflict that could potentially save more lives, than the one that did happen.

Sincerely and anonymously,

sOLHu

Post 37

Monday, September 22, 2008 - 5:38pm

Anonymous Entity,

Ted was "Raised" a Catholic, but I'm almost certain he is atheist. The only religious person that posts on RoR is Erik. Pretty much every other religious person has eventually been moderated off this private forum.

FYI further supporting Ted's claim that your background is important... Whether you have read particular Objectivist literature, your familiarity with the ideas, and whether you agree with most of them, and particularly which ones you disagree on is highly relevant to most discussions on this forum.

If your epistemology is chaos, I doubt anyone would have much interest in your self-contradictory thoughts, but some might be willing to teach or direct you to things to answer your questions if you are looking for improving your epistemology.

If your ethics is not based on your own self interest, if you do not share similar goals as us, then we may have little common ground when talking about anything with "should" in it.

Cheers,
Dean

Post 38

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 7:36am

Dear Canuck Pacifist... (No, that's not not quite right.)

Dear Canuck Paranoid... (No, scratch that one too.)

Dear Un-bio'd Argumentator,

... First, please pardon my un-PCness. :-)

As Dean and Ted have explained, this forum is specifically intended to examine Objectivist views on the various political, economic, cultural, and ethical questions of our day. Ideally, it informs those proponents of Objectivism on the various nuances of each issue, and thereby helps broaden their understanding and perspective of Objectivist philosophy and ethics.

From your viewpoint, it appears that you value the 'saving of lives' over all. This view discounts the 'value of lives', i.e. you are suggesting that living is more important than the quality of life that might need be endured. You seem to ignore that in the longer term, the quality of life issue may lead to more deaths and desperation.

The difference between your views, and those of others on this site, is philosophy. The members here are keenly concerned with the philosophical issues and ethical issues that should guide human action. More specifically, again, Objectivist philosophy.

If you wish to represent another philosophy, your views may not not be instructive or even germane here. If you should decide instead to do some direct reading on Objectivism - Objectivist epistemology and principles - you would be in better position to make valid observations. If you find you disagree with Objectivism, you can still properly take up issues in the Dissent forum on this website.

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 9/23, 12:05pm)

Post 39

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 11:08am