FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Russia sort of invades Georgia





Haelyn
Well, any thoughts? Will anyone really interfere? My take on it is no. No one is going to going to try to stop Russia, other then with useless vague demands that they withdraw.

Does anyone think they are justified? They of course allege they are saving the semi-autonomous region from Georgian aggression. Mind you -- this is the same Country that declared the decleration of independence against Serbia by the minority semi-autonomous region there illegal.

So... double standard? From both sides? At any rate -- it will be interesting to see how this develops. Using the Olympics as a diversion seems to have been the plan of both sides here ...
brokenadvice
Seriously I think most Americans will react the same way I did: How is a state from America at war with Russia? I hope CNN is putting up a map to help the ignoramuses of the world.
ocalhoun
^I'm sure there's been a few already...

"OMG! The Reds are comin'! I told you they would! They've already invaded Georgia! Head for the hills!"

Well, the UN might decide to get involved, but the USA surely won't; they're a little busy right now. (Which might be why Russia chose this time...)
liljp617
brokenadvice wrote:
Seriously I think most Americans will react the same way I did: How is a state from America at war with Russia? I hope CNN is putting up a map to help the ignoramuses of the world.

IS ATLANTA IN DANGER?!?!?!

Yeah, the few reports on the news I've seen have shown the maps quite a bit.
ThePolemistis
Haelyn wrote:
Well, any thoughts? Will anyone really interfere? My take on it is no. No one is going to going to try to stop Russia, other then with useless vague demands that they withdraw.

Does anyone think they are justified? They of course allege they are saving the semi-autonomous region from Georgian aggression. Mind you -- this is the same Country that declared the decleration of independence against Serbia by the minority semi-autonomous region there illegal.

So... double standard? From both sides? At any rate -- it will be interesting to see how this develops. Using the Olympics as a diversion seems to have been the plan of both sides here ...


Double standards indeed. Russia supports the seperatists in Georgia (against another nation) yet destroys them in Chechnya (when its against them).
Kindof sums up the foriegn policy of all major nations, albeit still to challenge the United States - which has probably supported every single seperatist/resistance/terrorist movements on Earth except a couple.

Unfortuanetly for America, the groups it funds and supports, ends up hurting America afterwards (Saddam Hussein and Baath party in 1980s, Taliban/AlQaeda and Mujahadeens in 1970s).
Or is it because they act in a manner the UNited States did not want to? For instance, it was okay for Saddam to gas the Iranians, but when it came to switching from petrodollars to petroeuros, it became a concern for the whitehouse.
malaria1212
I hope this won't continue, this all, the preasure what world is in now can turn into anightmare like World War III....

I pray god about peace in the world...
Bikerman
malaria1212 wrote:
I pray god about peace in the world...

Hmm...his track record isn't very reassuring on that particular issue.
brokenadvice
ocalhoun wrote:
Well, the UN might decide to get involved, but the USA surely won't; they're a little busy right now. (Which might be why Russia chose this time...)


They also decided to start this up right before the Olympics, which provides a great cover as the rest of the world is distracted with the "weather" in China.
Bikerman
I don't think Russia chose the timing at all. My understanding is that Georgia chose the timing by launching the attack on Tskhinvali. Russia responded to that.
I suspect that the Georgians either underestimated the likely Russian response and/or overestimated the support they would receive from their US and European allies.
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
^I'm sure there's been a few already...

"OMG! The Reds are comin'! I told you they would! They've already invaded Georgia! Head for the hills!"

Well, the UN might decide to get involved, but the USA surely won't; they're a little busy right now. (Which might be why Russia chose this time...)

UN = USA for the most part Smile
HumpySmith
Who knows the timing and who really knows who started it? No-one. It was a sort of invasion but i dont think there was any bombing, then again i could be wrong. what i do know is that if russia wanted to do a full-scale US-style invasion of Iraq on Georgia, then we would have known about it.
ocalhoun
Just what is going on there anyway? The only news reports I've seen are vague as to what is actually happening, and hardly mention the cause of the 'war' or the intentions of either side at all.

And it certainly seems to me that the timing was well 'chosen', whoever chose it, if their intention was to avoid foreign involvement. The USA is distracted by Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kosovo, while the media is distracted by the Olympics...
liljp617
HumpySmith wrote:
Who knows the timing and who really knows who started it? No-one. It was a sort of invasion but i dont think there was any bombing, then again i could be wrong. what i do know is that if russia wanted to do a full-scale US-style invasion of Iraq on Georgia, then we would have known about it.

We did know about it. What more do you need to see to deem it an invasion?
misterXY
Russia and Georgia announced truce:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7557457.stm
liljp617
misterXY wrote:
Russia and Georgia announced truce:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7557457.stm


A piece of paper isn't a big deal as Russia is showing =/
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:
misterXY wrote:
Russia and Georgia announced truce:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7557457.stm


A piece of paper isn't a big deal as Russia is showing =/

Depends what the conditions of the truce are. Looking at Georgia's bargaining position, Russian troops remaining in the country might very well be a part of the agreement.
Bikerman
Consider the background
Georgia is pushing for NATO membership. The US is keen to oblige. The Ukraine has already gone down that route. Russia is therefore feeling vulnerable - it is surrounded by states which are members (or are seeking to be members) of an organisation that was set-up specifically to counter Soviet/Russian military influence.

Consider the real-politik

Russia is now a very important supplier of goods into Europe - Gas, Oil, metals.

Consider the specific incident
Georgia sought to crush South-Ossetian rebellion against Georgian rule. It did so by bombing and artillery bombardment of the enclave. It did so in the assumption that its western allies would leap in and prevent a Russian response. Very very foolish.

Consider the future

This is, perhaps, just a rehearsal for what will happen in the Ukraine sometime soon.

Scary.
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
misterXY wrote:
Russia and Georgia announced truce:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7557457.stm


A piece of paper isn't a big deal as Russia is showing =/

Depends what the conditions of the truce are. Looking at Georgia's bargaining position, Russian troops remaining in the country might very well be a part of the agreement.

Maybe in the regions that wanted to break away, but I highly doubt they agreed to Russian occupation in sovereign regions of Georgia.
Cddhesh
I was waiting for USA to interfere with Russia, but nothing happened,If people only wants freedom and they say that they are Rusians and want separate country then who can do anything ?
Bikerman
The US will not interfere militarily. They would be insane to even contemplate it.
It is a fait-acomplis. Georgia behaved very foolishly and Saakashvilli thought that the West would support his little military venture in South Ossetia. He was badly wrong and got slapped-down hard by the Russians. The Russians will withdraw from Georgia when they are satisfied that they have completely neutralised the threat (and, I suspect, when they are satisfied that Saakashvilli has been thoroughly humiliated to their liking). Whether they will withdraw from South Ossetia is another matter - I suspect not, I think they will massively ramp up the number of 'peace-keepers' in that province to stop any repeat, and effectively annex South Ossetia completely.
Is there anything the West can or should do - nope. The Georgian government (such as it is) got delusions of grandeur and thought they could play with the big boys. They were very wrong. Saakashvilli has been treated as the 'darling' of the West for some time now. He is no such thing. He is a nasty little dictator who has silenced the free-press and persecuted all opposition to his government. His attack on South Ossetia merely served to indicate how out of touch with reality he is. The Georgian people have been ill-served by their government, and it is to be hoped that Saakashvilli will get his marching orders in the near future.
liljp617
Cddhesh wrote:
I was waiting for USA to interfere with Russia, but nothing happened,If people only wants freedom and they say that they are Rusians and want separate country then who can do anything ?


We don't have the military resources or capabilities to do so at the moment even if we wanted to militarily defend Georgia (which we wouldn't do even if we weren't in the middle of 2 wars already).
deanhills
I can't see the West interfering with Georgia. Iraq in retrospect turned out to be something of an overreach, and then there is Afghanistan, not to mention Serbia, think the West will think twice before it gets involved in something that is certain to be a losing proposition.

Think similarly to Serbia and Kosovo, a large number of Russians and Georgians feel very strongly that Georgia is part of Russia. Emotions are running very high in that regard with lots of nationalism based on a long history that has been shared.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
I can't see the West interfering with Georgia. Iraq in retrospect turned out to be something of an overreach, and then there is Afghanistan, not to mention Serbia, think the West will think twice before it gets involved in something that is certain to be a losing proposition.

Think similarly to Serbia and Kosovo, a large number of Russians and Georgians feel very strongly that Georgia is part of Russia. Emotions are running very high in that regard with lots of nationalism based on a long history that has been shared.


Actually I don't really know if they've learned their lesson considering both McCain and (I think) Rice have said on multiple occasions, "This is the 21st century, you can't simply invade countries to overthrow a government." Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
gcaughill
Bikerman wrote:
malaria1212 wrote:
I pray god about peace in the world...

Hmm...his track record isn't very reassuring on that particular issue.


Some guy posts heartfelt thoughts and then is slammed by some other guy attempting to be humourous.

If you do not like someone's views, answer in a constructive way instead of insults. There is no room for that kind of attitude.
Bikerman
gcaughill wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
malaria1212 wrote:
I pray god about peace in the world...

Hmm...his track record isn't very reassuring on that particular issue.


Some guy posts heartfelt thoughts and then is slammed by some other guy attempting to be humourous.

If you do not like someone's views, answer in a constructive way instead of insults. There is no room for that kind of attitude.
There is clearly room for it - that is my attitude and I'm still here.

If you can point out why that comment is an insult then I would be interested to see it. It was an entirely sincere and accurate comment, and there was nothing insulting (in fact nothing at all) about the poster.
If you think it is insulting to point out that God does not have a great track record in creating peace in the world then I'm forced to wonder which history books and news sources you read.
liljp617
gcaughill wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
malaria1212 wrote:
I pray god about peace in the world...

Hmm...his track record isn't very reassuring on that particular issue.


Some guy posts heartfelt thoughts and then is slammed by some other guy attempting to be humourous.

If you do not like someone's views, answer in a constructive way instead of insults. There is no room for that kind of attitude.

Unfortunately, the truth hurts a lot of the time.
qname
Russia sort of invades Georgia

Russian didn't invade Georgia. Georgia was smoking crack to invade part of in area in dispute of Russian. Russia teach them not to mess with a first class army which is a nuclear state
Moonspider
qname wrote:
Russia sort of invades Georgia

Russian didn't invade Georgia. Georgia was smoking crack to invade part of in area in dispute of Russian. Russia teach them not to mess with a first class army which is a nuclear state


I'd just like to say that Russia does not possess a "first class army." This war demonstrated that the Russian military has improved since the 1990s, however it also demonstrated that they are still plagued by problems, including equipment reliability and ability to coordinate forces. Russia couldn't even suppress Georgian air defenses and lost a TU-22 because of it.

And personally, I don't buy the line from Russia that they were "surprised" by Georgia's attack on South Ossettia and organized their military response in a matter of hours. Russia was ready and prepared for their counterattack before the Georgians began their offensive.

Georgia's military is (was) pathetically small. Russia's assault looked impressive on CNN, but if you dig in and analyze it, it wasn't. But it does show improvement since the Chechen wars.

Russia used the same old tactics it has for centuries: throw a bunch of people at your enemy and overwhelm them. That's all they did. It works, but a first class military it does not make.

And by the way, Russia did invade Georgia. Those two disputed territories are internationally recognized as part of Georgia. Besides, it is quite obvious to any observer that Russia went (and continue to go) far beyond removing Georgian forces from South Ossettia.

Added 01 September 08
Foreign Minister Lavrov stated, "For a start, it would be right to impose an embargo on weapons to this regime, until different authorities turn Georgia to a normal state." It was obvious to most observers from the beginning, but as we can see from Russian statements now as well as actions, their goal is Georgian regime change, not protecting South Ossetia (or even Abkhazia). That is and always has been their purpose. South Ossetia just served as an excuse to invade Georgia and do everything that Russia believes possible in the geopolitical climate to destabilize the current Georgian government.

Respectfully,
M
dickyzin
The EU and NATO will come up with a retaliation but to what extent I am not sure. So far, Russia seems like it won't back down but I have a feeling they will compromise. Russia's Asian friends are not supportive of Russia's recognition of the two break-away states of Georgia. Russia faces isolation. They act tough but eventually they will have to compromise.

The West will also have to compromise with Russia. Russia's still got some upper hand cards to play. This is already the start of a very complicated Cold War II. Who will give up first?
LGCanada
Russia is fighting with America, for "its right” to influence Former Soviet Union countries around the Russian border.
For example, America has chosen to ignore the international law and grant Kosovo independence. What's interesting about this fact is that Russia has decided to go against America. This is a sign to the international community that Russian power is growing, or at least Russia thinks that it is. This was her first show of diplomatic might.
The second demonstration of power was when Russia went into Georgia and drove out the Georgian army out South Ossetia. After-the-fact, Russia went so far as to criticize the “American” involvement in the crisis. For example, Prime Minister Putin stated that it was the American citizens that were standing behind the Georgian army and that were supporting the Georgian military. In my opinion what he meant was that retired American military Officers helped the Georgian army prepare for the attack on South Ossetia. This is pretty much what happened in Croatia in 1995.
The latest show of power was when Russia chose to send Tu-160s bombers to Venezuela.
ocalhoun
LGCanada wrote:
Russia is fighting with America, for "its right” to influence Former Soviet Union countries around the Russian border.
For example, America has chosen to ignore the international law and grant Kosovo independence. What's interesting about this fact is that Russia has decided to go against America. This is a sign to the international community that Russian power is growing, or at least Russia thinks that it is. This was her first show of diplomatic might.
The second demonstration of power was when Russia went into Georgia and drove out the Georgian army out South Ossetia. After-the-fact, Russia went so far as to criticize the “American” involvement in the crisis. For example, Prime Minister Putin stated that it was the American citizens that were standing behind the Georgian army and that were supporting the Georgian military. In my opinion what he meant was that retired American military Officers helped the Georgian army prepare for the attack on South Ossetia. This is pretty much what happened in Croatia in 1995.
The latest show of power was when Russia chose to send Tu-160s bombers to Venezuela.

I would put it more as Russia fighting with NATO over the same things, rather than fighting just with the USA. Especially when talking about influence over Eastern Europe.

Oh, and one main reason Russia was supporting Yugoslavia's side in the Kosovo affair is because that conflict paralleled their own situation with Chechnya (Union of republics (Russia and Yugoslavia) fighting to retain a republic that wants independence from the larger union (Chechnya and Kosovo respectively).) Since they denied Chechnya's right to independence, they had to deny Kosovo's independence as well, or look like hypocrites.
LGCanada
I don't see double standard standards as being a problem for powerful countries. Russia for example has accepted South Ossetias independence while not accepting Kosovos'. The US politicians are world renown for their double standards. In 1999 when America attacked Serbia it used radioactive ammunition. They also committed many war crimes such as bombings near hospitals, directly hitting civilian buildings and destroying bridges. meanwhile, they are prosecuting countries for war crimes.
Moonspider
LGCanada wrote:
I don't see double standard standards as being a problem for powerful countries.


Countries act in their own self interest, even if it means inconsistency.

LGCanada wrote:
Russia for example has accepted South Ossetias independence while not accepting Kosovos'. The US politicians are world renown for their double standards. In 1999 when America attacked Serbia it used radioactive ammunition.


No, they (U.S.) did not. I assume you refer to depleted uranium. DU munitions are chemically toxic (just as lead bullets are). However DU is not a radiological hazard.

Twice as dense as lead, depleted uranium is used in a wide variety of applications, including armor piercing rounds. This notion that it is dangerously radioactive is pure nonsense. Other uses include:

Counterweights in helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft
Airplane control surfaces
Radiation shields in medical radiation therapy machines
Containers for the transport of radioactive material
Defensive armor plating
Yacht keels

If it is radioactive, why do we use it to shield people from radioactive material!? Does it make sense to you to use what you believe to be a radioactive material to shield people from radioactive material?

Federation of American Scientists wrote:
Nuclear reactors require U235 to produce energy, therefore, the natural uranium has to be enriched to obtain the isotope U235 by removing a large part of the U238. Uranium-238 becomes DU, which is 0.7 times as radioactive as natural uranium. Since DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, there is very little decay of those DU materials.


Studies have been done in Kosovo by the United Nations following widespread use of such ordnance during that war.

Here are some links on DU, including from the World Health Organization: WHO Article
Uranium Information Centre
http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/1999/04/b04151999_bt170-99.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/du.htm

In combat the only people who might inhale dangerous levels of the uranium oxide dust are those in close proximity to vehicles or other targets of DU weapons. If I’m that close, I’d be more worried about getting hit directly or by shrapnel than inhaling the dust!

LGCanada wrote:
They also committed many war crimes such as bombings near hospitals, directly hitting civilian buildings and destroying bridges. meanwhile, they are prosecuting countries for war crimes.


You'd have to give me specific examples of what you believe constitutes a war crime. There's nothing wrong with attacking a civilian building provided it's a legitimate military target. Bridges are certainly military targets! "Near hospitals?" Once again, I'd have to see specifics to address the accusation.

No country in the history of modern warfare takes more care to avoid collateral damage than the United States does today.

Respectfully,
M
LGCanada
Admirable post Moonspider. Aside from that, here is my evidence of war crimes:

1. On April 12th, in Grdelicka Klisura, 55 civilians were bombed to death when NATO hit up a crowded passenger train which was passing on the bridge.
2. Two days later on April 14, in Drakovica, 75 civilians are bombed to death when a NATO bomb was dropped on another bridge.
3. 1st of May in Luzane, Kosovo. Another bombing raid on a bridge as a passenger bus was crossing. 47 civilians were murdered in this attack.
4. 7th May in Serbia's third largest city of Nis. In full daylight, the city centre, crowded with civilians carrying out their shopping, was strafed by NATO military aircraft. Unconfirmed number of deaths because bodies were I'm recognizable.
5. 13th May – Korisa, Kosovo. An Albanian village is inexplicably targeted by NATO warplanes. 87 civilians murdered.
6. On the 14th of May, an estimate of hundred Albanian people bombed to death, when NATO planes struck two convoys of refugees.
7. This is the example that I had used in my last post. On May 20th precision bomb strikes Dragisa Misovic hospital in Dedinja (Belgrade), murdering patients.
Klaw 2
Well firstly we are talking about what Russia does I do not see why other conflicts are revelant, I disaprove of both georgia for starting the conflict and Russia for it excessive violence and most of for being a F****** hypocryt.

Also you infact sort of mis-use the word "murdering" it has a more strong effect but is actually wrong, killed is better.

And war crimes is kinda far-fetched, given that during those skrimishes those were seen as enemy targets and unintentionally killed sivilians.
Warcrimes applys to situations were killing (civilians) people wasn't necesarry and excessive sucha s the holocaust.

@ moonspider it is true that DU is dangerously radioactive but it is very toxic and I think that the use should be banned. It is waay to toxic and is an invisible killer after battle.
ocalhoun
LGCanada wrote:
Admirable post Moonspider. Aside from that, here is my evidence of war crimes:

1. On April 12th, in Grdelicka Klisura, 55 civilians were bombed to death when NATO hit up a crowded passenger train which was passing on the bridge.
2. Two days later on April 14, in Drakovica, 75 civilians are bombed to death when a NATO bomb was dropped on another bridge.
3. 1st of May in Luzane, Kosovo. Another bombing raid on a bridge as a passenger bus was crossing. 47 civilians were murdered in this attack.
4. 7th May in Serbia's third largest city of Nis. In full daylight, the city centre, crowded with civilians carrying out their shopping, was strafed by NATO military aircraft. Unconfirmed number of deaths because bodies were I'm recognizable.
5. 13th May – Korisa, Kosovo. An Albanian village is inexplicably targeted by NATO warplanes. 87 civilians murdered.
6. On the 14th of May, an estimate of hundred Albanian people bombed to death, when NATO planes struck two convoys of refugees.
7. This is the example that I had used in my last post. On May 20th precision bomb strikes Dragisa Misovic hospital in Dedinja (Belgrade), murdering patients.


1-3 are legitimate targets, it was just unfortunate that civilians were on the bridges at the time.
4-7 are probably just mistakes, some of which were more understandable than others. They would be in the same category as friendly fire.
4 may have been mistaken for a military formation
5 stupid mistake?
6 mistaken for a military convoy?
7 wrong building, or miss due to malfunctioning bomb?

The number of accidental civilian kills is somewhat understandable, given that legitimate targets had been spread out and hidden as well as possible, and that NATO wanted to end the war by air attack only, so continued to attack lower and lower priority targets by air. (Actually, one of the major complaints about that war is that they were being too careful about target selection!) They were running so short of known legitimate targets that they started bombing targets that had already been destroyed, to the mystification of the defenders.
LGCanada
We should start a topic where we discussed the morality of "American" actions. I put the word American in quotes in order to differentiate the two meanings, the politicians whom we should be discussing and the American people who are not responsible.

Over the last year Russia has proven two things:

One, that it's powerful enough to oppose American influence around Russia. She has proven this by going into Georgia and successfully taking control of South Ossetia. even more importantly, Russia sought an endorsement from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization also known as the SCO (basically the "Asian Union") for military intervention in Georgia.

This brings me to point two. Although more powerful than the in the 1990s Russia is still not the main power in the region, China is the boss in Asia. For example, the SCO refused Russia's request for military intervention in Georgia request, solely based on China's current political claim on Taiwan.
Moonspider
LGCanada wrote:
Admirable post Moonspider. Aside from that, here is my evidence of war crimes:


Before I address each incident separately, let me simply say that accidents do not constitute war crimes. Sadly, civilian deaths occur in war and in fact during major wars outnumber military casualties by a wide margin.

In order for it to be a war crime, the attacker must have intentionally targeted civilians for the purpose of killing said civilians. (There are times when civilians may be located at a target but the military value of the target arguably outweighs the potential death toll. Provided the attacker takes all reasonable precautions to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible, attacking the target is acceptable.) Or, at a minimum, one must be able to prove that the attacker acted in utter disregard of civilians, taking no precautions to limit civilian deaths during the conflict.

Now for the specific incidents I am simply going to quote my reference (listed below) rather than summarizing it in my own words.


  1. April 12 -- A NATO pilot fires two missiles into a train crossing a bridge at Grdelicka Klisura in southern Serbia, killing 55 people, according to Belgrade. NATO insists the bridge, a key supply line for Yugoslav forces in Kosovo, was the target and that the pilot saw the train too late.
  2. April 14 -- NATO bombs refugee convoys in the Djakovica region of south-east Kosovo, leaving 75 dead, according to Belgrade. NATO, without confirming the civilian toll, said it was targeting military vehicles but admitted hitting two convoys.
  3. May 1 -- NATO bombs a bridge at Luzane near Pristina, killing 47 people aboard a bus which was travelling along it. NATO, without confirming the figure, admitted the following day having targetted the bridge without the intention of causing civilian casualties.
  4. May 7 -- A NATO air raid hits central Nis in southeast Serbia, leaving at least 15 dead and 70 injured. NATO said its planes were aiming for a landing strip and a radio transmitter but that a cluster bomb had missed its mark.
  5. May 13 -- NATO bombs the village of Korisa, leaving 87 civilians dead according to the Serbs. The allies claim that the civilians were being used as "human shields" and that Korisa was a legitimate military target.
  6. May 14 – My reference did not mention this particular attack. However from a brief scan of news articles, NATO claims this area was also a military target (one article said it was actually about 1,000 yards from the village), but that civilians also may have been brought to the area to use as human shields.
  7. May 20 -- A Belgrade hospital is hit by a missile at around 1 -- 00 a.m., killing three patients. NATO attributes the accident to a missile which went astray during an attack on a nearby military barracks.


Source: Operation Allied Force from Global Security

Now, I do not expect any of this to sway your opinion, or that of anyone else who believes these to be war crimes. However I do try to point out that there are two sides (or more) to every story. The mere presence of civilian casualties does not constitute a war crime. Nor does government or alliance denial constitute innocence. Nevertheless, a war crime is a crime. Therefore it doesn’t matter what you believe to be true, only what you can prove. And for all of the incidents you mention, I believe it would be impossible in a court of law to prove that these were war crimes.

On a side note, I’m a product of the Cold War and therefore have my biases. So the fact that Pravda listed these as war crimes when calling NATO hypocrites for prosecuting Milosevic makes me feel that I am in all likelihood correct that these incidents do not constitute war crimes.

Respectfully,
M
Related topics
Russia Invades Georgia
Russian warships in Cuban visit
Time for USA to stop giving $3billion/year to Israel?
Barack Obama got Nobel peace prize..... share your views.
What's great about your country?
should we care about antartic ice melting?
Georgia asking US for armaments again
Have you been hacked or do you like to hack?
What day of the year should we celebrate FRIHOST day
Ukraine is not part of Russia, it is European country
I need georgia.ttf .... How can I do it ?
Sort order ?
China and Russia "peace mission -2005" union milit
What do you think about Russia?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.