Just like how Israel wasn't the aggressor in the skirmishes with Hamas in Lebanon yet they got most of the negative coverage...
The point hasn't been whether or not Russia was the aggressor. The point has been whether or not Russia has greatly overstepped and defensive/protective measures that would've been understandable by the international community (and I think the answer to that should be self-evident).
And of course, if you're from the West or have ties to the West, you're most likely to focus on Russia's response, over Georgia's alleged attack. I'm sort of torn, i did not like Russia's response at all, but i think this was not a over reaction, they obviously intended this, but i just don't trust Georgia.
It doesn't slowely lie with Mekhail. Russia have been playing it drity for years, waiting on something like this to happen. Thats obvious just by their reaction. The second they had an excuse they pounced on it and had troops moved in. If it hadn't happend now with Mekail, it would have happened soon with someone else.
Also how many times does it need to be said. I think that youtube clip pretty much summed it up.
Russia responded they way they did to show the world they're on their way back to being major players, and to have serious negotiating tools. If they were smart, they would bring out more hardcore evidence and even use this interview to their advantage in terms of getting rid of Georgia's president, establishing (like Kosovo) sovereignty for S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, and further secure their nations resources in the Caspian Region.
You don't fuck with a major country and get an even matched response. Georgia fucked with the Russian bear, and they'll had their response ready to go and swiftly completed every single objective they had for that conflict. Georgia failed to meet any of their own objectives. That's what a major country needs to do when their borders are threatened or people are being killed.
For those who don't know, South Ossetians (and north) have always been pro-Russia, and even helped the communists establish the USSR's presence in Georgia. There is a lot of dislike for those people from true Georgians.
Now at the negotiating table, Russia can basically say "We want all of these items"
Georgia can comply. They can also not comply, and get this response:
"Okay, brb going to Tbilisi"
sure if you ignore every geopolitical move on behalf of United States against Russia, then yea, it seems like Russians are dirty sons of bitches.
but If you followed west and east politics for the last 8 years, then in reality, russia is on the defensive.
This includes supporting georgia government, even while most of the country wants it abolished. But United States has history of supporting tyrants so long as they are friendly with washington.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8FajNEaxwc
Let's see how many times Fox will fail at failing. Twice so far.
is this really Fox News? I just can't believe that they would show something that would put Georgia in a bad position, and put the Russians in positive area. They aren't that biased, but this is just not something i'd expect them to report on.
Let's immediately take this back to 1914 when wilson attacked russia and get it over with lol
This isn't like Arab/israeli conflicts, he did this and he did that.
This is more like, who has more control in the region. America has been moving in, and Russia is stepping up. Neither countries have any business doing it, ethically speaking
but nobody held a gun to Mekhail's head and said order your troops to attack S.ossetia
An undisciplined army who doesn't follow orders and shoots at civilians and journalists isn't exactly NATO material.
shrill
adj : high-pitched and sharp; "piercing screams"; "a shrill
whistle" [syn: piercing, sharp]
v : utter a shrill cry [syn: shriek, pipe up, pipe]
believe the word is shill, guartz.
No what is it?
Is it something that members of NATO use to kill their own populace? Like the SS or something? Because if not, asking that question to me is silly.