It's already been said that it will happen. It is to no one's advantage to allow Russia's unwarranted hostile military movements with no consequences. When you put both on the scales, that appears to be the case.

NATO has not seriously responded in a military fashion. But many negative repercussions have still happened against Russia. What response should NATO provide at this point? Russia's busy screwing themselves over, and giving gifts like more support from former Soviet states, and giving Bush his missile defense deal on a silver platter. Those dynamics are very helpful to the alliance whether you can see that or not.

Oh please. I know that you truly wish to be the Minister of Propaganda for Russia. :lol: The US actually had a UN resolution and ceasefire agreement for Iraq. There was legal framework in place despite the nonsense from the idiots. Russia had no such thing. And the US had their legislative body actually vote for action. Russia's "Unilateral" military actions was unwarranted according to the sources that have been telling us how it should be done. I expected the whiny voices to be shouting for Russia to go to the UN for "approval". Don't try and mince the issue here. This doesn't work for me.

That's OK. Their actions are only defeating their own purposes.


Nope. Not to such a negatrive extent. But Putin has now assured the hostile realignment against his country. I don't care what propaganda you provide for Russia KS. The Russians now have aligned states more watchful against a potentially hostile Russia on their borders now. It is almost assured they will all be a part of NATO in the near future. Not only that, but now with a negative vibe against Russia. And ready and eager to please the USA/NATO. Thanks Putin.

None of this has any bearing to the situation at hand. Russia had a chance to ensure peaceful relations with the inevitable and foiled it. Nothing you can do to clean that up.

He's not going to get Ukraine. They themselves are making that clear. Neither by hook or crook. Ukraine is looking seriously to the West now more than ever as wanting to become a part of it. I'm certain that this will help them get into NATO on a quicker timetable. This could easily become part of the slap coming from NATO. The fool Putin has handed us gifts. Time for us to reap the rewards. And it looks like we will.

My goodness Skybird. Almost everything you predict never comes true. Every tragic consequence you have said regarding Iraq has been the opposite. You lost your credibility long ago. The Chalmers Johnson world of Skybird has never come true, nor is it looking likely. There is really no need to address your grand delusions any further. I have answered above everything you have said here. Including the energy situation Europe has gotten itself into. Nothing you or anybody can say at this point will show Russia a winner in this situation. The dynamics totally favor the NATO position, despite the rough road to get here. Russia ain't going to do anything regarding energy. That's their last and only link of influence. They don't want to lose that by forcing Europe into another direction. Believe me, there is plenty Europe can do to address this. Unfortunately Europe allows itself to be vulnerable and at the mercy of others. Whether it's Muslims or the Russians. When push comes to shove, I believe you guys will eventually learn. Until then, continue reading your fatalist books and internet articles, go in a corner and continue deceiving yourself that you're some kind of Nostradamus, or go watch your Sido video's on MTV or whatever else a guy like you likes to do.

Funny how everyone cries when Russia has a little scuffle with a neighbor, when the US, backed by NATO invades two countries half a world away. It's hilarious how some of you guys from the US call Russia imperialistic!

get a clue and take your blinders off.

Sorry cobalt, but time for you to see the world for what it is. Where is the UN authorization for Russia's actions? Isn't that the way it's supposed to be done? Did you actually read the post GW1 ceasefire agreements and the legal framework within allowing the US to invade if Saddam broke those agreements? Did Russia take "Unilateral" action, or did they go to the UN to get "approval" like the whiny voices say it should be done? Seriously, what international approval did the Russians get to take the hostile actions they did?

your ignorance must be bliss.

His case would still be stronger in the court.

Ah yes, the court cases where one war is pitted against another. To see who wins.

If he's ignorant of some fact, why don't you share those facts that are in your possession to disprove his point? Comparing Georgia to Afghanistan and Iraq is rather shallow, IMO.

In what way? Either the UN is the vehicle used to get approval to go to war or it's not. If not, then the whiny little idiots of Europe and North America need to shut up about Iraq and a potential Iranian strike. If that's the way it is supposed to be done, then Russia should be condemned for their "Unilateral" actions. Many words come to mind here for me.

This and 687 gave the US defacto ability to reengage if Saddam did not comply with the ceasefire agreements of 687. But now, you're just deflecting the question Mikhayl. Did Russia seek UN approval or did they take "Unilateral" action without international approval? It all backfired on Putin anyway so it doesn't matter to me at all. But seriously, is the UN relevant to you or not? Are the whiners correct or not. I think the Russians answered this fundamental question correctly, even if counterproductive to their interests.

UN Resolution 1441 http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement

Quote Mikhayl's source : The only actual fact in that quote is the quote from Blix's report. The rest is interpretation of events that transpired afterwards.

Transcript of Blix's presentation to the UN secutiry council http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/spr....transcript.1/

Instead of allowing journalists to decide for you what happened, why not read the resolution and blix's report and make your own decision.


Edit : As for what's happening now, I don't recall anything being brought before the UN regarding the attack on Georgia. I also don't recall any warnings being issued to Georgia by Russia to cease and desist or they would attack. If anyone has information on that, please correct me.

Uh.. 687 was the resolution about the invasion of Kuwait and its aftermath. Using that as justification for the 2003 campaign is really a stretch of things.

WARNING, WARNING WILL ROBINSON. YOU ARE IN DANGER!

We have another Iraq war UN resolution legality debate. :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn:

We're all doomed. :dead:

You're right. It's clear the legal framework was in place to ensure enforcement of the peace agreement in Iraq from GW1 and only deflects from the real issue. How Russia screwed itself in multiple counterproductive ways, and whether or not these Russian hostile "Unilateral" actions are of any concern to the whiny little tarts of Europe and North America.

I could not care less about the 'legality'. I do not even care if a war is sanctioned by the UN, as long it is fought for the right reasons. Seeking justification in a resolution that was not intended for the specific purpose and is rather out dated, because you can not reasonably justify it otherwise, that's when it becomes somewhat of a Grey area.

But, everyone is allowed to have his/hers own opinion. Would be truly sad and boring if everybody would allways agree.


Back on topic:

What people seem to forget is a.) Georgia was the aggressor in that case. They tried to invade and take back South Ossetia. b.) Russia still considered the citizens of the a fore mentioned province as Russian citizens. That makes it de facto a Russian affair. It is unfortunate, but that is how it is.