South Ossetia: Defense against ethnic cleansing, or invasion? (Turns out, Georgia fired missiles first. it was self defense)
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, August 23, 2026 15:28
VIEWED: 18520
PAGE 16 of 28
Quote:That's a STUPID question. What do they have that anyone wants? Might as well ask me how I'd feel about Cheney getting a sex change.
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
How would you feel about a country taking unilateral action in Darfur?
isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You're obsessed with correct labeling- this is a living system, fluid and changing- history will figure out the precise descriptions later, my commenting upon the essence of the current, prevalent ideology is correct, IMO.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It’s not the essence of “Neocon” ideology. You need to learn more about Neoconservatism.
isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Now that's a diversion.
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:That's a STUPID question. What do they have that anyone wants? Might as well ask me how I'd feel about Cheney getting a sex change.
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
How would you feel about a country taking unilateral action in Darfur?
Or what about Rwanda, where the UN had policy and standing, but refused to act - if someone had acted unilaterally in that case to prevent the wanton slaughter of a million Rwandans what would you say about that?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's a STUPID question. What do they have that anyone wants? Might as well ask me how I'd feel about Cheney getting a sex change.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Or what about Rwanda, where the UN had policy and standing, but refused to act - if someone had acted unilaterally in that case to prevent the wanton slaughter of a million Rwandans what would you say about that?
Real answer? If the RIGHT THING was done, I'd applaud it. Trouble is, that's rarely the case. And I'd rather see mistakes made within the law than outside it.
GRRRRRisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, Chris, that’s a good answer, but it’s not one I completely agree with. I don’t want to see a million die because of some strict adherence to an ideology, even if that ideology is just “the rule of law.” Even though that ideology is one I agree with and one I think should be pushed as far as it can go, but when the system is shaky and Capones are in charge, some latitude needs to be given to those who are willing to try something else.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Real answer? If the RIGHT THING was done, I'd applaud it. Trouble is, that's rarely the case. And I'd rather see mistakes made within the law than outside it.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But who decides who the Capones are?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
but when the system is shaky and Capones are in charge, some latitude needs to be given to those who are willing to try something else.
Who is the Decider?
isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And that is exactly what Russia did.
Until the UN becomes mature enough to have the full faith of nations, some nations will always have to act on their own
I know what you're going to say...
"But, but... that's different!"
But, but... it's not.
Pleas see the signature below about any idea.
ETA BTW Finn, I don't hate you. I just think you're terribly confused. You state principles very globally... "some nations will always have to act on their own"... without realizing that principle, applied universally and w/o caveats, could create the things you claim to despise.
I know that you have limitations to your statements. The biggest limitation is that you apply your principles selectively. For example, what you REALLY mean is... "Only the USA and other nations that I like can act on their own". Other nations acting on their own would be anathema. Another example is "I value human life". If that were the case, then you would be against any killing whatsoever, except in cases of direct self-defense of defense of others. But you're not. You don't apply that idea as universally as you make it sound. What you REALLY mean is "I value human life, as long as it's innocent or doesn't get in the way of greater ideals, such as freedom".
I simply want you to be explicit about your context and limitations. And that means that you have to recognize them, something you're not doing now.
---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn is flat out wrong. A no vote by the security council and American unilateral action proves that.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Why didn’t Russia seek a UN resolution against Georgia? The US/UK did. Many, many times.
The US and the UK didn't have prior proof and precedent that you don't need UN support in order to invade a sovereign nation. Russia did, provided by the Unilateral invasion of Iraq. Something you've singularly failed to argue against with your childish protestations of mine being nothing but a "blame America" argument. It is indeed much more nuanced than that, and certainly much more nuanced than your own, evidenced by the fact that you can lay out your opinion in as many words as it takes me paragraphs.
So you think that America setting a precedent of not listening to the UN and doing whatever the hell it likes, has nothing to do with Russia thinking it can get away with not listening to the UN and doing whatever the hell it wants? Seems monkey see monkey do to me, but of course in order to recognise that, one might have to drop one's nationalist line "America perfect! America infallible! America always right!"
Nationalism is condemning one country for doing nothing more than yours did yesterday. Good luck with that.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But it wasn't really a no vote, it was a yes vote that had been bought into being a no vote, so since it was actually a yes vote, and not a no vote, yes, you'd have to say invading Iraq was totally legit, no?
Originally posted by citizen:
Finn is flat out wrong. A no vote by the security council and American unilateral action proves that.
Now you see, yes?
Dizzyisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME