Real World Event Discussions
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 15 of 28
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:32 PM
Quote:It’s not a diversion. You argued with me, concerning the Iraq war, that the US/UK (key members of UNSC) had to have strict adherence to the UNSC, despite corruption within the UN and years of UN law, so why do you refuse to acknowledge now that Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Georgia is less legitimate then the Iraq war?
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:A) Who said the UN was irrelevent?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Can you? Because so many of you threw fits about how important the UN is in justification for the Iraq war, but when Russia invades another nation on the fly, the UN is completely irrelevant to you.
B) Nice diversion from the argument at hand.
Quote:At some point, yes. If the authorities will not act to enforce their own law, then you have chaos unless someone else is willing to take charge. There's a difference between vigilantes (US/UK) who act to uphold agreed upon law that the authorities refuse to enforce, and the criminals (Russia) who act without any base in law at all.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
EDIT: C) "eventually someone’s going to get tired of murderers" Advocating vigilantism now?Chrisisall
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
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:36 PM
Quote:Well, I thought you wouldn't need it pointing out, but obviously you do:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
17 Chapter 7 Resolutions over 12 years.
No Finn. To an invasion of Iraq the security council voted no. The invasion of Iraq was every bit illegal as the invasion of Georgia. The UN's inability to prevent the imperialistic invasion of Iraq by the United States of America gave the Russian Federation the go ahead. If the UN can't stop America, why should it be able to stop the Russians? America sees the laws as not applying to it, so the Russians think "why should we be bound by the UN?".
You can't ignore the UN when it says no, then use it as justification. America went into Iraq without the support or blessing of the UN, Russia went into Georgia with the same. That you use UN resolutions (while ignoring the decision of the UN no less) as a flimsy excuse for unilateral invasion, while Russia uses protection of it's citizens and 'prevention of ethnic cleansing' as it's flimsy excuse, makes no odds. They're both flimsy bad excuses for entirely illegal wars.
In Iraq you say there were resolutions, they still don't give you the right to Invade. That's still a decision for the Security Council. In Georgia the Russian's say they were protecting their citizens, still not a right to invade, but better than your Iraq resolutions. Then we have the two other excuses, WMD and ethnic cleansing respectively, both of which turn out to be bullshit. The parallels are greater than you admit, and all you can say is "resolutions! resolutions!". Funny how important UN resolutions are to you, given how you ignore the UN's decisions when you don't like them.
You bought our excuses, they didn't. You don't buy their excuses, they do. Personally for me there's a deep smell of manure off what both sides are shovelling. You can't use the UN as a legal justification for war while ignoring the decision of the UN. If you had a murder in court, and the court found them not guilty, you don't have the right to shoot them dead because you think they're guilty and the court is wrong. The UN security council decides how UN resolutions are acted on, not the president of the United States of America, nor Finn Mac Cuhmal of fireflyfans.net.
At the end of the day, the Iraq war was what allowed the Russian's to invade Georgia, it set the precedent for UN member nations to invade sovereign countries without UN backing, and it showed that the UN couldn't really stop America doing whatever the hell it wants, and so why would it be able to stop Russia doing the same?
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
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:41 PM
Quote:Why didn’t Russia seek a UN resolution against Georgia? The US/UK did. Many, many times.
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Well, I thought you wouldn't need it pointing out, but obviously you do:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
17 Chapter 7 Resolutions over 12 years.
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
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:43 PM
Quote:Okay, it's certainly less legitimate...
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
why do you refuse to acknowledge now that Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Georgia is less legitimate then the Iraq war?
as in 'less pregnant' But if the UN is so riddled with corruption, of what relevance is anything it has to say about anything now?
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:49 PM
Quote:Like Cit said, we set the precedent, they don't have to ask the UN for squat.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Why didn’t Russia seek a UN resolution against Georgia? The US/UK did. Many, many times.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:51 PM
Quote:Therein lies a much better explanation for why Russia may have decided to ignore the UN, then Citizens blame-America idea. I think many people warned that the UN risked becoming irrelevant if it spent too much time ignoring it’s own law. The UN isn’t perfect - it is often riddle with corruption and unresponsive, but it does provide a seed around which international policy can advance from 19th century concept. Until the UN becomes mature enough to have the full faith of nations, some nations will always have to act on their own, but that is not a justification for Russia to completely ignoring the UN. At the very least, Russia should have sought Chapter 7 Resolutions against Georgia - although I suspect that Russia had no real evidence of any of the claims they used as casus belli and probably would not have been able to get Chapter 6 much less the more actionable Chapter 7 Resolutions - in which case, Russia is really just practicing Soviet-Era politics.
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Okay, it's certainly less legitimate...
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
why do you refuse to acknowledge now that Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Georgia is less legitimate then the Iraq war?
But if the UN is so riddled with corruption, of what relevance is anything it has to say about anything now?
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
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:53 PM
Quote:Cit is wrong. 17 Chapter 7 Resolutions prove that.
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Like Cit said, we set the precedent, they don't have to ask the UN for squat.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Why didn’t Russia seek a UN resolution against Georgia? The US/UK did. Many, many times.
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
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Until the UN becomes mature enough to have the full faith of nations, some nations will always have to act on their own
This is the essence of the NeoCon ideology IMO, the rule of law applies- until we think (in our outstandingly objective view) it doesn't.
Meh.
Chrisisdone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:04 PM
Quote:It’s not the essence of “Neocon” ideology. You need to learn more about Neoconservatism.
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:This is the essence of the NeoCon ideology IMO, the rule of law applies- until we think (in our outstandingly objective view) it doesn't.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Until the UN becomes mature enough to have the full faith of nations, some nations will always have to act on their own
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
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is the essence of the NeoCon ideology IMO, the rule of law applies- until we think (in our outstandingly objective view) it doesn't.
How would you feel about a country taking unilateral action in Darfur?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME