Trouble in South Ossetia escalates

[Block]

In other words, all you had to say was, "Oh yeah, it doesn't prove anything, here's more recent info that backs up what I said," and I would've said something to the effect of "Ok, thank you," and that would've been the end of it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Except for the fact that MY point was not that Gori was invaded. You're putting me on a side of a debate that I'm not involved in. All I did was say, that evidence proves nothing, since like I said THAT article is neutral and says basically a whole lot of nothing. That was it. You provided more evidence and that's fine, that really should've been the end of it.

You disputed the evidence in an argument over whether or not Gori had been occupied, I provided more evidence which backed up my interpretation. That IS directly related to the argument over Gori, you sniveling, lying little cockroach. The debate is not over whether or not my evidence is correct, that is a component of the debate on whether or not Gori was occupied. How hard is it for even a stupid shit like you to figure that out? I provided more evidence, as I noted, which supported me, and that indeed should have been the end of it.

Instead what happened is that you assumed that I was against you, when I simply was pointing out an error, and started ranting baselessly demanding I conceed an arguement that never existed. Sorry, but you're really not making sense.

No you dumbfuck, you're the one who is trying to lie your way out of this. Let's explain this slowly, AGAIN, fucktard: You pointed out an "error," and I provided evidenced that the error was not in fact an error. So you are going to concede RIGHT THE FUCK NOW that I was correct all along, that there was no error in my argument, and that my interpretation of my original post was proved right by the additional evidence I provided. Because that is what happened here, and you're trying to worm your way out of like a worthless little shit.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

In other words, all you had to say was, "Oh yeah, it doesn't prove anything, here's more recent info that backs up what I said," and I would've said something to the effect of "Ok, thank you," and that would've been the end of it.

Fuck you, you worthless little shit. That isn't how it works. You disputed my interpretation of the article, and I PROVIDED EVIDENCE SHOWING MY INTERPRETATION WAS CORRECT. Now you concede, fucker.

[Block]

Not going to happen. You can continue to demand a concession, hell bring it up to the Senate if you want, but there's no way I'm going to conceed an arguement that I never made.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Not going to happen. You can continue to demand a concession, hell bring it up to the Senate if you want, but there's no way I'm going to conceed an arguement that I never made.

You're going to concede the argument you DID make, dumbfuck, because you were wrong. You said I could not make the interpretation of the article that I did, and I provided evidence which showed that it was a correct interpretation. Therefore, you are wrong by your own precious claims of a distinct argument (which are really just your backpedaling, but since I'm generous I'm now showing you how you're wrong even THEN) and you will goddamned fucking well concede right now.

[Block]

Not going to happen. You can continue to demand a concession, hell bring it up to the Senate if you want, but there's no way I'm going to conceed an arguement that I never made.

You're going to concede the argument you DID make, dumbfuck, because you were wrong. You said I could not make the interpretation of the article that I did, and I provided evidence which showed that it was a correct interpretation. Therefore, you are wrong by your own precious claims of a distinct argument (which are really just your backpedaling, but since I'm generous I'm now showing you how you're wrong even THEN) and you will goddamned fucking well concede right now.

Incorrect. Your interpretation of that article was wrong. That particular article said exactly one thing, it said we, the United States, don't really know what's going on. Which is what I said. It was all I said. Since I made no mention of Gori, one way or the other, you're flat out wrong. Now if you had posted the second article first, then I'd be wrong, but since you didn't, you're wrong.

[Block]

And you can stamp your foot and hold your breath all you want, I'm still not going to give into your rediculous, childish attempts at internet bullying.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Incorrect. Your interpretation of that article was wrong. That particular article said exactly one thing, it said we, the United States, don't really know what's going on. Which is what I said. It was all I said. Since I made no mention of Gori, one way or the other, you're flat out wrong. Now if you had posted the second article first, then I'd be wrong, but since you didn't, you're wrong.

No, that isn't how it works. I backed up my interpretation with evidence which proved that the anonymous defense department source was correct (the Russians were not in Gori) and that the defense department spokesman's words (assessing the situation) were irrelevant to that statement. That evidence I provided was another article in which the Georgian government itself said that the Russians were not in Gori. So, my interpretation of the article is therefore proved right. Your interpretation of the original article is not supported by the evidence, my interpretation of the original article IS, therefore, you are wrong, motherfucker. Just like I've said the last six times. And since my finals are tomorrow and the next day, I'll have enough time to say it six hundred times a day for the next month if you're really feeling that stupid, or until you get banned, whichever comes first. So go ahead, man up, and concede.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And you can stamp your foot and hold your breath all you want, I'm still not going to give into your rediculous, childish attempts at internet bullying.

I'm not bullying, I'm following the rules. Someday, you should try it, too.

[Block]

Incorrect. Your interpretation of that article was wrong. That particular article said exactly one thing, it said we, the United States, don't really know what's going on. Which is what I said. It was all I said. Since I made no mention of Gori, one way or the other, you're flat out wrong. Now if you had posted the second article first, then I'd be wrong, but since you didn't, you're wrong.

No, that isn't how it works. I backed up my interpretation with evidence which proved that the anonymous defense department source was correct (the Russians were not in Gori) and that the defense department spokesman's words (assessing the situation) were irrelevant to that statement. That evidence I provided was another article in which the Georgian government itself said that the Russians were not in Gori. So, my interpretation of the article is therefore proved right. Your interpretation of the original article is not supported by the evidence, my interpretation of the original article IS, therefore, you are wrong, motherfucker. Just like I've said the last six times. And since my finals are tomorrow and the next day, I'll have enough time to say it six hundred times a day for the next month if you're really feeling that stupid, or until you get banned, whichever comes first. So go ahead, man up, and concede.

Here is why you're wrong. Other information from another article does not make an article that says "we don't know" say "we know they're not there." It DOES prove that they weren't in Gori, it doesn't prove that you interpreting "we don't know" as "they're definitively not there" is right. That is why your interpretation is wrong, you can't MAKE an article say something that it doesn't, and then use later evidence to say, "what I thought was indeed correct, even though there's no basis for that in this article." It doesn't work that way.
Again, the arguement was never about whether or not they were in Gori, at least not with me it wasn't, it was about how THAT article said nothing either way, other than a single line from an anonymous source who said "we don't know why they're saying what they're saying." Even THAT can not be definitively interpreted unless again you're intentionally being dishonest, to say "They're not there, never were."

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Here is why you're wrong. Other information from another article does not make an article that says "we don't know" say "we know they're not there." It DOES prove that they weren't in Gori, it doesn't prove that you interpreting "we don't know" as "they're definitively not there" is right. That is why your interpretation is wrong, you can't MAKE an article say something that it doesn't, and then use later evidence to say, "what I thought was indeed correct, even though there's no basis for that in this article." It doesn't work that way.
Again, the arguement was never about whether or not they were in Gori, at least not with me it wasn't, it was about how THAT article said nothing either way, other than a single line from an anonymous source who said "we don't know why they're saying what they're saying." Even THAT can not be definitively interpreted unless again you're intentionally being dishonest, to say "They're not there, never were."

You're simply wrong. I can make any interpretation I please IF THE FACTS SUPPORT IT. And the facts do in fact support my interpretation. You are simply wrong, fuckhead, WRONG. Admit it, you jumped on something and tried to connect the anonymous statement with the official statement, and say that the official statement was intended to mean the Pentagon didn't know what was going on. I then provided evidence to prove that the anonymous individual quoted first clearly simply had 1. either superiour evidence to the spokesman, or 2. the spokesman was talking about something else.

And you just refuse to acknowledge that, you worthless cumstain.

[Broomstick]

Suck up the fact that the Russians are certainly no worse than the US, and over the past few years arguably better than the US.

You’ll excuse, of course, those who don’t feel confident that Russian democracy is really on par with American.

The "American democracy" isn't what it used to be, trust me on that as someone who's lived here for more than 40 years. We've become more like them than most of us would care to admit.

Yes, it DOES have to do with the US, albeit not as directly as some other affairs on the international stage. Georgia did this in part believing the US would back them up to the point of openly confronting Russia on the battlefield. Where did they get that notion? Did the US government hint at that, or is it entirely the delusion of the Georgia government

If you want anyone to agree with your apparent attitude that the United States is somehow responsible for sending messages that the Georgians could easily spin into fantasies of strong support in the event that they contested South Ossetia militarily, it is evidence that you must provide.

I find it odd that this is not the first instance of overconfidence on the part of an "ally" we then hang out to dry. Another example that comes to mind is the Kurdish uprising after the first Gulf War, which left them crying out for US support as Saddam crushed them. I'm sure I could come up with others if I thought about it. But I think you're making that more of an accusation than I intended it to be.

Russia had already issued those passports to individuals who were de jure citizens of the Georgian state. That is, they had violated the sovereign territory of another country.

There are millions of people the world over who hold dual citizenship. In a contested region, if I could hold papers for both the locality I was in and another state to run to I'd consider that a reasonable precaution.

If the Ossetians felt cultural ties to Russia and had some reason to fear Georgia then their actions are entirely reasonable from a self-preservation stance and do not require malice or subversion on the part of Russia - which is not to say they Russians weren't hoping for a little successful subversion, just that it's not proof.

Moreover, how would you have felt if the Israelis began issuing passports to Christians in southern Lebanon, then invaded and restored their occupation once firefights broke out between those villages and Hizbollah?

If the Isrealis could do a better job of protecting those Christians from Muslim extremists than the Lebanonese government it would be hard to condemn such an action - a government that can't protect its citizens from nutjobs doesn't deserve to stand. Of course, plenty of people take the stance that anything done by Israel is inherently wrong.

However, that did not happen and is unlikely to happen in that region of the world, and Israel is far more likely to lump those "Christian villages" in with the rest of Lebanon when it feels a need to launch and attack. By and large, the Jews running the place only give a damn about Jews and how much they can suck out of the US.

That was one of the dangers mentioned prior to entering Iraq a few years ago, that other people would use that invasion to justify unilateral action of their own, up to and including forcible regime change.

Do you feel that Russia would have abstained from responding to Georgia’s provocation without the case of Iraq to adduce in its favor?

No, but I think the circumstances surrounding the most recent Iraq invasion made it easier for Russia to justify its actions.

Too bad the Americans couldn't think of this "proportionality" argument when they were wildly cheerleading the Israelis as they bombed the shit out of Lebanon and promised to "turn the clock back 20 years" over a handful of Israeli soldiers being killed or captured.

Israeli behavior is just one of the various considerations that makes the Georgian initiation of the conflict easier to accept. The problem isn’t that they are brutal beyond measure or comparison.

That's the problem with "our guys are always right - your guys are always wrong" mentality - it sets a pattern of precedent. We shouldn't be surprised when others look at what our side gets away with then attempts the same.

The fact is that America has no right to claim a moral leadership role. Nobody outside the country sees it as the beacon of freedom, human rights, and morality that its own people seem to think it is. Anything they accuse anyone else of doing, others can accuse them of either doing themselves or condoning when their allies did it.

The lines for entry visas at our foreign embassies and consular facilities proves you wrong.

The fact many regard the US as a better place than where they currently are does not make the US paradise, or perfect.

Can this dickwad be any dumber?

What do you think he means?

John McCain is essentially saying, “Our thoughts are with you, and we wish you were winning,” which is fairly common knowledge already. He isn’t saying, “Hold on! We’re coming!”

McCain is setting himself up as the anti-Russian candidate, which is not what we need in the Oval Office right now. We may not like the Russian government, but we need to talk with them and deal with them over a conference table, not a battlefield. I'm not looking for a pro Russian candidate, but we need someone who doesn't take sides in a kneejerk fashion.

[Block]

Here is why you're wrong. Other information from another article does not make an article that says "we don't know" say "we know they're not there." It DOES prove that they weren't in Gori, it doesn't prove that you interpreting "we don't know" as "they're definitively not there" is right. That is why your interpretation is wrong, you can't MAKE an article say something that it doesn't, and then use later evidence to say, "what I thought was indeed correct, even though there's no basis for that in this article." It doesn't work that way.
Again, the arguement was never about whether or not they were in Gori, at least not with me it wasn't, it was about how THAT article said nothing either way, other than a single line from an anonymous source who said "we don't know why they're saying what they're saying." Even THAT can not be definitively interpreted unless again you're intentionally being dishonest, to say "They're not there, never were."

You're simply wrong. I can make any interpretation I please IF THE FACTS SUPPORT IT. And the facts do in fact support my interpretation. You are simply wrong, fuckhead, WRONG. Admit it, you jumped on something and tried to connect the anonymous statement with the official statement, and say that the official statement was intended to mean the Pentagon didn't know what was going on. I then provided evidence to prove that the anonymous individual quoted first clearly simply had 1. either superiour evidence to the spokesman, or 2. the spokesman was talking about something else.

And you just refuse to acknowledge that, you worthless cumstain.

So you're basically saying that you can take anything inconclusive, and as long as the end result agrees with you, it's ok to say that the inconclusive data supports your interpretation.

[FSTargetDrone]

"I told him that I know I speak for every American when I said to him, today, we are all Georgians," McCain said to loud applause. He said Saakashvili asked him to express his thanks to Americans.

The idea that McCain speaks for all Americans, for me, on just about anything, is insulting to say the least.

No, sir, you do not speak for me.

[Broomstick]

"I told him that I know I speak for every American when I said to him, today, we are all Georgians," McCain said to loud applause. He said Saakashvili asked him to express his thanks to Americans.

The idea that McCain speaks for all Americans, for me, on just about anything, is insulting to say the least.

No, sir, you do not speak for me.

^ That makes two of us. And counting.

God help us if McSame gets into the White House.

[Alyrium Denryle]

"I told him that I know I speak for every American when I said to him, today, we are all Georgians," McCain said to loud applause. He said Saakashvili asked him to express his thanks to Americans.

The idea that McCain speaks for all Americans, for me, on just about anything, is insulting to say the least.

No, sir, you do not speak for me.

^ That makes two of us. And counting.

God help us if McSame gets into the White House.

I finish my masters in the US, and then become an expatriate to get my Ph.D?

[Broomstick]

And Marina - what the fuck is wrong with you? You're having yet ANOTHER scream-fest in this thread.

[Scottish Ninja]

I've actually been legitimately scared that someone may do something incredibly stupid and the US would go to war with Russia, so I've been making plans to go to New Zealand right away.

Assuming there's no war, I'm planning on going to university in New Zealand anyway. If McCain is elected, I escape anyway - hopefully.

[FSTargetDrone]

^ That makes two of us. And counting.

God help us if McSame gets into the White House.

Can you believe this guy? First he's gotten all hot and heavy over Iran, recklessly going on and on about all sorts of nonsense, bizarrely making light over a serious situation ("Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran"). And now, more tough-talk.

You know who McCain is, really? McCain is the Pro-War Candidate. He has made that abundantly clear. At least as far as I am concerned. His new slogan may as well be, "A Vote for McCain is a vote for War!"

As if we need to make more problems in the world. Hell, two (or three, maybe) wars aren't enough. Let's start really cheesing off Russia! We do not need this saber-rattling.

[JointStrikeFighter]

and that Australian fuckhead who claimed that I was an obsessive-compulsive by making shit up about my tooth-brushing habits

.

Fuck you zeon i appologised in that thread and said I was completely mistaken.

[Axis Kast]

The "American democracy" isn't what it used to be, trust me on that as someone who's lived here for more than 40 years. We've become more like them than most of us would care to admit.

No, you’re right. It’s better. Step by step, and not always without difficulty, we have shown net improvement over time.

Russia remains decades, perhaps lifetimes, behind.

I find it odd that this is not the first instance of overconfidence on the part of an "ally" we then hang out to dry. Another example that comes to mind is the Kurdish uprising after the first Gulf War, which left them crying out for US support as Saddam crushed them. I'm sure I could come up with others if I thought about it. But I think you're making that more of an accusation than I intended it to be.

Whether or not you’re making an accusation, I find it odd that you’re ignoring key evidence.

The United States apparently sensed that the Georgians were misinterpreting certain signals and attempted to discourage adventurism that might be considered provocative in the Kremlin. If anything, this is to our credit.

I’ll be the first to admit that Washington often does a poor job of restraining our friends. This was one of those times that we made the effort that is often lacking, only to go unheeded.

There are millions of people the world over who hold dual citizenship. In a contested region, if I could hold papers for both the locality I was in and another state to run to I'd consider that a reasonable precaution.

One must first qualify before obtaining duel citizenship. Russia has treated the populations of both enclaves as citizens from the first.

It’s also much more difficult to believe that Russia was doing anything but establishing de facto control when you review their other negative and illegal behaviors in the area -- not least of which included bolstering the combat capacity of the South Ossetian rebel militia.

If the Isrealis could do a better job of protecting those Christians from Muslim extremists than the Lebanonese government it would be hard to condemn such an action - a government that can't protect its citizens from nutjobs doesn't deserve to stand. Of course, plenty of people take the stance that anything done by Israel is inherently wrong.

They could. And, for a while during the 1980s at least, they did. South Lebanese Army leader Saad Haddad received intermittent communication from the Lebanese Government, which initially collaborated with Israel in the south. Ultimately, Israel committed the cardinal sin of exercising too little control over its puppets, resulting in local conflicts that made it more difficult to achieve battlefield results against the PLO.

But my point was that there would be something wrong with Israel’s decision. As much as I may want to justify it in a specific situation (borrowing, perhaps, from Marina’s logic of “tailored solutions,” if you will), if they began handing out passports, then invaded south Lebanon and claimed superiority vis-à-vis the Lebanese government in terms of defending their people from Hizbollah, they’d be materially correct. And legally and morally in the wrong. Israel doesn’t have a right to ownership over south Lebanon.

No, but I think the circumstances surrounding the most recent Iraq invasion made it easier for Russia to justify its actions.

Which is pretty immaterial.

That's the problem with "our guys are always right - your guys are always wrong" mentality - it sets a pattern of precedent. We shouldn't be surprised when others look at what our side gets away with then attempts the same.

I’m not surprised. At all.

The fact many regard the US as a better place than where they currently are does not make the US paradise, or perfect.

No. It doesn’t. But it does suggest that the U.S. is a better place than where they currently are. You keep forgetting that.

McCain is setting himself up as the anti-Russian candidate, which is not what we need in the Oval Office right now. We may not like the Russian government, but we need to talk with them and deal with them over a conference table, not a battlefield. I'm not looking for a pro Russian candidate, but we need someone who doesn't take sides in a kneejerk fashion.

I agree that McCain’s posturing on Russia is beyond discouraging. It has passed the line and become troubling. That doesn’t mean that I’m ready to say that he’s incompetent to take the reigns. I’ve got plenty of reasons not to vote for McCain. Including what seems like the low quality of his briefings. But I also have plenty of reasons not to vote for Obama. For example, Obama is actually the more hawkish of the two on Cuba, from what I can tell.

As if we need to make more problems in the world. Hell, two (or three, maybe) wars aren't enough. Let's start really cheesing off Russia! We do not need this saber-rattling.

We’ve already arrived at the point at which I strongly sense that several of the people on this message board are enthusiastic when receiving news of American flaws, missteps, and tribulations because it somehow validates their “brilliant” criticisms of George Bush.

The whining over the possibility of nuclear holocaust due to the American airlift of Georgian troops was especially hilarious. Most of all the logic – I think it was Mike’s? – that since George Bush has made mistakes in the past for reasons considered obtuse or inscrutable, he’s obviously not a bad bet if you’re looking for someone who might push the button.

[Ender]

And Marina - what the fuck is wrong with you? You're having yet ANOTHER scream-fest in this thread.

As opposed to this, the what, 5th, 6th, personal shot from you that has nothing to do with the topic at hand?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Here is why you're wrong. Other information from another article does not make an article that says "we don't know" say "we know they're not there." It DOES prove that they weren't in Gori, it doesn't prove that you interpreting "we don't know" as "they're definitively not there" is right. That is why your interpretation is wrong, you can't MAKE an article say something that it doesn't, and then use later evidence to say, "what I thought was indeed correct, even though there's no basis for that in this article." It doesn't work that way.
Again, the arguement was never about whether or not they were in Gori, at least not with me it wasn't, it was about how THAT article said nothing either way, other than a single line from an anonymous source who said "we don't know why they're saying what they're saying." Even THAT can not be definitively interpreted unless again you're intentionally being dishonest, to say "They're not there, never were."

You're simply wrong. I can make any interpretation I please IF THE FACTS SUPPORT IT. And the facts do in fact support my interpretation. You are simply wrong, fuckhead, WRONG. Admit it, you jumped on something and tried to connect the anonymous statement with the official statement, and say that the official statement was intended to mean the Pentagon didn't know what was going on. I then provided evidence to prove that the anonymous individual quoted first clearly simply had 1. either superiour evidence to the spokesman, or 2. the spokesman was talking about something else.

And you just refuse to acknowledge that, you worthless cumstain.

So you're basically saying that you can take anything inconclusive, and as long as the end result agrees with you, it's ok to say that the inconclusive data supports your interpretation.

Bingo! The inconclusive data is made conclusive by additional supporting data. Keep this up for a few decades and you might understand the scientific method.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

JointStrikeFighter: If you were genuinely sorry, you wouldn't be so quick to leap in here with a big-time vendetta, now, would you?

Broomstick: Thanks for confirming what I said.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

No, you’re right. It’s better. Step by step, and not always without difficulty, we have shown net improvement over time.

Russia remains decades, perhaps lifetimes, behind.

To most people in the world, what irritates them is not the much vaunted American democracy, but rather the ever short-sighted foreign policy. You can be a great democracy, but won't do you good if you have dicks running foreign policy.