International Politics Thread

[Baff1 0]

LMAO, you thought they were saints perhaps?

That the bandits were only on one side of the border?

The Russians put the border there to keep them apart. They are all bandits.

The only "good guys" in this scenario were the Sov's.

[spooky lynx 73]

There was institutionalized discrimination, but I seriously hope you aren't saying that is worse than ethnic cleansing. In any case, before the war, the Abkhaz controlled public offices and had power disproportionate to their percentage of the population just to keep them happy. In effect, they had the official right to rule over the majority of people just because of their ethnicity. Now who is oppressing who?

Well, let's think, who made what. Starting with discrimination, unofficial prohibition of native language, then - war, murderings of civilians, robbery, treachery of neigbours who praised invading army and "Mhedrioni" and all they do and even do the same, fierce battles, casualties... And then - victory. So, what do you think abhasians should do with all their neighbours who took a side of those who killed, robbed and treated them as "untermenschen"? Officially government stated that all georgians who haven't commited any crime against abhasians can just stay in their homes and live together with abhasians in newly established country. All those who supported georgian army had to get out or to be punished. Those georgian families who hadn't supported Shevardnadze and his invasion of Abhasia, didn't suffer from cleanses.

[ProfTournesol 956]

As the people of Georgia should always be, given their track record.

Democracy is all well and good but when your electorate is constantly and repeatedly hounding for genocide, it's far better that they don't get that kind of politcal freedom.

Well, in fact democracy is a little more complex thing than simply having the right to vote. It needs also a strong force of opposition : several parties, a free press, labor unions, no censorship, an independant justice, a strict separation of executive, legislative and judiciary powers, etc.

Having the right to vote mainly for only one candidate is far from being democracy.

[Baff1 0]

Nonetheless plenty of democracies vote for war.

It's a real population pleaser in all sorts of governmental systems.

At least it is if they think they are winning or they will win easily.

When it looks like they are losing or it is unwinnable the opposite becomes true.

The people need glory and the people need victory. If you want to stay in power for long you have to give it to them.

[Takko 10]

of course i know that giving full power to nation can be suicide cause only ca. 10% have high education degree and only 10-15% people have IQ > 120

This argument is plain bullshit. So these people are not allowed to vote,

because they don't have an IQ more of 120?

(Which does not even mean that they're stupid)

Speaking of discrimination..

[maturin 12]

LMAO, you thought they were saints perhaps?

That the bandits were only on one side of the border?

The Russians put the border there to keep them apart. They are all bandits.

The only "good guys" in this scenario were the Sov's.

I don't think I said anything to give that depression. But genocidal bandit democrats... let me know if you have any other blinding insights.

This is a political dispute over conflicting visions of a national state, just like the Balkans.

As for the Soviets, they play a decisive role in pretty much every crisis of the past twenty years. Stalin was a such brilliant man, giving Karabakh to to Azeris, putting the Kabardins and Balkars together while artificially splitting others. The Soviets encouraged the Georgians to immigrate to Abkhazia while giving the Abkhaz more power. Then he labeled and counted everyone so there would be nice neat tribal definitions. He made the map of the Caucasus read like the cover of the "How to Spark Wars with Ethnic Nationalism" textbook. Of course it became violent.

So, what do you think abhasians should do with all their neighbours who took a side of those who killed, robbed and treated them as "untermenschen"?

The Abkhaz aren't victims, only victors. It doesn't matter what their government may have said. I've heard this argument before and it makes no sense. How did the Abkhaz propose to identify those who "supported" Shevardnadze? (their legitimate leader in their own country, I might add). It's as ludicrous as the excuse used by the Serbs as Sebrenica. They said they were only rounding up the Muslim men to conduct chemical tests to see if they had fired a gun. In this context, "supporting Shevardnadze and his invasion" means simply being Georgian. The "invasion" (punitive expedition) was a covert operation based on deception. No one in the civilian population could have supported it. Almost everyone was either expelled or fled because of atrocities and home burnings.

In fact, it happened again in 2002. Georgian civilians were invited back to Gali, yet they were expelled after fighting broke out involving Georgian and Chechen insurgents and bandits, and Abkhaz smugglers. I suppose all those villagers just moved back to Abkhazia to "support" an insurgency and were basically enemy combatants?

Just call it what it is.

Edited March 15, 2010 by maturin

[lecholas 2]

of course i know that giving full power to nation can be suicide cause only ca. 10% have high education degree and only 10-15% people have IQ > 120

This argument is plain bullshit. So these people are not allowed to vote,

because they don't have an IQ more of 120?

(Which does not even mean that they're stupid)

Speaking of discrimination..

Actually, whatever you or I think about the RIGHT of every citizen to vote (let's call it a moral aspect), it is a very important argument from the PRAGMATIC point of view. If laws (for example tax laws) are formulated by (or to please) the majority who have no idea about anything but their backyard, who usually care not for the so-called 'common good' of the society but only for the good of their proffesion (eg. miners, flight-controllers, railway workers etc.) and who declare they don't care about the politics, how the laws can be good, just etc.?

Politicians in democtacies often become hostages (resp. 'representants') of majority and won't make any decision that won't be popular. In many modern democracies it has such an effect that elections are won not by people who have some knowledge and skills but by populists who promise everything to the voters and will make the greatest Eurovisia-like show during the elections.

I'm not sure myself what is the answer. But to bring down anyone who sees the problem with the ad personam argument: "what you say is a discrimination" doesn't solve the problem.

Edited March 15, 2010 by lecholas

[lecholas 2]

i wonder is any of those f*** who says here liberal shit ever had homeless man sleeping and snoring under your doors , i have

i don't feel in good mood with consciousness that man sleeps on my doormat

as we talked to him with neighbor it was lost job, factory liquidated, he is not drunkard, he earns small money cleaning some places and helping workers who build building (currently my block has changed elevation and etc. )

my mother and i was almost in his shoes some years ago, 2 years living in her friends flats

i deeply wish such life to all liberals (+ cancer , hehehe )

I had such a situation before last Christmas. I gave him food, tea, my brother walked him to a homeless shelter (BTW run, as a lot of such institutions, by blood-drinking catholic priests, not by the state), but they didn't accept him because he was under infulence of alcohol (it's a general rule that homeless who are drunk are not accepted to homeless shelters, it's their choice).

And I had a lot more similar situations during my life. A homeless man wants some money from me. I always say: ok, I can go to a shop and buy you some food, I won't give you money because I'm affraid you will spend it for alcohol. Maybe 10% agree on such conditions and took food from me. The other 90% curse me, explain somethig or walk away not saying anything. From what I know there are almost always free places in homeless shelters in my city. But a lot of homeless people prefere to drink. I'd say it's their choice. Noone should be forced to work just to allow other persons to do nothing and only drink (and paying for it from the taxes would be forcing majority to sponsor those drunkards).

[Placebo 29]

Vilas you're not that stupid, you know full well that that word is racist and not acceptable, you use it twice I'm infracting you for each offence plus banning you for two weeks for each offence, racism is not acceptable here, you want to be such a small minded bigoted moron you go do it somewhere else.