Anyway, I posted something today that brings up your points (after looking into it further). After reading your comments, I decided—despite my comments that I don't trust the Russians—that I hadn't been sufficiently clear how much I think they are in the wrong and how much we need to recognize their role in fanning the hatred, etc., etc. . I wrote about the genocide in Abkhazia.

I would never defend them. But I also distrust rhetoric such as is coming out of DC which tries to paint these situations in black and white. Please reread my piece. I think I did make it clear that this is what was bothering me—-oversimplifying a complex situation.

And then see my response to your comments etc. today. (Still feel the same about ethnic cleansing, regardless of who is doing it).

*** SEPARATE ISSUE ***

“[I]s an unprovoked attack what REALLY happened here, or are we being sold a prepackaged and oversimplified version of the facts (as we were in Iraq)?”

This remains to be seen. We already “heard” the Georgian side in the New York Times today. (I read the newspaper today at lunchtime. Here it is on-line.)

Which was exactly my point. I don't know who is telling the truth, or if anyone is. I doubt that anyone at this point has all the facts. I am broadly skeptical about these events and wishes to call attention to these disturbing allegations.

As I said: I may live to retract my skepticism and embrace Georgia as a hapless victim. This remains to be seen.

LOVIATAR: Good summary of the straw man tactic.

What DLS is practicing is the classic right-wing three step tactic of arguing. He doesn't have a case so he just wants to muddy the waters.

You to can learn how to argue like a Right-Winger

Step 1 – Create strawman:

Step 2 – Knock down strawman, proving the rightness of your argument:

Step 3 – Insult your opponent, thereby proving how much smarter you are than them:

Example 1

Example 2

What DLS is practicing is the classic right-wing three step tactic of arguing. He doesn't have a case so he just wants to muddy the waters.

You to can learn how to argue like a Right-Winger

Step 1 – Create strawman:

Step 2 – Knock down strawman, proving the rightness of your argument:

Step 3 – Insult your opponent, thereby proving how much smarter you are than them:

Example 1

Example 2

except for this part…

there remain many fools and troublemakers who should have learned better by now

“[I]s an unprovoked attack what REALLY happened here, or are we being sold a prepackaged and oversimplified version of the facts (as we were in Iraq)?”

This remains to be seen. We already “heard” the Georgian side in the New York Times today. (I read the newspaper today at lunchtime. Here it is on-line.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/opinion/12cor…

In any case, no one even knows what happened. We don't know who started it, how many Ossetians were killed in Georgian shelling/fighting before Russia got more involved, how far Russia even got into Georgia (I've read multiple reports that say no journalists actually saw any Russian troops outside Ossetia, although Russia did admit to entering Georgian territory in the west and then pulling back. When Gori was supposedly captured neither army was in the city) how many Georgians were killed, what Russia was targeting. Basically nothing is known.

The only thing that is known is a) Russia is going to try to get two territories that were autonomous and have long wanted to join Russia anyway and b) Russia went out of their way to completely humiliate Georgia and prove we couldn't do anything about it. So it was basically a pissing contest.

Considering it was well known that Russian interests don't overlap with ours a whole lot, really all this affords is a moment to figure out what we want to dedicate our long term strategic goals to.

No—as you did on the piece on McCain's stance on reproductive rights—you reframed my argument to say something I didn't say, then critiqued the reframed argument.

It's a fine tactic for winning an argument—you get to set it out in your terms and then refute it—but is essentially nonresponsive to my question: Did Georgia engage in ethnic cleansing? And if so, do they have any moral high ground requiring us to see them as the victim?

Never mind Russia's aspirations. I agree that Putin is looking to extend his real estate holdings. The question is: is an unprovoked attack what REALLY happened here, or are we being sold a prepackaged and oversimplified version of the facts (as we were in Iraq)?

If Georgia was killing civilians in South Ossetia —IF—then they probably needed to be stopped, wouldn't you say? And if it was targeting them by ethnicity, then isn't that genocide?

I don't hate Bush. Humanly speaking, I think he's funny. But as a president, he seems to misjudged a lot of facts and expended a huge amount of US resources while getting us very little in exchange. He's also repeatedly lied. I see no reason to trust him.

Just note that what you're doing is projecting your beliefs about the meaning of my opinions and then responding what you've projected. You tend to take my pieces as an opportunity to vent about what you BELIEVE is the underlying belief or principle. You also assume that a person who holds one belief MUST in consequence hold a whole set of related ones—and then you argue with those.

I don't feel “guilty” about a thing. Angry and disgusted, yes. But at one small band of pols, who can be voted out, not at my country. In a democracy, one's loyalty may be to the principles, not to a particular leader.

Don't call names. I'm no West-basher. I don't like Putin and I grew up participating in “bomb drills” in school (hiding under our desks from Russian bombs).