Comments:Ceasefire signed in Georgian-Russian conflict

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

I thought Saakashvili had already signed the ceasefire before, with Sarkozy, while Medvedev had not. Lysy (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Medvedev maby like to get rid of the neocon and W:s influence there first before signing it? Poor people. Saakashvili have luckyly not much rocketartillery left to use against civilians now if not usa and israel resupply him :( international (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia?[edit]

Okay, what's going to happen to South Ossetia? Did the ceasefire agreement not say anything about them?

71.96.128.236 03:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you think? Things will remain the same, with some differences that aren't really important. Now, there is a window for at least a "special status" to be implemented in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia. There will also be an "international discussion" about the possibility of these two region becoming officially independent. Either way, things will remain the same... Russia will always control the two regions. Now I ask all of you who are reading this... Was the loss of life, destruction of civilian homes and their lives worth it? Why were people killed and injured so that things remain the same? The individuals that decided this are humans? Do they have the minimum decency? For me, at least, this is proof that those individuals are not humans, but monsters that do not respect life.

Peace for our time[edit]

I believe it is peace for our time. 81.5.106.46 18:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's the original text of this deal, are we living in the stone age? The West says the Russians break the deal and Russia says it's complying to the rules of the ceasefire. So how can we check this. In my opinion if nobody comes up with the agreement plans there is no plan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.95.211 (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've put a link to the hard to find terms of the agreement on the Wiki page, which was removed almost instantaneously. http://reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/LSGZ-7HJGHG?OpenDocument "Six-point peace plan for the Georgia-Russia conflict". Deutsche Presse, August 15, 2008

I suggest the wiki team close the subject and give the public access to the text agreed upon, which I found after hard searching work via Google.

Disinformation creates wars, please provide the public with the terms of the agreement Regards Frans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.95.211 (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Trying to find to get back to see reaction on comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.95.211 (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You simply can't add new material to old articles after ~24 hours after they've been published. If you want to write a NEW article about this, or add it into an existing article that is about to be published, then do so. But you CANNOT add to this one. It is done. Finished. Over. Ended. Gopher65talk 18:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The most important link is removed time and time again. The agreement text itself:

Someone doesn't want the public to know what was agreed upon.

Can even you read? You cannot place new information in an old article! If you want this "suppressed" information to "get out", then get off your butt and write a new article on it! Placing it in an old article that no one is reading any longer defeats the purpose. Gopher65talk 19:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)