Comments:US to deliver humanitarian aid to Georgia

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

My take[edit]

My attitude about this conflict is that this is between Georgia and the South Ossetians. Neither party committed any act of war against America or Russia, therefore it's not America's business or Russia's. 20:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So, they're sending aid to Georgia, but no aid to South Ossetia. It would be nice if that would be indicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to the first comment. No it is everyone's business as long as those stay neutral in conflict. Saving lives and making peace (if that was truly what Russians or Americans wanted) is a very good intention. You can't allow small nations to fight. So if Russias real aim was to restore peace, then they would be justified.
Unfortunately, bombing civilian targets, Attacking the Kodori region in Abkhazia, irrelevant to the conflict and sending troops on Teritories far from conflict zone. Sinking Georgian ships (Georgian didn't really have a ship, more like a few crippled miniboats, which were totally useless against Russia, just used to patrol aroung shore to catch smugglers maybe) And other suchlike actions clearly show, peace was not their intention.
I think that peace should be inforced, but not by a power clearly biased towards one side, whether it be Russia, Osetia or Georgia (or even maybe America, as Russians blame them for being biased). A neutral country/countries from europe would do the job, if they're willing.
Good point i did not think of the after effects this has on Georgia. --KDP3 (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Those aren't good points at all. "Good intentions" are never a justification for anything. "You can't allow small nations to fight" -- why not? "Peace should be enforced" -- that very notion is contradictory: don't be violent, or we'll be even MORE violent! And it's always the civilians that have nothing to do with any of this, who just want to go about their daily lives, that always suffer most. Yes, it's quite obvious that Russia's intentions have very little to do with peace. The new US support also has very little to do with humanitarian aid. The game is afoot -- and it could potentially go very, very badly for everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)