Steel

I am unapologetically anti-Islam. I find it to be a hateful ideology. The fact that it is dubbed a religion makes no difference.

Any belief system, any ideology, including but not restricted to agnosticism, atheism, Buddhism, capitalism, Christianity, deism, Fascism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Marxism, Nazism, Zionism and Zoroastrianism is a LEGITIMATE target for critique, analysis, satire and scorn.

The critic is under no obligation to abide by anyone's rules of "fairness." Nor is the critic obliged to consider the feelings of believers. There is no such thing as a right not to be offended.

Those who conflate criticism of a belief system with "racism" are making a category error. They also demonstrate that they are unable to argue or think rationally.

NONE OF THIS ALTERS THE DEMOGRAPHIC FACTS THAT I PRESENTED IN MY POSTS. Among demographers they are not in any way controversial.

It is you who is either unable or unwilling to do the maths.

Haganah Bet,

Good link. To the extent that international law means anything it is clearly on the side of Georgia. However that will not convince the knee-jerk anti-Americans here. They believe that any enemy of America is their friend.

But, having said that, I think international law is a myth. The Russian action demonstrates yet again that in international relations, in the end, might rules. Sad, but there we are.

The fact that the US should not have invaded Iraq – if for no other reason than that it was an incredibly stupid thing to do – does not make the Russian invasion of Georgia right.

Here is der Spiegel's analysis of how Putin outsmarted the West.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,571680,00.html

Message to anyone who thinks Russia's invasion was to help the Ossetians:

I have a bridge in Sydney going cheap.

Whether Georgia misapprehended Russia's likely response, or has taken an opportunity to bring itself to the forefront of world news (rather cheaply in fact), remains to be seen. The fact is that neither Sth Ossetia or Abkhazia have declared independence unilaterally and this underlines that despite Russia's willingness to intercede militarily, they are unable to mobilise world opinion sufficiently in order to allow them to so do.

What does this mean? It means that despite (or rather because of) Russia's involvement, the position of both of the breakaways has not improved. They are incapable of declaring independence, so Georgia has won (especially if, as appears certain, foreign UN Forces are used to monitor the new ceasefire). At the same time, public opinion in the countries that Georgia wishes to ally itself to, is squarely behind rearming Georgia despite Russian threats to provide advanced arms to Iran/Syria (this threat has been rather robbed of impact by the continued provision of Russian arms over the last 40 years).

Georgia's standing in the region is now sky high, they are the second nation in the Caucusus to stand up to the mighty bear, and the only one which world opinion ensured the survival of. Given the position of Georgia international military bases are almost certainly going to be built, while NATO membership is also virtually assured (given the reliance of Europe on Georgian oil).

See where this puts Syria, especially if Turkey & Iraqi Kurdistan can get along and if the Cedar Revolution can regain control of Lebanon (remember that Jordan is busily aligning itself with the West). Also note that Assad holds power solely because a minority controls so much of the military. Coup's are hardly a novel mechanism for regime change in Syria and given sufficient pressure/support from the USA/Turkey, it is a serious possibility.

Georgian losses appear to have been minimal really. In fact, given the ease with which their material losses can & will be made good and resurgent nationalism, they will actually be stronger and better equipped in a year than they were before this conflict began.

Steven,

You should read Mark Steyns "America Alone." He's very sharp (funny) and he addresses the fertility rate problems you have brought up. He has some silly ideas but his criticisms of the loony left are absolutely spot on.

Steyn makes the particularly poignant point that it doesn't matter whether 5% or 95% your population is western if you all believe in liberal democracy, but if a portion of your population doesn't believe in liberal democracy it becomes very important whether they are 5% or 95%.

The left doesn't want to hear about TFR's because they are mostly captured by the message of the high priest of the green religion that "PEOPLE" are the problem.

Of course they ignore all of the problems which are associated with an aging population (and eventually a shrinking population) in particular the damage it will do to our social safety net. Many causes dear to the left will be irretreviably damaged by an aged society.

They seem incapable of understanding that we aren't calling for population growth, merely sustainable birth rates which will stabilise our populations and potentially save our cultural/social institutions.

Europe is already struggling with the cultural clash that Multiculturalism unleashed upon an unwitting public. Things will undoubtedly get worse before they get better.

Was the War in Georgia a Neocon Election Ploy?
Is it possible that this time the October surprise was tried in August, and that the garbage issue of brave little Georgia struggling for its survival from the grasp of the Russian bear was stoked to influence the U.S. presidential election?
http://www.alternet.org/audits/94929/was_the_war_in_georgia_a_neocon_election_ploy/

Winners and losers after Georgia conflict
There are some clear winners and losers in the conflict over South Ossetia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7557915.stm

A country that has just walked into a short war with Russia will find itself slipping even further down the list of potential candidates
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7559222.stm

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that she and a special State Department envoy had explicitly and repeatedly warned him not to take any military action against Georgian separatists that might provoke Russia, cautioning that the United States was not prepared to back him militarily if he did
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/world/europe/14saaka.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin

The Georgians pretending to make peace and all the time planning a sneak attack on South Ossetia. They just signed a treaty granting autonomy to South Ossetia this week, and then they attacked. Georgian MLRS units barraged Tskhinvali, the capital city of South Ossetia; Georgian troops swarmed over Ossetian roadblocks; and all in all, it was a great, whiz-bang start.

if we can mess with his (putin) allies and let little ethnic enclaves like Kosovo declare independence, then the Russians can do the same with our allies, especially naive, idiotic allies like Georgia.

http://www.alternet.org/audits/94706/georgia_tries_out_the_bush_war_doctrine%2C_loses_badly/

International Crisis Group
Europe Report N°189
19 December 2007
Georgia: Sliding towards Authoritarianism?
The government’s repressive and disproportionate response to peaceful protests in November 2007 shocked Western capitals, which had viewed Georgia as a beacon of democracy in a region of illiberal regimes. Since the Rose Revolution, however, President Mikheil Saakashvili’s administration has become increasingly intolerant of dissent as it has sought to reform inefficient post-Soviet institutions, stimulate a deeply dysfunctional economy, regain the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and deal with its meddling Russian neighbour

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

The expansion of NATO to include Georgia and surround Russia is an aspect of the undeclared war being waged over access to the oil and gas of Central Asia.And more immediately, the missile bases being established in Eastern Europe are steps in the implementation of the US doctrine of "nuclear primacy". Leslie