Thread: George W. Bush in Georgia

What happened with the grenade thrown at "Bush" in Georgia? Or was it thrown at some political Georgian who was standing with Bush? The media says the Georgian Gov. didn't notify the US secret service until like 2 hours Bush left the country. Any thoughts?

Originally Posted by DAspen

What happened with the grenade...

Dont worry mate, the grenade is ok and waiting for the second chance. Was there a grenade? I dont know, all the news say something like "the thrown object was most likely grenade".

Maybe it was a potato.

Somebody was brave enough to demonstrate the real attitude of Georgian people to Bush and bushism. Poor guy...

So then he didn't die...well...wait.
I suppose I would much rather Bush be alive than Cheney take control. Oh my god the scariness of it!!! No I really hope Bush doesn't die. :O

Sorry for me little revelation there.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Somebody was brave enough to demonstrate the real attitude of Georgian people to Bush and bushism. Poor guy...

Don't you mean what the Russians think the real attitude of the Georgian people should be.

Don't you mean what the Russians think the real attitude of the Georgian people should be.

Good question. I can't imagine that the people of Georgia would have any energy left after hating Russia to waste on America.

I also saw many Georgians cheer when W. Bush drove by.
Do people of the "satelite" nations of Russia hate Russia so much as to embrace democracy? I know the Ukraine has but what other nations are there?

Well, you know...it all depends on whom you ask. I think Georgia in particular has strong anti-Russian sentiment, independent of weather or not they are trying to be democratic. When your country is perceived as being controlled by an outside power, and is also run in an authoritarian manner, it is pretty hard to draw a distinction between nationalism and social liberation.

Originally Posted by DAspen

Do people of the "satelite" nations of Russia hate Russia so much as to embrace democracy? I know the Ukraine has but what other nations are there?

Originally Posted by Geoduck

When your country is perceived as being controlled by an outside power, and is also run in an authoritarian manner, it is pretty hard to draw a distinction between nationalism and social liberation.

DAspen and Geoduck you could notice that I almost never talked about politics, but I am just seek and tired reading this cr@p. Who was controlled the USSR? Dont you know the surname of Josef Stalin? It was Dzhugashvili. Just guess what the ethnicity Dzhugashvili/Saakhashvili was/is. Don't you know that Lavrentiy Beria (Stalin's right arm, a rapist and a mass murder) was Georgian too? Georgians hate Russians becouse Georgian Dzhugashvili and Georgian Beria controlled Georgia. Yeah really it has a lot of logic. BTW, in the highlands their coustoms don't change very fast. Georgians live the same way and have the same customs like a hundred years ago, and Stalin and Beria grew old in the same environment and the same society (they all still respect Stalin a lot) but you assure us that Georgians now "embrace democracy". Ha-ha-ha... Do you know that Khruschev was Ukrainian? Now Ukrainians hate Russians becouse of Khrushchev controlled them and gifted a part of Russian Federation to the Ukrain - the Crimea peninsula... Do you know that Latvians riflemen helped Lenin a lot with revolution? And so on and and so forth... Who should hate whom? What will the f@#king CNN put into your thoughtless mind next time? Probably "the Russians are hated and guilty becouse of their being"...
BTW, grenade was the real РГД-5 grenade and it was prepared for action. They hate russians but had thrown the grenade into Bush. Don't you find it strange?

Originally Posted by JJ

Originally Posted by DAspen

Do people of the "satelite" nations of Russia hate Russia so much as to embrace democracy? I know the Ukraine has but what other nations are there?

Originally Posted by Geoduck

When your country is perceived as being controlled by an outside power, and is also run in an authoritarian manner, it is pretty hard to draw a distinction between nationalism and social liberation.

DAspen and Geoduck you could notice that I almost never talked about politics, but I am just seek and tired reading this cr@p. Who was controlled the USSR? Dont you know the surname of Josef Stalin? It was Dzhugashvili. Just guess what the ethnicity Dzhugashvili/Saakhashvili was/is. Don't you know that Lavrentiy Beria (Stalin's right arm, a rapist and a mass murder) was Georgian too? Georgians hate Russians becouse Georgian Dzhugashvili and Georgian Beria controlled Georgia. Yeah really it has a lot of logic. BTW, in the highlands their coustoms don't change very fast. Georgians live the same way and have the same customs like a hundred years ago, and Stalin and Beria grew old in the same environment and the same society (they all still respect Stalin a lot) but you assure us that Georgians now "embrace democracy". Ha-ha-ha... Do you know that Khruschev was Ukrainian? Now Ukrainians hate Russians becouse of Khrushchev controlled them and gifted a part of Russian Federation to the Ukrain - the Crimea peninsula... Do you know that Latvians riflemen helped Lenin a lot with revolution? And so on and and so forth... Who should hate whom? What will the f@#king CNN put into your thoughtless mind next time? Probably "the Russians are hated and guilty becouse of their being"...
BTW, grenade was the real РГД-5 grenade and it was prepared for action. They hate russians but had thrown the grenade into Bush. Don't you find it strange?

Stalin was not the only leader of the USSR.

Basically Georgia was conquered by Russia about 200 years ago. Countries don't like being conquered.

So do you deny that there is very strong anti-Russian sentiment in the former Soviet Republics, or are you saying it does exist but you don't understand why?

So do you deny that there is very strong anti-Russian sentiment in the former Soviet

I'm not JJ and I know that this question was addressed at him, but still, here's what I have to say about this: I do not deny it because how can one deny something that doesn't exist? Sure, there are pockets of schizophrenia in those countries, but a strong anti-Russian sentiment? Give me a break.

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

So do you deny that there is very strong anti-Russian sentiment in the former Soviet

I'm not JJ and I know that this question was addressed at him, but still, here's what I have to say about this: I do not deny it because how can one deny something that doesn't exist? Sure, there are pockets of schizophrenia in those countries, but a strong anti-Russian sentiment? Give me a break.

What about the Latvian government for example?

Originally Posted by TATY

Basically Georgia was conquered by Russia about 200 years ago. Countries don't like being conquered.

No, it was not. It decided to join Russian Empire at free will. It was not strong enough to remain independent and had to choose between Russia and Turkey. And Russia did defeat it from Turkey.

Originally Posted by Vesh

No, it was not. It decided to join Russian Empire at free will. It was not strong enough to remain independent and had to choose between Russia and Turkey. And Russia did defeat it from Turkey.

Don't you think that Soviet scholars would have had a pretty huge stake in supporting such a theory above all others? I suggest Andreas Kappeler's work The Russian Empire: A Multi-Ethnic History (2001, Longman). It goes step by step through Russia's interaction with every peoples whom it appropriated.

Originally Posted by JJ

DAspen and Geoduck you could notice that I almost never talked about politics, but I am just seek and tired reading this cr@p. Who was controlled the USSR?

Well, I'll try and clarify what I said, because I think there is some misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by Geoduck

Well, you know...it all depends on whom you ask. I think Georgia in particular has strong anti-Russian sentiment, independent of weather or not they are trying to be democratic. When your country is perceived as being controlled by an outside power, and is also run in an authoritarian manner, it is pretty hard to draw a distinction between nationalism and social liberation.

A. It depends on whom you ask.
B. Any anti-Russian sentiment isn't necessarily pro-democratic.
C. There are many Georgians who perceive Georgia as having been controlled by an outside power.
D. Before the Rose Revolution it was run in an authoritarian manner, and there were many who opposed that government. (maybe it still is authoritarian, I honestly can't say)
E. These ideas are often clumped together, both as some kind of freedom from oppression, which makes it hard to seperate them.

That's all I'm saying. It's really quite contained.

Originally Posted by Geoduck

Originally Posted by Vesh

No, it was not. It decided to join Russian Empire at free will. It was not strong enough to remain independent and had to choose between Russia and Turkey. And Russia did defeat it from Turkey.

Don't you think that Soviet scholars would have had a pretty huge stake in supporting such a theory above all others?

No, I don't. Soviet scholars had nothing against the fact that Russia conquered Siberia, Nothern Caucasus, Armenia, Azerbajdzhan, Crimea, Baltic countries, so on.

I don't know, what "soviet scholars" are saying, but Georgia was not "conquered" any way -- (and joined Russian Empire voluntary in 1801).

Originally Posted by Scorpio

I don't know, what "soviet scholars" are saying, but Georgia was not "conquered" any way -- (and joined Russian Empire voluntary in 1801).

Haven't you ever read a history book published in your country before 1990?

Originally Posted by Geoduck

Originally Posted by Scorpio

I don't know, what "soviet scholars" are saying, but Georgia was not "conquered" any way -- (and joined Russian Empire voluntary in 1801).

Haven't you ever read a history book published in your country before 1990?

Of course, I did (and lots of). However, I'm curious, why are you thinking the history books published before 1990 were more objective than books published now.

Anyway, here is an example (book from 196 (http://law.edu.ru/doc/document.asp?docID=1135798):

И. И. Сургуладзе. История государства и права Грузии. Изд-во тбилисского у-та, 1968.

and a quotation from this source:

Важным событием в истории грузинского государства во II половине XVIII в было присоединение Грузии к России. Автор на большом историческом материале показывает прогрессивный характер этого факта (стр. 114—115, 146—147, 214, 273, 275, 277—278, 280—281 и т. д.). «Присоединение к России, — пишет И. И. Сургу­ладзе, — оказалось для Грузии величайшим событием прогрессивного значения, спас­шим грузинский народ от уничтожения. Присоединение Грузии к России ознамено­вало чрезвычайный переворот в истории Грузии, оно предрешало дальнейший ход политического и культурного развития по пути прогресса.

I'm not an expert in history of Russian-Georgian relations, and I'm far from being sure Surguladze's view is absolutely objective. However, if you want to argue, you need to give me some *facts*, OK?

Of course, I did (and lots of). However, I'm curious, why are you thinking the history books published before 1990 were more objective than books published now. Smile

The reverse would be my most likely guess, but of course I can't read too many Soviet era Russian History texts. I don't think, however, that I am leaving my bounds to say that there was a different ideological slant to the histories then than there is today in Russia. In June 10th, 1988, exams in secondary schools were canceled because there was a decision made to re-write history. This just demonstrates that there have been times in Russia's history when the history-writing has experienced big shifts. Therefore, when I hear a certain historical statement (for example, “Georgia wanted to join Russia”), I have to think about the people who could have benefited from such a statement being believed. I probably don’t even need to be arguing this, it’s mostly common sense.

Also, I was just trying making the point that you should not be able to claim that you don't have any idea what Soviet scholars were saying, as you must have plenty of experience reading current as well as Soviet works.