Printable View
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?
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by DAspen
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!!! :o No I really hope Bush doesn't die. :O
Sorry for me little revelation there.
Don't you mean what the Russians think the real attitude of the Georgian people should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorpio
Good question. I can't imagine that the people of Georgia would have any energy left after hating Russia to waste on America.Quote:
Don't you mean what the Russians think the real attitude of the Georgian people should be.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAspen
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"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoduck
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ
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?
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.Quote:
So do you deny that there is very strong anti-Russian sentiment in the former Soviet
What about the Latvian government for example?Quote:
Originally Posted by VendingMachine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TATY
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vesh
Well, I'll try and clarify what I said, because I think there is some misunderstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ
A. It depends on whom you ask.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoduck
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.
No, I don't. Soviet scholars had nothing against the fact that Russia conquered Siberia, Nothern Caucasus, Armenia, Azerbajdzhan, Crimea, Baltic countries, so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoduck
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorpio
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. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoduck
Anyway, here is an example (book from 1968) (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?
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.Quote:
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
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.
Of course: there was "different ideological slant": before 1990 approach to history was pro-marxist and pro-communistic, afterwards it was not. However, this has a little relation to Georgia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoduck
As I can remember, this is right. 1988 is the peak of Gorbachev's anti-Stalin campain -- so, the history schoolbooks were changed, they were changed in mostly antistalinist way (more truth and more myths about "Stalin's repressions", etc.) Again, nothing concerning Russian-Georgian relations. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoduck
Correct logic. But reverse is true as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoduck
For example, if somebody claims "Georgia was conquered by Russian Empire agianst its will", somebody may benefit from this claims as well -- for example, Saakashvili's regime officials, who want to attract people's attention from Georgia's woeful economic state.
I know perfectly well, a) what Soviet scholars were saying; b) what post-Soviet scholars are saying; c) what, if it comes to history of Georgia, there's no much difference between their statements. This is my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoduck
Of course, this all isn't a proof, what this opinion is the only true one. You are try to argue this, but on strictly factual basis, please. Give me example of at least one battle between Georgia and Russian troops, please. Conquer without battles don't look like a conquer for me. ;)