I don’t care who you are or what your beliefs and history is: wars are dumb. When are we gonna move on?
Now, some counting to this Rand silliness:
Cited here: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/30
Hey look someone learned google.
Oh, and that article is completely wrong: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/world/eu…html?ref=world
“Georgia has released intercepted telephone calls purporting to show that part of a Russian armored regiment crossed into the separatist enclave of South Ossetia nearly a full day before Georgia’s attack on the capital, Tskhinvali, late on Aug. 7.”
Russia has never considered South Ossetia to be independent. They saw an opportunity to invade and they did. Russia went further, and dropped cluster bombs on the Georgian city of Gori (Russia/Georgia: Militias Attack Civilians in Gori Region).
"Human Rights Watch researchers interviewed ethnic Georgians from the city of Gori and surrounding villages who described how armed Ossetian militias attacked their cars and kidnapped civilians as people tried to flee in response to militia attacks on their homes following the Russian advance into the area. In phone interviews, people remaining in Gori region villages told Human Rights Watch that they had witnessed looting and arson attacks by Ossetian militias in their villages, but are afraid to leave after learning about militia attacks on those who fled. "
Yeah, Russia sure didn’t invade Georgia…
Attack of Tskhinvali was actually standard military response planned and made after the last wars between Georgia and Ossetia. Every military in the world has standard responses and strategies against attacks from possible aggressors. Like Finland has strategies and standard responses against Russian attacks although Finland and Russia get along relatively well. This basically reduces the response time, and plan just needs modifications, which are done in real time while the events progress.
Georgian military response for attack from SO involved recoup of Tskhinvali. Sure, a country with 70 000(!) people, who has no ways of self managing itself, who noone formally recognizes is no opponent and is technically a part of georgia. Recoup after attack is basically justified.
Russian intelligence was aware of the Georgian response plans and moved military next to Georgian border and provoked the war. Reasons were: Demonstration of strength, and demonstration that Russia decides matters in Caucasus region not those small countries like Georgia. Basically attempt to widen it’s sphere of influence.
Whether Georgian response to initial attacks against georgia was right? I don’t think so. But I wouldn’t know better response either. Would you?
But about press freedom. Whose news you can trust? Well having free media doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s correct, but in long term it means that bulk of the articles tell the truth. But anyway here is the map by RSF which shows the press freedom around the world. (2007 data)
For 2008 check: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29031
Actually Suva, a lawsuit case with FOX set a new precedent in the US… it’s now legal to falsify news. Turns out the FCC regulations are “just policies, not laws” … if the FCC doesn’t kick FOX off the air for falsifying news, the courts won’t do anything about it. So I’d say the ability to falsify news is 100% freedom of the press, no?
… at least, 100% freedom if the FCC likes you 
And I don’t think 100% freedom means the bulk of the articles will tell the truth at ALL. If there are no truth-in-news regulations, there are always media bias swayed by the owner of the media outlet.
Yeah, freedom of the press actually means right to falsify news. 
Or not exactly, but “Free Press” doesn’t mean it’s always true. Free press means, that the journalists aren’t persecuted by government or other authorities for publishing some “unwanted” material.
I have heard about some cases about falsifying news aswell. If it is about some person like saying “Person X is a satanist and likes to sacrifice goats on every monday” then this may be treated on personal basis if the person X decides to sue the author of this article. This usually means victory aswell. But if person X is okay with him being called as satanist then the press is free to write it, even if it’s untrue.
I laughed.
That looks like a disgusting “news” channel. I condemn media distorting news like that, it halts improvement of society, many people don’t realize they are being played.
They’ll go down the drain eventually, shit like that can’t stay afloat forever.
It’s a propaganda machine Garf… it will stay afloat as long as the powers that be need it to shape public opinion. It may change names or “owners”, but it will never disappear until the public rises against it. There’s just too much money backing it.
republicans are boycotting FOX news because it’s “too liberal” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2127130/posts
… this scares me :s