Georgia - Page 2

lord of the mark · November 25, 2003, 12:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Hueij
I don't get it. Shevarnadze was the good guy during the last years of the USSR.

yes, but like an aging athlete, he hung too long.

lord of the mark · November 25, 2003, 12:15

Quote:

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Never liked the old bastard. What happened is in particular a result of his petty pet-state politics. It is sad though that he was ousted through a coup d'etat. It's even more sad that hardcore nationalists may come to power in this situation.

Its very hopeful that the people of an ex-Soviet state decided NOT to accept unfair elections, and took to the streets in the defense of democracy. people power is still alive, this should get a lot of people thinking.

Sava · November 25, 2003, 12:16

The real question is... which would you rather live in... the state or the country...

hmm... tough one...

lord of the mark · November 25, 2003, 12:17

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
The fall of the SU brought pain and misery to a lot of people.

The survival of the Soviet Union did so as well. Political change tends to bring pain and misery as well as progress.

I thought Paitis was just opposed to imperialist wars - are you also opposed to peaceful change as well? Or are you just nostalgic for the SU?

lord of the mark · November 25, 2003, 12:18

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
The fall of the SU brought pain and misery to a lot of people.

The fall of the British empire also brough pain and misery to a lot of people. Whats your point?

Sava · November 25, 2003, 12:20

wow LOTM... patty cakes sure got your panties in a bunch.. LOL

lord of the mark · November 25, 2003, 12:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
wow LOTM... patty cakes sure got your panties in a bunch.. LOL

yeah, regret over the fall of totalitarian states tends to do that.

Sava · November 25, 2003, 12:37

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark

yeah, regret over the fall of totalitarian states tends to do that.

you'd regret it if the US fell... but hey, one man's totalitarian state is another man's utopia...

lord of the mark · November 25, 2003, 13:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
you'd regret it if the US fell... but hey, one man's totalitarian state is another man's utopia...

Saras · November 25, 2003, 14:04

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
The fall of the SU brought pain and misery to a lot of people.

0.01/10

Bereta_Eder · November 25, 2003, 14:13

the brit "empire" was not the same as the SU

wherever the brit empire crumbled under the guns of the people, the nations flourished.

Kramerman · November 25, 2003, 14:19

yeah, same with the Spanish Empire... oh wait, nevermind...

Az · November 25, 2003, 14:19

The fall of the SU was a disaster for the vast majority of it's people. these are the facts, lotm, like it or not.

lord of the mark · November 25, 2003, 14:42

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
the brit "empire" was not the same as the SU

wherever the brit empire crumbled under the guns of the people, the nations flourished.

nice qualifier. In what places do you consider to it to have curmbled under the guns of the people? Im sure we could make a similar qualifier for the SU, that would limit it to say the Baltics.

lord of the mark · November 25, 2003, 14:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
The fall of the SU was a disaster for the vast majority of it's people. these are the facts, lotm, like it or not.

I disagree. The decline of the Soviet economy was a disaster for its people, but that would have happened anyway, and was indeed already happening by 1991. The FSU states have had plenty of opportunity to maintain trade and other ties with Russia, and to the extent that those have been beneficial they have done so. The fact is that the Baltics are moving eagerly into Europe, Ukraine is reorienting towards Eurupe. Most central asians are not eager for reintegration Russia. And the Georgians I think are not eager either.

Have some of the succesor states been unstable? Ditto for the British empire. Has the withdrawl left behind civil wars and other conflicts? Ditto for the Brit empire. Did the brits create some of those conflicts, through divide and rule - so did the Soviet Union. Was the loss of empire traumatic for the ruling people, the Russians? Ditto in the case of the British empire.

Az · November 25, 2003, 14:54

While the trade was maintained, the entire economy collapsed. The GDP crumbled by some 50 percent, twice in the 90s.

DinoDoc · November 25, 2003, 15:13

LOTM: Why do you insist on debating people so out of touch with reality that they pine for the bygone days of a totalitarian regime?

Az · November 25, 2003, 15:22

I am out of touch with reality? When have you been to the SU? when have you been to Georgia? do you know any people from Georgia?

lord of the mark · November 25, 2003, 15:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
While the trade was maintained, the entire economy collapsed. The GDP crumbled by some 50 percent, twice in the 90s.

And do you think this was avoidable by keeping the SU together from 1991 on?

lord of the mark · November 25, 2003, 15:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

I am out of touch with reality? When have you been to the SU? when have you been to Georgia? do you know any people from Georgia?

Dino may or may not know such people. Im not sure it matters. Its a fact that the economy declined rapidly. I dont think anyones disputing that - the question is was that something that could have been avoided? If so to what extent? And how does that balance with the gains in individual and national freedom? Note well - most of what we hear about how bad the fall of the SU was comes from Russians - not many voices (certainly none that I know of here) from Central asia, Ukraine etc. We do get some baltics - not surprising they all seem to thing the fall of the SU was a good thing, as far as I can tell.

(and im not sure how to count a Georgian-born Israeli Jew, probably a child of one of those Ashkenazim who went to Georgia cause it was less antisemitic than russia, and his probably nostalgic family

)

BTW Im not saying that GEORGIA hasnt been a rotten mess since 1991. Of course a very large part of that has been the result of Russian interference in Georgia - kinda like blaming the fall of the British empire for the problems of some African country being messed up by neocolonialism.

DinoDoc · November 25, 2003, 16:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

I am out of touch with reality?

Yes. From the info I've seen the economy of large parts of the Soviet Union was quite backward. For example, making a telephone call in East Germany was quite the adventure. I fail to see how proping up the failing juggernaut would do anything other than ease your rose colored perceptions of the situation.

Quote:

do you know any people from Georgia?

Imran is living in Atlanta, IIRC.

MrFun · November 25, 2003, 18:07

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Imran is living in Atlanta, IIRC.

Hey look everyone -- DD thinks being a smart*ss makes you look cool.

The Vagabond · November 25, 2003, 21:33

I tend to agree with LOTM in the sense that it was not the fall of the USSR as such that brought misery on the people, but it was rather the fall of the system.

Furthermore, if the USSR didn't desintegrate in 1991, the situation would now be even worse. Well, at least for Russia (perhaps not so for Georgia).

Lonestar · November 25, 2003, 21:34

It doesn't?

The Vagabond · November 25, 2003, 21:41

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Have some of the succesor states been unstable? Ditto for the British empire. Has the withdrawl left behind civil wars and other conflicts? Ditto for the Brit empire. Did the brits create some of those conflicts, through divide and rule - so did the Soviet Union. Was the loss of empire traumatic for the ruling people, the Russians? Ditto in the case of the British empire.

While all this may be true, it would be wrong to equate the British Empire with the Soviet Union. The former was a classical empire, while the latter was a new kind of empire.

Saras · November 26, 2003, 05:41

The latter was an Evil Empire.

Nubclear · November 26, 2003, 05:53

Speaking of which, I've noticed something...The torch of the "Evil Empire" seems to enjoy traveling East within a very short amount of time.

Berlin -----> Moscow ------------------> Washington

The former two took a bite out of Lithuania

laurentius · November 26, 2003, 05:56

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
For example, making a telephone call in East Germany was quite the adventure.

Sending an SMS in the US is quite an adventure too.

Saras · November 26, 2003, 07:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Speaking of which, I've noticed something...The torch of the "Evil Empire" seems to enjoy traveling East within a very short amount of time.

Berlin -----> Moscow ------------------> Washington

The former two took a bite out of Lithuania

Much good it brought them, eh?

Az · November 26, 2003, 08:08

Quote:

Yes. From the info I've seen the economy of large parts of the Soviet Union was quite backward. For example, making a telephone call in East Germany was quite the adventure. I fail to see how proping up the failing juggernaut would do anything other than ease your rose colored perceptions of the situation.

East Germany indeed has improved ( but it now faces other problems) OTOH, the vast majority of the people of the SU have suffered immensly from the fall of the SU. You can talk about phones ( which haven't improved in most places, since that requires money that isn't there ), and we can talk about no central heating, no jobs, no food... and the ensuing crime, lack of personal safety, etc. etc.

Quote:

I tend to agree with LOTM in the sense that it was not the fall of the USSR as such that brought misery on the people, but it was rather the fall of the system.

Duh! The Soviet Union was the system!