East Meets West – Podcast

Here is an interesting article about Oklahoma sending a Cease & Desist notice to the federal government. Not quite a full blown secession like in Boiling Point, but still pretty interesting for anyone who cares about state sovereignty.

http://www.thelibertyvoice.com/?p=14

While Ashigaru does have a point, the arguement that ashigaru makes completely ignores the stature and the importance of international borders, the UN itself has guidelines to describe the escalation of a conflict, the crossing of an international border IS ONE OF THOSE GUIDELINES, therefore, treating internal and external conflicts from a level playing field makes no sense, because the conflicts fundamentally diverge and become different in the way you treat them. For example, an occupying force in another sovereign state is more prone to scorched earth policies, as they do not affect them directly. Conversely, applying scorched earth policies on your own land does not make sense unless you are sure you have lost (at least temporarily) sovereignty over the land in question (see: Russia applying scorched earth policies to Nazi Occupied land in WW2)

My opinion is similar to Roger's.

Tom, What do you think about the Cuban crisis? When Cuba was arming itself with nuclear weapons supplied by USSR, U.S demonstrated that they will invade Cuba. So bringing nuclear weapons to Cuba and U.S invading Cuba seemed like the both sides of the same coin to me. The reason why the invasion didn't actually take place was because USSR retreated their nukes which they didn't have to do necessarily in terms of international law, like Georgians had every rights to move their armies within boarders. But considering Russia perfectly made it clear that they'll invade, when Georgia moved into South Ossetia the war was inevitable, so Georgia moving into South Ossetia is as big of a deal as Russian going into South Ossetia, no?


You may argue that Cuban crisis involved nuclear weapons so the risk of total armageddon surpass the risk caused by breaking international law, but what I'm trying to point out is that the principle of sovereign boarder is not the at most value respected by the world Powers so far, and we consider a lot of factors in order to deterimine which is morally superior, and consequently how to deal with it. That's why Roger named the examples of Turky going into Cypruss and China to Vietnam. Remember invasion of Panama? There were no nuclear weapons involved, but how had the world reacted? Also Tom admmited this point later in the podcast that Turkey-Cypruss conflict is "smaller" than other conflict. So why Tom treates this Russia/Georgia thingy as if this is the greatest threat to world peace ever since WW2? I think your opinion is biased against Russia. If territorial claims matter, then, what about Turkey going into northern Iraq to seize off the Kurds rebels?

I think what really matters is the reasons of invasion. I completely agree with Tom that Russian pretense was flimzy, but I felt like Tom was dogmatically respecting the inviolate international boarder, which seemed strange to me.

Enjoyed hearing the argument but would have preferred you not have spent so long on something that isn't really too important now (which is "worse" than the other) since both have happened . Perhaps more discussion on the background and history behind the conflict, etc.

Both of you said some things I liked and didn't like. I agree with Tom that violating countries' borders is certainly worse than what Georgia was doing in South Ossetia, but I agree with Roger that you can't then say that violating Cyprus' borders is not as bad as violating Georgia's borders just because they are different countries and one is smaller.

Tom is correct here, good episode

Tom is right on this one.

Awesome podcast guys!

Your Georgia/South Ossetia debate seemed to revolve around varying interpretations of “attack” and “demilitarize”, as well as assertions on the international recognition for both territories. Russia’s demilitarizing actions in Georgia can be interpreted as a full-on attack versus Georgia’s attempts to defend their infrastructure.

With no U.N. recognition and acting as a de facto state, South Ossetia remains a territory within Georgia. Unresolved separation issues are further complicated by global interests on the crude oil pipeline. I agree with Roger that the territorial conflicts in Georgia/South Ossetia have been powder-kegs for nearly 20 years. I think the real blow-out in the future will involve Abkhazia and Georgia.

That was a fantastic episode. Impassioned debate makes for great content.

Tom, Roger. This is the type of podcast I would really like to see more often, I know its cool to talk about Sci-Fi and all of that jazz but holly cow was 129 great. If you guys do more of this in the future I will be sure to send a lot of my friends to listen to your podcast.
Keep up the awesome work you guys.
Cheers.

Slonkak: If you can't accept that other people in the world have differing points of view that you are not going to agree with, you have no business commenting on the subject matter. In the presence of ambivalence you choose not to take part in the discussion, but flee from it using a one phrase statement that neither supports, negates, or neutralizes either side’s ideas.

If you can't develop the skill of stopping the flapping process your lips go through long enough to truly listen to someone's point of view, you probably should not be so hasty to tell someone to get smarter. You'll need to grow up if you want to convince anyone that you are smart.

hey guys, a few words on this episode.

I agree with Chustar above, in that you didn't sometimes give Roger a chance to make his point. And regardless of who was right or wrong, sometimes your attacks got personal (you suggested Roger was an idiot, and that he was slow), whereas Roger's never did.

its good to hear a heated debate, but rising to personal attacks (I use that word very loosely, it wasn't that bad guys/Tom) degrades one's argument.

Anyway, overall I'd agree with Roger, and found that a lot of the debate, especially from Tom's side was mainly semantics.

Love the shows guys, you two are awesome, I just wish the podcast was a little longer, see you on Buzz Tom

cheers

andy

Great argumenting.
I, as a Swede, are worried that USA is going to retaliate on Georgia behalf now that Russia have invaded. The Russian and American war machine scary when the rumble.

(Tom, you dirty man. Invading Rodger?)

Roger, can you please get smarter for the next episode? kthxbye

Just saw this on my local news coverage. One of the few journalists who seems to be reporting something other then the same lines about how Russia is an evil invader violating another nation's territory. Also it seems to support Roger's point that the move by the Georgians is what really set off this conflict.

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/Redirect/?ClipId=73208

Led me to this as well

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28738/video

Interesting stuff.

I love the arguments, and I think I learned a whole lot from them that I wouldn't have learned anywhere else, although after a while, I started distressing that it might ruin your friendship and destroy the podcast. Now that Tom will invade Roger, I know its fine.
One things, though:
Tom: Let Roger talk more. Several times he was about to make points that would have shown you his point of view but you just rode all over him. Intelligent arguments is about give and take, not out shouting the other guy.
Love the show, you guys. Keep it up.
Chustar

I think The Washington Note has has some of the best analysis of the Georgia-Russia situation i've read:

Georgia-Russia Clash: American Culpability and the Kosovo Connection
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/08/georgiarussia_c/

Guest Post by DIMITRI SIMES: What Exactly Did Saakashvili Think Would Happen?
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/08/guest_post_by_d_1/

"I'm going to invade Roger for his own good now."?? I would say that is something that can be greatly taken out of context. Great episode this week (at least I thought so from all the shouting at each other). I wasn't listening that closely because I recently got a bunch of homework to do for school (homework, over summer break, isn't that ridiculous?). So I was focusing on that, but I managed to learn that you two squabbled over Georgia and Russia (was it some small faction wanted to split and join Russia?) I'll probably listen to it again when I have more free time to pay attention.

During the FLQ crisis there was a classic confrontation between PM Peirre Trudeau (hardly a right wing militarist) and a CBC reporter. The reporter asked about the soldiers everywhere, Turdeau said 'some bleeding hearts get upset by seeing men with helmets and guns' the reporter asked 'how far are you willing to go?' Trudeau responded 'just watch me...'

In regards to Cyprus there was disputed territorial claims in regards to Turkey and Greece while in regards to the current Georgia and Russian conflict there is no disputed territorial claims. The pretense of Russia's invasion is that they are going in to protect their citizens (who were either encouraged russian illegal immigration into the area or citizenship given to Georgians who lived in the area) and so this whole thing is a pretense of the Russians to invade and then thumb their nose at everyone.

I think we should give about 20 nuclear weapons to Georgia and then see if Russia wants to continue their Invasion.

OH you forgot my favourite twin cities, Sault Ste. Marie ON and Sault Ste. Marie, MI.....

In October, 1970 the FLQ, a terrorist group that wanted Quebec separation (after years of violence) kidnapped the Quebec Minister for Labour (Pierre Laporte) and a British trade official (James Cross). Cross was released eventually, Laporte was murdered. Separatism was supported by France (though they did not support the FLQ). The FLQ trained in Algiers with the PLO. OK, so in October 1970, the Federal Government, under the powers vested in it by the War Measures Act essentially declared martial law in Canada. Now, there were arrests of FLQ supporters and there were troops on the streets of Montreal, Quebec City and Ottawa.

This (rather extreme) response was not deemed illegal under international law. However, imagine if Algerian or French troops were deployed in Canada? Here we have the difference between the two situations. Roger is flat out wrong.

In the end the FLQ was crushed, and while there are still separatists in Quebec (I am related to a slew of them) there is no political violence.

Tom,

Houston is still the fourth largest city. Dallas is 9th. The rankings you were listing were metropolitan areas where Dallas has ranked ahead of Houston metro area for awhile.

Enough of the Russian bear fighting the Georgian dwarf.

What about shooting a bear with a head stuck in a jar?

It made national headlines a few weeks ago.

Roger is cool on Tekzilla! But why don't you appear on This Week in Tech more often? You're last appearance was epsiode 126, and the show could do with a visit from you.

Also, Tom, what mixer do you use for EMW, would you recommend it to other folks?

Overall, this was a good episode, it is rare that Tom and Roger get into a "steam coming out of the ears" arguement like this, but it generally provokes debate, which is always good, although to be fair, you were more argueing over Rogers personal view point on the topic, vs, debating over the rights and wrongs of the conflict it self

I ended up supporting Tom in this Arguement. Personally, i reckon Roger has run circles around the topic without actually dealing with what Tom said. Tom said (rightly, in my opinion), is that internal affairs are not as big of a deal as external affairs, with regards to the whole Georgia/Russia business. When You (The State) are recognised as a nation by the majority of the world, you thereby gain sovereignty (sovereignty which is enshrined in international law). Sovereignty grants you exclusive right over the governance of land, people and airspace as designated by all the area within your borders.

Therefore, taking down rebels in a rebel province is NOT an Act of War from the UN/International world stage perspective. For example, the British Army repeatedly re-deployed in Northern Ireland in order to prevent rebels breaking away from the rule of the United Kingdom- this was neither an act of war or something which gave rights to other countries to intervene. In this situation, even though the laws were such that many Northern Ireland-ers could get Irish Citizenship (due to Irelands former laws that anyone born "on the isle" was immidately granted the right to full citizenship of the republic of ireland)- This did NOT give Ireland the right to cross the border and intervene- doing so would cross and INTERNATIONAL border- and would thereby constitute an act of war- which is a far bigger deal than dealing with a rebel province.

Hence, by crossing an international border without permission under a hostile military mandate, Russia has effectively done an act of war. This is a BIG DEAL, as true War (State VS State, with official declarations), has not occured in Europe for decades (the Baltic conflict doesn't count as that was a country tearing ITSELF apart, and the Cyprus thing is a grey area as Turkey is half Europe, Half Asia).

This means that Europe no-longer has the status as war-free, which is big, as Europe is considered one of the most politically stable continents in the world. Affecting that stability is a far greater issue than dealing with Rebels who fall under your sovereignty.

Rant Over, see next comment for positive stuff

Oops forgot this part: It makes me wish I knew/remembered a lot more about international history.
Love the show :)

LMAO Tom saying "Its subtle, keep up!"
If I were judging the debate, I'd have to say Tom won. And summarized VERY nicely ;)

Intense. Reminds me of some of the discussions with a friend.

Came across this article that might be of interest to both of you called Why Georgia Lost the War or Russia Drinks Georgia's Milkshake (the last part was my own title).

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/articles/20080810.aspx

This is very off-topic but I really do like arguments in podcasts or radio shows. However, it stinks when persnalities that you respect backstab other people. You lose a little bit of respect for them.

I've been a long time listener to BOL and DLTV (When Roger hosted the show) and I believe that I have never heard you two talk smack against other people (well, I guess both of you talk smack against other people right to their faces and not behind their backs). That's why I still follow your work and I stopped listening to other shows.

were you bought buy cnet?